Cabinet Confirmation Thread

[Colin]

Any more questions?

Yeah look above.

What?

Sorry thought I had wrote it in there, must have been in my first draft that was lost due to connection problems.

To Cosmo Kramer: What are your thoughts on a flat tax or a national sales tax? Do you believe that the current tax system should be changed? What do you believe will help to grow the economy?

[Jake]

To Jake: Two general knowledge questions first. Why are troops in South Korea? What is the reason for those troops being there? Secondly, what three tanks are considered "top of the line" (HINT: One is British, one is Russian, one is American)? Also, what do you think should be done about troops in Germany? Do you believe that all non-essential personnel should be re-deployed elsewhere?

Thanks Colin,

By top of the line tanks, I assume you're referring to the American M1A1 Abrams, the British Challenger, and most likely the Russian T-80. Also, I guess you could add the Leopard II, a tank I've always counted as my favorite, and the French LeClerc.

About troops in Korea, are we talking about the broad reason they're there. Namely, that since the Korean War they've been there to show American resolve to supoort Korea.  Or maybe the tactical reason, to have an American trip wire force to engage the NKs and allow Korean forces a chance to mobilize.

About troops in Germany. There are two main reasons I support us not basing troops in Germany. The first is that by doing so, we are proping up the economy of a country that does not show us respect on the international scene. We have troops there, stimulating the economy of cities like Wiesbaden, and what do we get in return, a luke warm ally. The second reason is the issue of deployability. I believe that it makes more sense to relocate troops from Germany to bases in Italy, to increase our ability to rapidly deploy them to theaters in Africa, the Middle East, and to Central Europe if needed.  I do realize, though, that there may come a time when troops again are needed in Europe. Russia is rising again from the ashes of Communism, and Vladimir Putin has shown increasingly dictatorial flashes. I believe we should always be prepared to return to Central Europe, and maintaining some ties in the form of a air training facility, or the continued use of Ramstein Air Base in Germany, are necessary.

I hope that answers your questions Senators, and I'll be getting to Senator Spade's questions in a moment.

[MHS2002]

To MHS2002: Do you agree with the courts dropping of the George W. Bush case? Do you believe that Attorney General Harry acted inappropriately in not pursuing the case? Do you think that GWB was not given a speedy trial?

Colin,
First question:
According to the Civil Liberties Amendment, Clause 8, criminal accusations must have a trial occur within one month of the accusation. Since it had been only about two weeks since Harry charged George W. Bush of voter fraud, I personally feel that the courts did not give Harry enough time and dropped the case too early. Also, Sam Spade, who held most of the evidence regarding the IP match with ZZZbot, wanted the trial moved to the 26th. Texasgurl accommodated this request. After less than a week (March 2), Texasgurl dropped the case. This is far too short of a time span and I feel the courts should have given Harry more time to gather his evidence before arbitrarily dropping the case.  

Second Question:
As far as pursuing the case, I feel that Harry, to an extent, did pursue the case. He did charge GWB with vote fraud and was prepared to prosecute him. His only mistake in my opinion was not acting a little more quickly, although he was well within the time frame set forth by the Civil Liberties Amendment.

Third Question:
I feel that GWB was given a speedy trial and it is most unforunate that the trial was dropped at what seemed to be an arbitrary decision by the presiding judge.

[Jake]

I'd like to be questioned by the senate, if they desire.

What do you plan to push forward if elected Secretary of Defense?  Do you plan to ask for more money?  Will you try and streamline the department?  How will you handle the troubles we've faced recently like Iraq and China?

I guess that's enough.

Thanks Sam,

I'll take your second question first.  Will I ask for more money.  As of right now, I believe John Ford increased the size of the military to 14 divisions. I see no pressing need that would make me ask for more money for new divisions as of yet.  If something were to happen in the world that calls for more troops to be deployed, then I would see the need to form new divisions, but for now, I will not.  On the issue of equipment, John Ford was able to get funding for our two most pressing needs, a Missle Defense system and funding for the F-22 and naval F-35 fighter.  Funding for Iraq War needs, such as armored HMMWVs, were covered in the 80 billion supplemental back in January.  I do not anticipate requiring more in the near future.

