Its only prophetic in that it heralded the kind of spurious doom mongering that would characerise the left through out this courageous presidency. Two statements that I dare any of you motherfuckers to challenge:
1. The american economy is in great shape.
2. The US is involved in two minor ongoing wars in which they face minor difficulties.
All your whinning, and none of you were even up to the challenge. Typical liberal bush hatters. You can't refute number one, because no one has produced a bigger trade or budget deficit than Bush. The economy was so weak during the 90s that Clinton balanced the budget. George Bush thankful got rid of that. Take #2, ever since Bill Clinton liberals have been a bunch of soldier loving cry babies. So a few thousand kids died overseas, and you act like it's a big deal.
So-slow youngin': Here's one statement I dare you to challenge: you are the littlest dude on this board.
Laserwolf: C'mon dude. You're not really stooping to this toy's level are you? I will assume the "few thousand dead kids thing" was a joke.
Now, back to the Onion story. The following fake Bush quotation appears toward the end of the piece:
"Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there's much more widening left to do. *check*[/b] We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent *check*[/b] . And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it*check*[/b] ."
so, uhhh, in what way was this not, in hindsight, an accurate forecast of the Bush presidency?
sorry Dan I know you weren't serious.
I've realized that Yolo and Rockadeli have more fun writting nonesense than I have responding to it, so I thought I would start writing nonesense. It is fun. V is the only rightwinger who can make a coherent argument, so I will continue to talk to him.
Yeah too bad V hasn't chimed in on this thread. One of the few intelligent, principled Bush supporters I know.
If I had to judge So Slow's age from his posts, I'd say 13, 14 years old tops. I guess I can't expect a guy that young to remember the glorious Clinton years!
All your whinning, and none of you were even up to the challenge. Typical liberal bush hatters. You can't refute number one, because no one has produced a bigger trade or budget deficit than Bush. The economy was so weak during the 90s that Clinton balanced the budget. George Bush thankful got rid of that. Take #2, ever since Bill Clinton liberals have been a bunch of soldier loving cry babies. So a few thousand kids died overseas, and you act like it's a big deal.
See im supposed to be the idiotic troll yet this is the most sophisticated response any of you could muster.
On the US economy...
the traditonal factors used in determining economic performance are as follows:
Growth(4.8% in the first quater of 06) Unemployment(currently 4.7%) Job creation(over 200,000 in march)
The neglect to mention these strong figures demonstrates your partisan deceit, the mentioning of the budget and trade deficits demonstrates your ignorance.
The budget deficit(which incidentally is declining and at roughly 2.5% of GDP is comparable to the 90's average) cannot be used as an indicator of economic performance because of its dependency on government spending.
Your citing of the trade deficit is equally misleading. Is it any wonder that an affluent society such as the US purchases more products from poorer societies than those societies purchase from the US? All the trade deficit shows is that the US economy is outperforming its competitors.
On the current military engagements...
Leave the emotive bullshit alone, im not talking about philosophy, im talking about historical context. The loss of 2000 troops in three years cannot in anyway be legitimately interpreted as a major engagement.
Oh, and the Comptroller General of the U.S. says that the current economic program under Bush is unsustainable. The Bush administration has argued that it can cut taxes and simply grow itself out of the budget deficit. The C.G. says this is false because the economy would have to grow over 6% a year to catch up with government spending. Otherwise the debt will continue to explode.
Speaking of..I was on Bob Jones campus yesterday. Such a weird vibe in that place. I did see a cute girl standing face to face within a foot and a half of a male friend looking all googly-eyed at each other . Since I thought lightning was about to strike the said sinners, I quickly got the hell out of there.
This is from a September 2005 article in Newsweek:
"But after after a decade of improvement in the 1990s poverty in America is actually getting worse. A rising tide of economic growth is no longer lifting all boats. For the first time in half a center, the third year of recovery (2004) also saw an increase in poverty. In a nation of nearly 300 million people, the number living below the poverty line ($14,680 for a family of three) recently hit 37 million, up more than a million a year."
"The povery rae, 12.7 percent, is a controversial measurement, in part because it doesn't include some supplemental programs. But it's the highest in the developed world and more than twice as high as in most other industrialized countries, which all strike a more generous social contract with their weakest citizens."
This is from a September 2005 article in Newsweek:
"But after after a decade of improvement in the 1990s poverty in America is actually getting worse. A rising tide of economic growth is no longer lifting all boats. For the first time in half a center, the third year of recovery (2004) also saw an increase in poverty. In a nation of nearly 300 million people, the number living below the poverty line ($14,680 for a family of three) recently hit 37 million, up more than a million a year."
"The povery rae, 12.7 percent, is a controversial measurement, in part because it doesn't include some supplemental programs. But it's the highest in the developed world and more than twice as high as in most other industrialized countries, which all strike a more generous social contract with their weakest citizens."
The New Yorker had an article about a month ago on poverty as well: how it is measured, and how the current administration has ignored it as it has gone up, prefering to try to institute a new way of measuring poverty that would lower the overall numbers.
This is from a September 2005 article in Newsweek:
"But after after a decade of improvement in the 1990s poverty in America is actually getting worse. A rising tide of economic growth is no longer lifting all boats. For the first time in half a center[/b], the third year of recovery (2004) also saw an increase in poverty. In a nation of nearly 300 million people, the number living below the poverty line ($14,680 for a family of three) recently hit 37 million, up more than a million a year."
"The povery rae[/b], 12.7 percent, is a controversial measurement, in part because it doesn't include some supplemental programs. But it's the highest in the developed world and more than twice as high as in most other industrialized countries, which all strike a more generous social contract with their weakest citizens."
This is straight from Newsweek? Ahh but whatever. I'm no spelling expert!
I understand what ur saying. But I mean, you just can't throw out that economic growth is 4.8 percent or that the stock market has been climbing for 3 straight year's and both unemployment & inflation are considerably low and say that it's not doing well. I mean, I've been reading Krugman for the last 6 years and I'm still waiting for the sky to fall. Of course things will goto crap. The economy like eveything else runs on a cycle. Nothing stays good forever. But with everything the US has gone through in the last 5 years, I'm surprised shit isn't wayyyy worse.
A) I mainly lurk on rr threads here, but I am a strutter because I love rackords. So I don't just hang out on the board to egg on liberals about politics. B) From the perspective of someone who believes it essential for America to win the war on terror, some of the posts from the left consensus on politics look like baiting. C) I think the Bush tax cuts were insane before we launched the war in Iraq. And I am not so sure it's so terrible that gasoline prices are so high (in the long run), if it creates an economic incentive to develop alternative fuels. D) I did not know babies could spray feces projectile.
On To Doleo's comments here.
By the way on the other thread, I supported his view that Fox news should be applauded for trying to embarrass or humiliate Zarqawi, so long as the video out take they showed was authentic. It would be much better had al Jazeera showed that video.
Now this:
Its only prophetic in that it heralded the kind of spurious doom mongering that would characerise the left through out this courageous presidency. Two statements that I dare any of you motherfuckers to challenge:
1. The american economy is in great shape.
2. The US is involved in two minor ongoing wars in which they face minor difficulties.
I would say Bush at his best moments has been rhetorically courgeous (speech after 9-11, second inaugural, Condi's speech last June at the American University of Cairo). But the policy has been a hodge podge of support for freindly client dictators who torture al Qaeda, no clear policies on what to do in Iraq, combined with the kind of rhetoric that bestirs the region's liberals but with little to no follow through.
The American economy is a complex thing. Parts of it, like GDP are doing well and better than expected. Other elements like the quality of jobs and underemployment less so. We are now because of Bush, Clinton and Bush indebted to China. This is probably a good thing because it will make a war between the two countries much less likely; it's probably a bad thing because we are less economically independent. NAFTA has been a disaster in retrospect and the "immigration problem," if that's how you view it, is largely because we have failed to export quality jobs to Mexico.
And Doleo is right that we are involved in two major wars. But it's just wrong to say we only face "minor difficulties" in them. The Taliban has strengthened and controls parts of Afghanistan; the elected Iraqi government has proven resilient to unthinkable terror, but who knows how long that resiliance will last? And most Iraqis are facing a reign of terror that is going on its second year. The myth about the violence only being in three provinces is a dangerous illusion, one of those provinces is Baghdad. And finally, the efforts to train and equip a national army have been tragic failure. But none of this is to say that we should leave Iraq to those who are trying to destroy it.
Finally, someone brought up the Euston Manifesto. That's well worth reading and articulates some of the principles that inform my paleoliberalism. There is a segment of the anti-war left, a segment I might add that whenever I bring up most of the liberals on the board are quick to disassociate from, that are an apologetic front for apocolyptic fascists.
And as a side note. It's stupid when things get personal. I know Motown, Dan, Rootless, Thirdstream, Fatback, Danno and other dudes on this board, and they are all dude. But Doleo, you have no idea dude. When I posted a rap folk song channeling Native American rage at white people (called Go Away White Man), people went bananas. I was like the guy at the party with the cocaine in an afterschool special.
what did you think about he Neibhur/Keenan article in the New York Times Mag last week. It seems like that is a more thoughtful and effective approach than these clowns are taking. I appreciate your candor on how poorly things are going in Iraq/Afghanistan. We can't move forward if people really think that things are working out.
On the economy. I agree that it is doing well by most standards. However, I am deeply worried about the lack of sustainability due to the tax cuts/debt which eventually will drive the price of money up. Expensive money=low economic growth. Some of us remember the late 70s when inflation, high interest rates really took the economy down. With the high gas prices, overinflated real estate market and foreign wars going badly it feels like 1974 again.
A) I mainly lurk on rr threads here, but I am a strutter because I love rackords. So I don't just hang out on the board to egg on liberals about politics. B) From the perspective of someone who believes it essential for America to win the war on terror, some of the posts from the left consensus on politics look like baiting. C) I think the Bush tax cuts were insane before we launched the war in Iraq. And I am not so sure it's so terrible that gasoline prices are so high (in the long run), if it creates an economic incentive to develop alternative fuels. D) I did not know babies could spray feces projectile.
On To Doleo's comments here.
By the way on the other thread, I supported his view that Fox news should be applauded for trying to embarrass or humiliate Zarqawi, so long as the video out take they showed was authentic. It would be much better had al Jazeera showed that video.
Now this:
Its only prophetic in that it heralded the kind of spurious doom mongering that would characerise the left through out this courageous presidency. Two statements that I dare any of you motherfuckers to challenge:
1. The american economy is in great shape.
2. The US is involved in two minor ongoing wars in which they face minor difficulties.
I would say Bush at his best moments has been rhetorically courgeous (speech after 9-11, second inaugural, Condi's speech last June at the American University of Cairo). But the policy has been a hodge podge of support for freindly client dictators who torture al Qaeda, no clear policies on what to do in Iraq, combined with the kind of rhetoric that bestirs the region's liberals but with little to no follow through.
The American economy is a complex thing. Parts of it, like GDP are doing well and better than expected. Other elements like the quality of jobs and underemployment less so. We are now because of Bush, Clinton and Bush indebted to China. This is probably a good thing because it will make a war between the two countries much less likely; it's probably a bad thing because we are less economically independent. NAFTA has been a disaster in retrospect and the "immigration problem," if that's how you view it, is largely because we have failed to export quality jobs to Mexico.
And Doleo is right that we are involved in two major wars. But it's just wrong to say we only face "minor difficulties" in them. The Taliban has strengthened and controls parts of Afghanistan; the elected Iraqi government has proven resilient to unthinkable terror, but who knows how long that resiliance will last? And most Iraqis are facing a reign of terror that is going on its second year. The myth about the violence only being in three provinces is a dangerous illusion, one of those provinces is Baghdad. And finally, the efforts to train and equip a national army have been tragic failure. But none of this is to say that we should leave Iraq to those who are trying to destroy it.
Finally, someone brought up the Euston Manifesto. That's well worth reading and articulates some of the principles that inform my paleoliberalism. There is a segment of the anti-war left, a segment I might add that whenever I bring up most of the liberals on the board are quick to disassociate from, that are an apologetic front for apocolyptic fascists.
And as a side note. It's stupid when things get personal. I know Motown, Dan, Rootless, Thirdstream, Fatback, Danno and other dudes on this board, and they are all dude. But Doleo, you have no idea dude. When I posted a rap folk song channeling Native American rage at white people (called Go Away White Man), people went bananas. I was like the guy at the party with the cocaine in an afterschool special.
Finally, someone brought up the Euston Manifesto. That's well worth reading and articulates some of the principles that inform my paleoliberalism. There is a segment of the anti-war left, a segment I might add that whenever I bring up most of the liberals on the board are quick to disassociate from, that are an apologetic front for apocolyptic fascists.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I didn't read the Euston Manifesto, it looked like liberal intellectual garbage to me. Do I need to go read it?