Now to you first question, my plans as Secretary of Defense and Security are very simple.  Defend the homeland of Atlasia, guard our allies around the world, and continue our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Homeland security spending will be a top prioirty of mine, namely in the area of how the money is apportioned to various areas.  I also will work to bring more security to airports and seaports to better screen and guard these entrance points into our nation.  Border security is another not topic of mine. I plan on requesting a border security supplemental that will allow us to put more bodies on the border. High technology devices can do alot, but the pressing need is to put more bodies on the ground.  

Now to your final question, my plans for China can be described by the phrase vigilant defense.  I will maintain our forces in the western Pacific in a capacity that will allow them to be prepared for any Chinese incursion upon Korean, Japanese, Filipino, or Taiwanese holdings.  At the same time, I will not provoke the Chinese by deploying an aircraft carrier off the coast of China or by basing Atlasian troops in Taiwan. For Iraq, I plan to continue our operations there with a goal of reducing our troops deployed there by 33% by the middle of 2006.  This is from a baseline of 125-130,000 deployed now.  I also will push for more of our allies support in training the Iraq security forces because the only way we can reduce our troops there, is to train Iraqis to take there place.

Hopefully, I answered those questioned well enough. Any follow ups or additional questions are appreciated.

[12th Doctor]

Anyone have any more questions for me?

In the campaign, you ran as a balance candidate.  You based your stances around a Republican (for all intents and purposes) at the topp of the ticket.  Now that the President is a Democrat, will that change the way that you look at any of the issues?  If so, how?

[Alcon]

Anyone have any more questions for me?

In the campaign, you ran as a balance candidate.  You based your stances around a Republican (for all intents and purposes) at the topp of the ticket.  Now that the President is a Democrat, will that change the way that you look at any of the issues?  If so, how?

No. Who the President is isn't something I consider when making decisions. Obviously, I will respect and maintain discourse with the President in any decision, and am always open to different viewpoints from anyone, but I will not change my opinion just because the President wants me to. That would, in my eyes, go against everything that I wasn't elected for. (;))

[WMS]

About troops in Germany. There are two main reasons I support us not basing troops in Germany. The first is that by doing so, we are proping up the economy of a country that does not show us respect on the international scene. We have troops there, stimulating the economy of cities like Wiesbaden, and what do we get in return, a luke warm ally. The second reason is the issue of deployability. I believe that it makes more sense to relocate troops from Germany to bases in Italy, to increase our ability to rapidly deploy them to theaters in Africa, the Middle East, and to Central Europe if needed.  I do realize, though, that there may come a time when troops again are needed in Europe. Russia is rising again from the ashes of Communism, and Vladimir Putin has shown increasingly dictatorial flashes. I believe we should always be prepared to return to Central Europe, and maintaining some ties in the form of a air training facility, or the continued use of Ramstein Air Base in Germany, are necessary.

Actually, I have a follow-up question: given that current planning was for troops to be moved from Germany - a decision I support, for the same reasons you gave as well as others - to Central Europe and not Italy (which is one coalition breakdown away from turning as hostile as Germany towards 'Atlasia' ), would you support redeployment of Atlasian forces into countries such as Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria, and perhaps even the Balitic States? I agree on the potential threat of Russia, and would like to add that with Germany's turn toward aligning itself with Russia - watch their investment flow to see that - Atlasia may not be able to receive any support from Germany in the future.

[Jake]

About troops in Germany. There are two main reasons I support us not basing troops in Germany. The first is that by doing so, we are proping up the economy of a country that does not show us respect on the international scene. We have troops there, stimulating the economy of cities like Wiesbaden, and what do we get in return, a luke warm ally. The second reason is the issue of deployability. I believe that it makes more sense to relocate troops from Germany to bases in Italy, to increase our ability to rapidly deploy them to theaters in Africa, the Middle East, and to Central Europe if needed.  I do realize, though, that there may come a time when troops again are needed in Europe. Russia is rising again from the ashes of Communism, and Vladimir Putin has shown increasingly dictatorial flashes. I believe we should always be prepared to return to Central Europe, and maintaining some ties in the form of a air training facility, or the continued use of Ramstein Air Base in Germany, are necessary.