What do mean "apologetic front for apocolyptic fascists"? Are you talking about liberals who think the world will soon end because of nukesglobalwarmingpopulationexplosionpeakoilclearcuttingtaxcutsgeorgebushciawalmart?
I would say Bush at his best moments has been rhetorically courgeous (speech after 9-11, second inaugural, Condi's speech last June at the American University of Cairo).
If you mean that Bush's rehtoric has been courageous, I just don't see how that's relevant at all.
And Doleo is right that we are involved in two major wars.
Only he didn't say that. He called both of the wars "minor." Dude needs to close up his laptop and head over to Tal Afar to check it out for himself.
But none of this is to say that we should leave Iraq to those who are trying to destroy it.
^^^^^ Now this I can agree with. ^^^^^ The Islamists can't be allowed to win (nor the racist Ba'athists) - not in Iraq and not anywhere. But it doesn't help to deny that the two major military engagements this administration has initiated are both failing.
And as for economy, I humbly submit the following:
NY Times March 24
Letter To the Secretary[/b] By PAUL KRUGMAN
Dear John Snow, secretary of the Treasury:
I'm glad that you've started talking about income inequality, which in recent years has reached levels not seen since before World War II. But if you want to be credible on the subject, you need to make some changes in your approach.
First, you shouldn't claim, as you seemed to earlier this week, that there's anything meaningful about the decline in some measures of inequality between 2000 and 2003. Every economist realizes that, as The Washington Post put it, ''much of the decline in inequality during that period reflected the popping of the stock market bubble,'' which led to a large but temporary fall in the incomes of the richest Americans.
We don't have detailed data for more recent years yet, but the available indicators suggest that after 2003, incomes at the top and the overall level of inequality came roaring back. That surge in inequality explains why, despite your best efforts to talk up the economic numbers, most Americans are unhappy with the Bush economy.
I find it helpful to illustrate what's going on with a hypothetical example: say 10 middle-class guys are sitting in a bar. Then the richest guy leaves, and Bill Gates walks in.
Because the richest guy in the bar is now much richer than before, the average income in the bar soars. But the income of the nine men who aren't Bill Gates hasn't increased, and no amount of repeating ''But average income is up!'' will convince them that they're better off.
Now think about what happened in 2004 (the figures for 2005 aren't in yet, but it was almost certainly more of the same). The economy grew reasonably fast in 2004, but most families saw little if any improvement in their financial situation.
Instead, a small fraction of the population got much, much richer. For example, Forbes tells us that the compensation of chief executives at the 500 largest corporations rose 54 percent in 2004. In effect, Bill Gates walked into the bar. Average income rose, but only because of rising incomes at the top.
Speaking of executive compensation, Mr. Snow, it hurts your credibility when you say, as you did in a recent interview, that soaring pay for top executives reflects their productivity and that we should ''trust the marketplace.'' Executive pay isn't set in the marketplace; it's set by boards that the executives themselves appoint. And executives' pay often bears little relationship to their performance.
You yourself, as you must know, are often cited as an example. When you were appointed to your present job, Forbes pointed out that the performance of the company you had run, CSX, was ''middling at best.'' Nonetheless, you were ''by far the highest-paid chief in the industry.''
And the business careers of other prominent members of the administration, including the president and vice president, seem to demonstrate the truth of the adage that it's not what you know, it's who you know. So my advice on the question of executive pay is: don't go there.
Finally, you should stop denying that the Bush tax cuts favor the wealthy. I know that administration number-crunchers have produced calculations purporting to show that the tax cuts were tilted toward the middle class. But using the right measure -- the effect of the tax cuts on after-tax income -- the bias toward the haves and have-mores is unmistakable.
According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, once the Bush tax cuts are fully phased in, they will raise the after-tax income of middle-income families by 2.3 percent. But they will raise the after-tax income of people like yourself, with incomes of more than $1 million, by 7.3 percent.
And those calculations don't take into account the indirect effects of tax cuts. If the tax cuts are made permanent, they'll eventually have to be offset by large spending cuts. In practical terms, that means cuts where the money is: in Social Security and Medicare benefits. Since middle-income Americans will feel the brunt of these cuts, yet received a relatively small tax break, they'll end up worse off. But the wealthy will be left considerably wealthier.
Of course, my suggestions about how to improve your credibility would force you to stop repeating administration talking points. But you're the secretary of the Treasury. Your job is to make economic policy, not to spout propaganda. Oh, wait.
This is straight from Newsweek? Ahh but whatever. I'm no spelling expert!
No, I typed that shit from the article.
I understand what ur saying. But I mean, you just can't throw out that economic growth is 4.8 percent or that the stock market has been climbing for 3 straight year's and both unemployment & inflation are considerably low and say that it's not doing well. I mean, I've been reading Krugman for the last 6 years and I'm still waiting for the sky to fall. Of course things will goto crap. The economy like eveything else runs on a cycle. Nothing stays good forever. But with everything the US has gone through in the last 5 years, I'm surprised shit isn't wayyyy worse.
All of those might be true, but that still doesn't explain how poverty is going up in the U.S.
The same thing happened under Reagan. There was a recession, than a recovery, but then poverty kept on increasing, huge trade and budget deficits, tax cuts, etc. Under Clinton there was economic growth, with 30 year lows in poverty, job increases, a balanced budget, etc.
Obviously under Bush and Reagan the economy was growing, but the benefits were not evenly distributed throughout society.
I watched a speech by the Comptroller General to some national meeting of the National Conference Of State Legilsatures on CSPAN a couple weeks ago.
He argued that Bush's economic program doesn't work for the following reasons:
1) Government spending because of mandated increases in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are skyrocketing and will only get worse with the soon to be retiring Baby Boomers.
2) Bush has made this worse by his Prescription Drug Program which has increased benefits spending by $8.7 trillion[/b].
3) In total, the government's liabilities and unfunded programs have gone from $20.4 trillion to $46 trillion.
4) Medicare costs alone are growing five times faster than the economy.
5) Bush has made the situation worse by cutting taxes thus cutting revenues to the Federal government, which often passes off bills to the states.
6) Bush has claimed that these tax cuts will spur the economy to growth and we will simply grow out of these problems. That would mean the economy would have to grow at 6%+, something that hasn't been done in decades.
7) Bush has also claimed that he will cut the deficit in half, but as the numbers above point out, that's impossible.