Actually, I have a follow-up question: given that current planning was for troops to be moved from Germany - a decision I support, for the same reasons you gave as well as others - to Central Europe and not Italy (which is one coalition breakdown away from turning as hostile as Germany towards 'Atlasia' ), would you support redeployment of Atlasian forces into countries such as Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria, and perhaps even the Balitic States? I agree on the potential threat of Russia, and would like to add that with Germany's turn toward aligning itself with Russia - watch their investment flow to see that - Atlasia may not be able to receive any support from Germany in the future.

I understood central Europe to mean Germany, Austria, Switzerland, sorry for the misunderstanding.  As far as deployment to Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, you're right that that would be a good idea.  It's all a matter of getting their support for the basing, not do difficult most likely, and then establishing the bases their. I'd hinge my recommendation to the president on whether we were building our own bases their, or whether we were moving into already constructed bases.  Basicly, we already have places to base our forces in Italy, and the cost of building new facilities in those nations would eat up a chunk of the budget that I feel could be better spent elsewhere.  If, however, the governments of those countries agreed to take on some of the funding themselves, it would be hard to say no.  Either way, excellent point Senator.

[WMS]

Actually, I have a follow-up question: given that current planning was for troops to be moved from Germany - a decision I support, for the same reasons you gave as well as others - to Central Europe and not Italy (which is one coalition breakdown away from turning as hostile as Germany towards 'Atlasia' ), would you support redeployment of Atlasian forces into countries such as Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria, and perhaps even the Balitic States? I agree on the potential threat of Russia, and would like to add that with Germany's turn toward aligning itself with Russia - watch their investment flow to see that - Atlasia may not be able to receive any support from Germany in the future.

I understood central Europe to mean Germany, Austria, Switzerland, sorry for the misunderstanding.  As far as deployment to Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, you're right that that would be a good idea.  It's all a matter of getting their support for the basing, not do difficult most likely, and then establishing the bases their. I'd hinge my recommendation to the president on whether we were building our own bases their, or whether we were moving into already constructed bases.  Basicly, we already have places to base our forces in Italy, and the cost of building new facilities in those nations would eat up a chunk of the budget that I feel could be better spent elsewhere.  If, however, the governments of those countries agreed to take on some of the funding themselves, it would be hard to say no.  Either way, excellent point Senator.

Thank you for your reply. From my Stratfor sources, most of Central Europe (the old 'Eastern Europe' when the USSR ruled it) would be ecstatic at having 'Atlasian' military forces present (much to the annoyance of the French-German-Russian anti-American bloc in Europe ). I admit I'm not 100% on this, but I believe that 'Atlasian' troops would be moving into refurbished Warsaw Pact bases...the ones on the coasts of Romania and Bulgaria in particular are quite valuable for force projection. As Stratfor put it, most of Europe has either been at war with and/or been occupied by one if not more of the French-German-Russian bloc at some point, and views 'Atlasia' as an important hedge against future problems from them. I would say that we should definitely continue to pursue the geopolitical opportunities a strong presence in Central Europe enables.

[The Duke]

Simple to point one thing out in the SoD confirmation thread.

Current policy is to remove land forces out of Germany and Italy while maintaining our facilties and our air and naval forces there.  A plan to redeploy troops into Italy or central Europe is a change in policy.

[WMS]

Simple to point one thing out in the SoD confirmation thread.

Current policy is to remove land forces out of Germany and Italy while maintaining our facilties and our air and naval forces there.  A plan to redeploy troops into Italy or central Europe is a change in policy.

In real life or in Atlasian life? I'm pretty sure the shift into Central Europe is part of real life plans...

[The Duke]

Simple to point one thing out in the SoD confirmation thread.

Current policy is to remove land forces out of Germany and Italy while maintaining our facilties and our air and naval forces there.  A plan to redeploy troops into Italy or central Europe is a change in policy.

In real life or in Atlasian life? I'm pretty sure the shift into Central Europe is part of real life plans...

Atlasian

[WMS]

Simple to point one thing out in the SoD confirmation thread.