Overall, the Comptroller General said that the deficit will grow, the government will not be able to meet this demand, pass the bills off to states, which will mean cuts in services to the public.
I watched a speech by the Comptroller General to some national meeting of the National Conference Of State Legilsatures on CSPAN a couple weeks ago.
He argued that Bush's economic program doesn't work for the following reasons:
1) Government spending because of mandated increases in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are skyrocketing and will only get worse with the soon to be retiring Baby Boomers.
2) Bush has made this worse by his Prescription Drug Program which has increased benefits spending by $8.7 trillion[/b].
3) In total, the government's liabilities and unfunded programs have gone from $20.4 trillion to $46 trillion.
4) Medicare costs alone are growing five times faster than the economy.
5) Bush has made the situation worse by cutting taxes thus cutting revenues to the Federal government, which often passes off bills to the states.
6) Bush has claimed that these tax cuts will spur the economy to growth and we will simply grow out of these problems. That would mean the economy would have to grow at 6%+, something that hasn't been done in decades.
7) Bush has also claimed that he will cut the deficit in half, but as the numbers above point out, that's impossible.
Overall, the Comptroller General said that the deficit will grow, the government will not be able to meet this demand, pass the bills off to states, which will mean cuts in services to the public.
The above reasons are why I always get agravated to hear Bush called a conservative; his 'values' may be conservative, but his economic and government policies would make "War on Poverty"-era LBJ envious.
The economy is many things. It is a large chaotic system. But it has real effects.
The stock market is up, Good. Real per capita income is down, Bad. Growth is up (compared to 2001), Good. Poverty is up, Bad.
And on and on. Stats on macro indicators are generally up compared to 2001, or to an average of the 90s. But the economic position of the majority of Americans is down.
To conservatives this is a good thing. To liberals it is a bad thing. Neither is right. It just comes down to who do you care about, people or corporations?
nukesglobalwarmingpopulationexplosionpeakoilclearcuttingtaxcutsgeorgebushciawalmart?[/b] If we had more room in our locations this would be mine in 2 seconds.
BTW he is talking about Islamic fanatics. So does V think we (liberals) should align ourselves with Islamic fanatics?!?!? Or does he think we secretly are aligned with them?!?!
So does V think we (liberals) should align ourselves with Islamic fanatics?!?!? Or does he think we secretly are aligned with them?!?!
That's not the way I read it. He was saying that there is a small part of the anti-war Left that he thnks are apologists for Islamists. I would assume he's talking about people who decry every act America does as oppresing people and that somehow the U.S. is getting what they deserve after screwing over Muslims. Am I wrong V?
Finally, someone brought up the Euston Manifesto. That's well worth reading and articulates some of the principles that inform my paleoliberalism. There is a segment of the anti-war left, a segment I might add that whenever I bring up most of the liberals on the board are quick to disassociate from, that are an apologetic front for apocolyptic fascists. I scanned the manifesto. I think this is the section that applys.
6) Opposing anti-Americanism. We reject without qualification the anti-Americanism now infecting so much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking. This is not a case of seeing the US as a model society. We are aware of its problems and failings. But these are shared in some degree with all of the developed world. The United States of America is a great country and nation. It is the home of a strong democracy with a noble tradition behind it and lasting constitutional and social achievements to its name. Its peoples have produced a vibrant culture that is the pleasure, the source-book and the envy of millions. That US foreign policy has often opposed progressive movements and governments and supported regressive and authoritarian ones does not justify generalized prejudice against either the country or its people.
What they are addressing is not anti-Americanism on the left. It is the shouts from the right when ever accurate historical precedents are mentioned that the left is anti-American. Likewise whenever an American decries their countries use of torture the right screams anti-American.
The only anti-Americans I have ever met were on the right. People who want to form militias to fight the US government. Conservatives who want repeal civil liberties and freedoms. I'm talking about republicans who oppose counting votes in US presidential elections. Those are the only anti-American Americans I have ever met.
The only anti-Americans I have ever met were on the right. People who want to form militias to fight the US government. Conservatives who want repeal civil liberties and freedoms. I'm talking about republicans who oppose counting votes in US presidential elections. Those are the only anti-American Americans I have ever met.
You've clearly never lived in Berkeley, nor gone to an anti-war rally in San Francisco.
The only anti-Americans I have ever met were on the right. People who want to form militias to fight the US government. Conservatives who want repeal civil liberties and freedoms. I'm talking about republicans who oppose counting votes in US presidential elections. Those are the only anti-American Americans I have ever met.
You've clearly never lived in Berkeley, nor gone to an anti-war rally in San Francisco.
The only anti-Americans I have ever met were on the right. People who want to form militias to fight the US government. Conservatives who want repeal civil liberties and freedoms. I'm talking about republicans who oppose counting votes in US presidential elections. Those are the only anti-American Americans I have ever met.
You've clearly never lived in Berkeley, nor gone to an anti-war rally in San Francisco.
I would say Bush at his best moments has been rhetorically courgeous (speech after 9-11, second inaugural, Condi's speech last June at the American University of Cairo). But the policy has been a hodge podge of support for freindly client dictators who torture al Qaeda, no clear policies on what to do in Iraq, combined with the kind of rhetoric that bestirs the region's liberals but with little to no follow through.
It obviously could have been done better but the fact thats hes actually taking it on is, in my opinion, courageous. Many like to claim this administration is a body of ineptitude and ignorance(whilst simultaneuously claiming they are evil geniuses) but they knew what a risk this was politically, even if they had found the wmd. You can tell this from the reaction to, or non-reaction to, the findings of the iraqi survey group. Its true that they didnt find any wmd but its not as if saddam was being a good boy all along. They discovered a prohibited missile system which had been secretely developed and extensive plans for the reconstitution of the WMD programs. If this isnt enough to convince people that saddam posed a threat then I doubt the recovery of some anthrax would either.
The American economy is a complex thing. Parts of it, like GDP are doing well and better than expected. Other elements like the quality of jobs and underemployment less so. We are now because of Bush, Clinton and Bush indebted to China. This is probably a good thing because it will make a war between the two countries much less likely; it's probably a bad thing because we are less economically independent. NAFTA has been a disaster in retrospect and the "immigration problem," if that's how you view it, is largely because we have failed to export quality jobs to Mexico.
To refer to the US economy as great was obviously an exageration and over simplification. I was trying to make these people substantiate themselves for once and you dont inspire that with considered analysis. It worked in the sense that most have conceded that actually the US isnt on the verge of economic implosion. Maybe that can in someway shake the pointless 'bush = evil' level thinking which seems to form the basis of so much they say.
And Doleo is right that we are involved in two major wars. But it's just wrong to say we only face "minor difficulties" in them. The Taliban has strengthened and controls parts of Afghanistan; the elected Iraqi government has proven resilient to unthinkable terror, but who knows how long that resiliance will last? And most Iraqis are facing a reign of terror that is going on its second year. The myth about the violence only being in three provinces is a dangerous illusion, one of those provinces is Baghdad. And finally, the efforts to train and equip a national army have been tragic failure. But none of this is to say that we should leave Iraq to those who are trying to destroy it.
What I was trying to do was draw them into attempting to form a real argument so that they could perhaps realise that alot of what they claim isnt based on anything very substantial. Iraq is far from being minor but its even further away from being vietnam. Its important that people think objectively and really examine the implications of what theyre saying. US military might is such that it is hard seeing the US lose any war militarily, it can only lose it politically. Its fundamental that people realise that defeat in iraq isnt just a defeat for the bush administration.
Finally, someone brought up the Euston Manifesto. That's well worth reading and articulates some of the principles that inform my paleoliberalism. There is a segment of the anti-war left, a segment I might add that whenever I bring up most of the liberals on the board are quick to disassociate from, that are an apologetic front for apocolyptic fascists.
This is what concerns me. The populace of nazi germany werent anti-semites, they were seduced by the arguments of anti-semites. The majority of the anti-war brigade are clearly not anti-american but I know the source of much of their rhetoric only too well. Increasingly people evaluate a process based on its proposed aspiration rather than its product. This is why things such as socialism linger on long after they have been discredited in both both theory and application. The ostensible goal of an idea doesnt mean shit, the result of the idea's practice does. The left seriously needs to ask itself what would actually happen if its ideas on foreign policy were implemented.
And as a side note. It's stupid when things get personal. I know Motown, Dan, Rootless, Thirdstream, Fatback, Danno and other dudes on this board, and they are all dude. But Doleo, you have no idea dude. When I posted a rap folk song channeling Native American rage at white people (called Go Away White Man), people went bananas. I was like the guy at the party with the cocaine in an afterschool special.
It dont faze me none. If what youre saying doesnt upset anybody then its usually a good indicator that what you said wasnt worth saying.
I would say Bush at his best moments has been rhetorically courgeous (speech after 9-11, second inaugural, Condi's speech last June at the American University of Cairo). But the policy has been a hodge podge of support for freindly client dictators who torture al Qaeda, no clear policies on what to do in Iraq, combined with the kind of rhetoric that bestirs the region's liberals but with little to no follow through.
It obviously could have been done better but the fact thats hes actually taking it on is, in my opinion, courageous. Many like to claim this administration is a body of ineptitude and ignorance(whilst simultaneuously claiming they are evil geniuses) but they knew what a risk this was politically, even if they had found the wmd. You can tell this from the reaction to, or non-reaction to, the findings of the iraqi survey group. Its true that they didnt find any wmd but its not as if saddam was being a good boy all along. They discovered a prohibited missile system which had been secretely developed and extensive plans for the reconstitution of the WMD programs. If this isnt enough to convince people that saddam posed a threat then I doubt the recovery of some anthrax would either.
The problem with this argument was that Iraq was completely contained and not really a threat to anyone. They had 2 no fly zones, one in the north and one in the south. They had no connections to any active anti-Western terrorist groups. They were not going to do anything without America knowing it.
Here's what England, our closest ally had to say about Iraq's WMD from the Downing Street Memos:
???But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.???
The U.S. claimed that not only did Iraq have WMD, but that its program was actually larger than before the Gulf War. Here's what the English thought of that:
???Iraq???s nuclear & WMD programs had not advanced in recent years.???
Bush administration received over 30 intelligence reports saying that Iraq had no ties with Al Qaeda. The English seemed to agree with those intelligence reports as well:
???US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Aaida is so far frankly unconvincing.???
???In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL [bin Laden] and Al Qaida.???
The Iraq war was started for a number of reasons. Rumsfeld had a traditional view that Saddam was a threat to the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf and a war could be another example of his transformation of the U.S. military that he was pushing. Neoconservatives who held high positions throughout the Pentagon, NSC and Vice President's office considered Iraq unfinished business from the first Gulf War. They wanted to remove Saddam to spread democracy in the Middle East as a solution to Islamic terrorism. Cheney bought into this argument. Being a serious and imminent threat was not a real point. This was a war of choice.
The U.S. did believe that Iraq had WMD, but they never got any serious intelligence that it was connected to terrorism. These were simply the arguments they presented to convince the public of war.
Here are the intelligence reports the Bush administration got right after 9/11:
9/12/01 ??? Richard Clarke, head of anti-terrorism briefed Bush saying no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
9/12/01 ??? Bush ordered Clarke and the FBI to prepare a report on whether Iraq behind 9/11. Found no evidence.
9/13/01 ??? Deputy Sec. of Defense Wolfowitz asked the CIA, FBI and DIA to look into claim that Iraq behind 1993 World Trade Center bombing based upon book he had read. He was told Iraq not behind 1993 bombing.
9/13/01 - Wolfowitz conducted his own investigation by sending former CIA chief Woolsey to Europe to look into 1993 World Trade Center Claim. Found no evidence.
9/21/01 ??? Bush had asked for a special intelligence briefing on Iraq and Al Qaeda. During his daily intelligence briefing he was told there was no connection and that Iraq was not behind 9/11.
9/21/01 ??? The Daily intelligence briefing was later turned into a longer intelligence report and given to Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and others.
Fall 2001 ??? Administration asked intelligence agencies to look into claim that 9/11 hijacker Atta met with an Iraq intelligence official in Prague prior to 9/11. Told that meeting never happened.
10/01 ??? Pentagon set up its own unit called the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, staffed by 2 neoconservatives with no background in intelligence. They were told to find connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda and they claimed they found some.
I can continue with these reports all the way up to the war.
The left seriously needs to ask itself what would actually happen if its ideas on foreign policy were implemented. Hmm... Let's see... during the Clinton years Iraq was neutralized and contained, terrorist plots were stopped, genocide in Kosovo was stopped, war in the Balkans was brought under control and peace was established there, for the first time ever every Western Hemisphere country was democratic, conditions for workers improved in China, China eased up a little on political dissenters, Russia became more democratic, North Korea put plans for a nuclear bomb on the shelf and started talking to the West.