Current policy is to remove land forces out of Germany and Italy while maintaining our facilties and our air and naval forces there.  A plan to redeploy troops into Italy or central Europe is a change in policy.

In real life or in Atlasian life? I'm pretty sure the shift into Central Europe is part of real life plans...

Atlasian

Thanks for the clarification. When was that decision made, anyway?

[The Duke]

Simple to point one thing out in the SoD confirmation thread.

Current policy is to remove land forces out of Germany and Italy while maintaining our facilties and our air and naval forces there.  A plan to redeploy troops into Italy or central Europe is a change in policy.

In real life or in Atlasian life? I'm pretty sure the shift into Central Europe is part of real life plans...

Atlasian

Thanks for the clarification. When was that decision made, anyway?

Maybe three months ago when I was SoD.  We redeployed the two heavy Divisions in Europe to continental US, but kept everything else there.  We also redeployed some of the Atlantic Fleet to the Pacific, but I don't remeber the specifics off hand.

[Sam Spade]

Does the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mike Naso, have any questionsor input that he would like ask the presumptive nominees before we vote?

[The Duke]

Inflation is 1.9%.  Click the link in my sig for other economic data and news.

[Platypus]

I'm going to vote to confirm all the choices; the President has a right to his cabinet, but don't screw up. If you do, I'll be on-hand to start the proceedings to strip you of your titles.

I trust you won't, you're all pretty reasonable, and whilst I most certainly won't be supporting all your policies (especially, i'm afraid to say, the SoFA nominee's), I'm sure that you'll all be helpful to the running of the federal government.

Hugh

[Jake]

I'm going to vote to confirm all the choices; the President has a right to his cabinet, but don't screw up. If you do, I'll be on-hand to start the proceedings to strip you of your titles.

I trust you won't, you're all pretty reasonable, and whilst I most certainly won't be supporting all your policies (especially, i'm afraid to say, the SoFA nominee's), I'm sure that you'll all be helpful to the running of the federal government.

Hugh

Thanks Hugh, I hope not to screw up

[Siege40]

To Siege40: Will you work with the Senate during your time as Secretary of State to help implement your foreign policy ideas? What countries will you try and visit as Sec State?

Yes, all treaties etc. needs to be confirmed by the Senate as far as I know.

And if possible...

Germany, England, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Canada, Australia, France, Hungary, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Turkey, Mexico, China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, and maybe..... Syria and Iran.

Siege

[Gabu]

Okay, 24 hours have expired, and it appears that there are no more questions for the nominees, so I hereby declare voting to be open.

All senators, please vote "yea" or "nay" on the following nominees:

Alcon, for Vice-President
Siege40, for Secretary of State
Jake, for Secretary of Defense
Cosmo Kramer, for Secretary of the Treasury
King, for Secretary of Forum Affairs
MHS2002, for Attorney General

----

Alcon: Yea.
Siege40: Yea.
Jake: Yea.
Cosmo Kramer: Yea.
King: Yea.
MHS2002: Yea.

[Sam Spade]

Alcon: Aye
Siege40: Aye
Jake: Aye
Cosmo Kramer: Aye
King: Aye
MHS2002: Aye

[King]

Vote now or forever steal Nym's cookies.

[MAS117]

Alcon, for Vice-President: Aye
Siege40, for Secretary of State: Aye
Jake, for Secretary of Defense: Aye
Cosmo Kramer, for Secretary of the Treasury: Aye
King, for Secretary of Forum Affairs: Aye
MHS2002, for Attorney General: Aye

[12th Doctor]

Alcon, for Vice-President: Aye
Siege40, for Secretary of State: Aye
Jake, for Secretary of Defense: Aye
Cosmo Kramer, for Secretary of the Treasury: Aye
King, for Secretary of Forum Affairs: Aye
MHS2002, for Attorney General: Aye

[Platypus]

Alcon, for Vice-President:                                    Aye
Siege40, for Secretary of State:                         Aye
Jake, for Secretary of Defense:                           Aye
Cosmo Kramer, for Secretary of the Treasury: Aye
King, for Secretary of Forum Affairs:                    Aye
MHS2002, for Attorney General:                          Aye