Let's see what the implementation of the rights ideas have wrought, democracy and limited freedoms were brought to Afganastan which had been the most oppressive goverment in the world, Iraq has become a killing ground and a real world terrorist training ground where Saudi facists are being trained to overthrow their goverment, terrorist plots were ignored, genocide in Darfur is ignored, peace in the Balkans continues to hold, Haiti has returned to a US backed dictatorship, the US backed a coup in Venezuela, business conditions continue to improve in China while personal and political freedoms shrink, Russia has moved away from democracy, North Korea has stopped talking to the West and claims to have built nuclear bombs.
What I was trying to do was draw them into attempting to form a real argument so that they could perhaps realise that alot of what they claim isnt based on anything very substantial. Iraq is far from being minor but its even further away from being vietnam.
Yeah but if you want to get relative about it, Vietnam was far, far away from WWII. Almost 6x the number of servicemen died in battle during WWII than in Vietnam. And if you really want to get relative, per capita, the Civil War was far more costly in terms of soldier deaths compared to WWII.
Yet no one would call Vietnam a "minor conflict" based on the fact that "only" 50,000 servicemen died (not including non-theater deaths) vs. 300,000 during WWII. Likewise, no one would ever think of calling WWII a minor conflict compared to the Civil War.
Isn't it largely agreed upon - on both sides of the aisle - that the US military is facing a severe shortage in manpower? And if that's the case, if a third conflict were to jump off, would we even have the capacity to respond efficiently and effectively? If the answer is no, then clearly, what we're engaged with is pretty major.
The thrust of this article is about how, in desperation, Army recruiters signed up an autistic 18-year-old in direct contradiction to recruiting standards.
Tracking by the Pentagon shows that complaints about recruiting improprieties are on pace to again reach record highs set in 2003 and 2004. Both the active Army and Reserve missed recruiting targets last year, and reports of recruiting abuses continue from across the country.
A family in Ohio reported that its mentally ill son was signed up, despite rules banning such enlistments and the fact that records about his illness were readily available.
In Houston, a recruiter warned a potential enlistee that if he backed out of a meeting he'd be arrested.
And in Colorado, a high school student working undercover told recruiters he'd dropped out and had a drug problem. The recruiter told the boy to fake a diploma and buy a product to help him beat a drug test.
Violations such as these forced the Army to halt recruiting for a day last May so recruiters could be retrained and reminded of the job's ethical requirements.
The Portland Army Recruiting Battalion Headquarters opened its investigation into Jared's case last week after his parents called The Oregonian and the newspaper began asking questions about his enlistment.
Maj. Curt Steinagel, commander of the Military Entrance Processing Station in Portland, said the papers filled out by Jared's recruiters contained no indication of his disability. Steinagel acknowledged that the current climate is tough on recruiters.
"I can't speak for Army," he said, "but it's no secret that recruiters stretch and bend the rules because of all the pressure they're under. The problem exists, and we all know it exists."
Comments
Yeah too bad V hasn't chimed in on this thread. One of the few intelligent, principled Bush supporters I know.
If I had to judge So Slow's age from his posts, I'd say 13, 14 years old tops. I guess I can't expect a guy that young to remember the glorious Clinton years!
See im supposed to be the idiotic troll yet this is the most sophisticated response any of you could muster.
On the US economy...
the traditonal factors used in determining economic performance are as follows:
Growth(4.8% in the first quater of 06)
Unemployment(currently 4.7%)
Job creation(over 200,000 in march)
The neglect to mention these strong figures demonstrates your partisan deceit, the mentioning of the budget and trade deficits demonstrates your ignorance.
The budget deficit(which incidentally is declining and at roughly 2.5% of GDP is comparable to the 90's average) cannot be used as an indicator of economic performance because of its dependency on government spending.
Your citing of the trade deficit is equally misleading. Is it any wonder that an affluent society such as the US purchases more products from poorer societies than those societies purchase from the US? All the trade deficit shows is that the US economy is outperforming its competitors.
On the current military engagements...
Leave the emotive bullshit alone, im not talking about philosophy, im talking about historical context. The loss of 2000 troops in three years cannot in anyway be legitimately interpreted as a major engagement.
Speaking of..I was on Bob Jones campus yesterday. Such a weird vibe in that place. I did see a cute girl standing face to face within a foot and a half of a male friend looking all googly-eyed at each other . Since I thought lightning was about to strike the said sinners, I quickly got the hell out of there.
"But after after a decade of improvement in the 1990s poverty in America is actually getting worse. A rising tide of economic growth is no longer lifting all boats. For the first time in half a center, the third year of recovery (2004) also saw an increase in poverty. In a nation of nearly 300 million people, the number living below the poverty line ($14,680 for a family of three) recently hit 37 million, up more than a million a year."
"The povery rae, 12.7 percent, is a controversial measurement, in part because it doesn't include some supplemental programs. But it's the highest in the developed world and more than twice as high as in most other industrialized countries, which all strike a more generous social contract with their weakest citizens."
The New Yorker had an article about a month ago on poverty as well: how it is measured, and how the current administration has ignored it as it has gone up, prefering to try to institute a new way of measuring poverty that would lower the overall numbers.
This is straight from Newsweek? Ahh but whatever. I'm no spelling expert!
I understand what ur saying. But I mean, you just can't throw out that economic growth is 4.8 percent or that the stock market has been climbing for 3 straight year's and both unemployment & inflation are considerably low and say that it's not doing well. I mean, I've been reading Krugman for the last 6 years and I'm still waiting for the sky to fall. Of course things will goto crap. The economy like eveything else runs on a cycle. Nothing stays good forever. But with everything the US has gone through in the last 5 years, I'm surprised shit isn't wayyyy worse.
B) From the perspective of someone who believes it essential for America to win the war on terror, some of the posts from the left consensus on politics look like baiting.
C) I think the Bush tax cuts were insane before we launched the war in Iraq. And I am not so sure it's so terrible that gasoline prices are so high (in the long run), if it creates an economic incentive to develop alternative fuels.
D) I did not know babies could spray feces projectile.
On To Doleo's comments here.
By the way on the other thread, I supported his view that Fox news should be applauded for trying to embarrass or humiliate Zarqawi, so long as the video out take they showed was authentic. It would be much better had al Jazeera showed that video.
Now this:
I would say Bush at his best moments has been rhetorically courgeous (speech after 9-11, second inaugural, Condi's speech last June at the American University of Cairo). But the policy has been a hodge podge of support for freindly client dictators who torture al Qaeda, no clear policies on what to do in Iraq, combined with the kind of rhetoric that bestirs the region's liberals but with little to no follow through.
The American economy is a complex thing. Parts of it, like GDP are doing well and better than expected. Other elements like the quality of jobs and underemployment less so. We are now because of Bush, Clinton and Bush indebted to China. This is probably a good thing because it will make a war between the two countries much less likely; it's probably a bad thing because we are less economically independent. NAFTA has been a disaster in retrospect and the "immigration problem," if that's how you view it, is largely because we have failed to export quality jobs to Mexico.
And Doleo is right that we are involved in two major wars. But it's just wrong to say we only face "minor difficulties" in them. The Taliban has strengthened and controls parts of Afghanistan; the elected Iraqi government has proven resilient to unthinkable terror, but who knows how long that resiliance will last? And most Iraqis are facing a reign of terror that is going on its second year. The myth about the violence only being in three provinces is a dangerous illusion, one of those provinces is Baghdad. And finally, the efforts to train and equip a national army have been tragic failure. But none of this is to say that we should leave Iraq to those who are trying to destroy it.
Finally, someone brought up the Euston Manifesto. That's well worth reading and articulates some of the principles that inform my paleoliberalism. There is a segment of the anti-war left, a segment I might add that whenever I bring up most of the liberals on the board are quick to disassociate from, that are an apologetic front for apocolyptic fascists.
And as a side note. It's stupid when things get personal. I know Motown, Dan, Rootless, Thirdstream, Fatback, Danno and other dudes on this board, and they are all dude. But Doleo, you have no idea dude. When I posted a rap folk song channeling Native American rage at white people (called Go Away White Man), people went bananas. I was like the guy at the party with the cocaine in an afterschool special.
what did you think about he Neibhur/Keenan article in the New York Times Mag last week. It seems like that is a more thoughtful and effective approach than these clowns are taking. I appreciate your candor on how poorly things are going in Iraq/Afghanistan. We can't move forward if people really think that things are working out.
On the economy. I agree that it is doing well by most standards. However, I am deeply worried about the lack of sustainability due to the tax cuts/debt which eventually will drive the price of money up. Expensive money=low economic growth. Some of us remember the late 70s when inflation, high interest rates really took the economy down. With the high gas prices, overinflated real estate market and foreign wars going badly it feels like 1974 again.
Five star post.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I didn't read the Euston Manifesto, it looked like liberal intellectual garbage to me. Do I need to go read it?
What do mean "apologetic front for apocolyptic fascists"? Are you talking about liberals who think the world will soon end because of nukesglobalwarmingpopulationexplosionpeakoilclearcuttingtaxcutsgeorgebushciawalmart?
Now this is a head-scratcher:
If you mean that Bush's rehtoric has been courageous, I just don't see how that's relevant at all.
Only he didn't say that. He called both of the wars "minor." Dude needs to close up his laptop and head over to Tal Afar to check it out for himself.
^^^^^ Now this I can agree with. ^^^^^ The Islamists can't be allowed to win (nor the racist Ba'athists) - not in Iraq and not anywhere. But it doesn't help to deny that the two major military engagements this administration has initiated are both failing.
And as for economy, I humbly submit the following:
NY Times March 24
Letter To the Secretary[/b]
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Dear John Snow, secretary of the Treasury:
I'm glad that you've started talking about income inequality, which in recent years has reached levels not seen since before World War II. But if you want to be credible on the subject, you need to make some changes in your approach.
First, you shouldn't claim, as you seemed to earlier this week, that there's anything meaningful about the decline in some measures of inequality between 2000 and 2003. Every economist realizes that, as The Washington Post put it, ''much of the decline in inequality during that period reflected the popping of the stock market bubble,'' which led to a large but temporary fall in the incomes of the richest Americans.
We don't have detailed data for more recent years yet, but the available indicators suggest that after 2003, incomes at the top and the overall level of inequality came roaring back. That surge in inequality explains why, despite your best efforts to talk up the economic numbers, most Americans are unhappy with the Bush economy.
I find it helpful to illustrate what's going on with a hypothetical example: say 10 middle-class guys are sitting in a bar. Then the richest guy leaves, and Bill Gates walks in.
Because the richest guy in the bar is now much richer than before, the average income in the bar soars. But the income of the nine men who aren't Bill Gates hasn't increased, and no amount of repeating ''But average income is up!'' will convince them that they're better off.
Now think about what happened in 2004 (the figures for 2005 aren't in yet, but it was almost certainly more of the same). The economy grew reasonably fast in 2004, but most families saw little if any improvement in their financial situation.
Instead, a small fraction of the population got much, much richer. For example, Forbes tells us that the compensation of chief executives at the 500 largest corporations rose 54 percent in 2004. In effect, Bill Gates walked into the bar. Average income rose, but only because of rising incomes at the top.
Speaking of executive compensation, Mr. Snow, it hurts your credibility when you say, as you did in a recent interview, that soaring pay for top executives reflects their productivity and that we should ''trust the marketplace.'' Executive pay isn't set in the marketplace; it's set by boards that the executives themselves appoint. And executives' pay often bears little relationship to their performance.
You yourself, as you must know, are often cited as an example. When you were appointed to your present job, Forbes pointed out that the performance of the company you had run, CSX, was ''middling at best.'' Nonetheless, you were ''by far the highest-paid chief in the industry.''
And the business careers of other prominent members of the administration, including the president and vice president, seem to demonstrate the truth of the adage that it's not what you know, it's who you know. So my advice on the question of executive pay is: don't go there.
Finally, you should stop denying that the Bush tax cuts favor the wealthy. I know that administration number-crunchers have produced calculations purporting to show that the tax cuts were tilted toward the middle class. But using the right measure -- the effect of the tax cuts on after-tax income -- the bias toward the haves and have-mores is unmistakable.
According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, once the Bush tax cuts are fully phased in, they will raise the after-tax income of middle-income families by 2.3 percent. But they will raise the after-tax income of people like yourself, with incomes of more than $1 million, by 7.3 percent.
And those calculations don't take into account the indirect effects of tax cuts. If the tax cuts are made permanent, they'll eventually have to be offset by large spending cuts. In practical terms, that means cuts where the money is: in Social Security and Medicare benefits. Since middle-income Americans will feel the brunt of these cuts, yet received a relatively small tax break, they'll end up worse off. But the wealthy will be left considerably wealthier.
Of course, my suggestions about how to improve your credibility would force you to stop repeating administration talking points. But you're the secretary of the Treasury. Your job is to make economic policy, not to spout propaganda. Oh, wait.
No, I typed that shit from the article.
All of those might be true, but that still doesn't explain how poverty is going up in the U.S.
The same thing happened under Reagan. There was a recession, than a recovery, but then poverty kept on increasing, huge trade and budget deficits, tax cuts, etc. Under Clinton there was economic growth, with 30 year lows in poverty, job increases, a balanced budget, etc.
Obviously under Bush and Reagan the economy was growing, but the benefits were not evenly distributed throughout society.
He argued that Bush's economic program doesn't work for the following reasons:
1) Government spending because of mandated increases in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are skyrocketing and will only get worse with the soon to be retiring Baby Boomers.
2) Bush has made this worse by his Prescription Drug Program which has increased benefits spending by $8.7 trillion[/b].
3) In total, the government's liabilities and unfunded programs have gone from $20.4 trillion to $46 trillion.
4) Medicare costs alone are growing five times faster than the economy.
5) Bush has made the situation worse by cutting taxes thus cutting revenues to the Federal government, which often passes off bills to the states.
6) Bush has claimed that these tax cuts will spur the economy to growth and we will simply grow out of these problems. That would mean the economy would have to grow at 6%+, something that hasn't been done in decades.
7) Bush has also claimed that he will cut the deficit in half, but as the numbers above point out, that's impossible.
Overall, the Comptroller General said that the deficit will grow, the government will not be able to meet this demand, pass the bills off to states, which will mean cuts in services to the public.
The above reasons are why I always get agravated to hear Bush called a conservative; his 'values' may be conservative, but his economic and government policies would make "War on Poverty"-era LBJ envious.
The stock market is up, Good. Real per capita income is down, Bad. Growth is up (compared to 2001), Good. Poverty is up, Bad.
And on and on. Stats on macro indicators are generally up compared to 2001, or to an average of the 90s. But the economic position of the majority of Americans is down.
To conservatives this is a good thing. To liberals it is a bad thing. Neither is right. It just comes down to who do you care about, people or corporations?
Dan
If we had more room in our locations this would be mine in 2 seconds.
BTW he is talking about Islamic fanatics.
So does V think we (liberals) should align ourselves with Islamic fanatics?!?!?
That's not the way I read it. He was saying that there is a small part of the anti-war Left that he thnks are apologists for Islamists. I would assume he's talking about people who decry every act America does as oppresing people and that somehow the U.S. is getting what they deserve after screwing over Muslims. Am I wrong V?
I scanned the manifesto. I think this is the section that applys.
What they are addressing is not anti-Americanism on the left. It is the shouts from the right when ever accurate historical precedents are mentioned that the left is anti-American. Likewise whenever an American decries their countries use of torture the right screams anti-American.
The only anti-Americans I have ever met were on the right. People who want to form militias to fight the US government. Conservatives who want repeal civil liberties and freedoms. I'm talking about republicans who oppose counting votes in US presidential elections. Those are the only anti-American Americans I have ever met.
You've clearly never lived in Berkeley, nor gone to an anti-war rally in San Francisco.
That makes me laugh.
I know you know.
It obviously could have been done better but the fact thats hes actually taking it on is, in my opinion, courageous. Many like to claim this administration is a body of ineptitude and ignorance(whilst simultaneuously claiming they are evil geniuses) but they knew what a risk this was politically, even if they had found the wmd. You can tell this from the reaction to, or non-reaction to, the findings of the iraqi survey group. Its true that they didnt find any wmd but its not as if saddam was being a good boy all along. They discovered a prohibited missile system which had been secretely developed and extensive plans for the reconstitution of the WMD programs. If this isnt enough to convince people that saddam posed a threat then I doubt the recovery of some anthrax would either.
To refer to the US economy as great was obviously an exageration and over simplification. I was trying to make these people substantiate themselves for once and you dont inspire that with considered analysis. It worked in the sense that most have conceded that actually the US isnt on the verge of economic implosion. Maybe that can in someway shake the pointless 'bush = evil' level thinking which seems to form the basis of so much they say.
What I was trying to do was draw them into attempting to form a real argument so that they could perhaps realise that alot of what they claim isnt based on anything very substantial. Iraq is far from being minor but its even further away from being vietnam. Its important that people think objectively and really examine the implications of what theyre saying. US military might is such that it is hard seeing the US lose any war militarily, it can only lose it politically. Its fundamental that people realise that defeat in iraq isnt just a defeat for the bush administration.
This is what concerns me. The populace of nazi germany werent anti-semites, they were seduced by the arguments of anti-semites. The majority of the anti-war brigade are clearly not anti-american but I know the source of much of their rhetoric only too well. Increasingly people evaluate a process based on its proposed aspiration rather than its product. This is why things such as socialism linger on long after they have been discredited in both both theory and application. The ostensible goal of an idea doesnt mean shit, the result of the idea's practice does. The left seriously needs to ask itself what would actually happen if its ideas on foreign policy were implemented.
It dont faze me none. If what youre saying doesnt upset anybody then its usually a good indicator that what you said wasnt worth saying.
The problem with this argument was that Iraq was completely contained and not really a threat to anyone. They had 2 no fly zones, one in the north and one in the south. They had no connections to any active anti-Western terrorist groups. They were not going to do anything without America knowing it.
Here's what England, our closest ally had to say about Iraq's WMD from the Downing Street Memos:
???But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.???
The U.S. claimed that not only did Iraq have WMD, but that its program was actually larger than before the Gulf War. Here's what the English thought of that:
???Iraq???s nuclear & WMD programs had not advanced in recent years.???
Bush administration received over 30 intelligence reports saying that Iraq had no ties with Al Qaeda. The English seemed to agree with those intelligence reports as well:
???US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Aaida is so far frankly unconvincing.???
???In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL [bin Laden] and Al Qaida.???
The Iraq war was started for a number of reasons. Rumsfeld had a traditional view that Saddam was a threat to the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf and a war could be another example of his transformation of the U.S. military that he was pushing. Neoconservatives who held high positions throughout the Pentagon, NSC and Vice President's office considered Iraq unfinished business from the first Gulf War. They wanted to remove Saddam to spread democracy in the Middle East as a solution to Islamic terrorism. Cheney bought into this argument. Being a serious and imminent threat was not a real point. This was a war of choice.
The U.S. did believe that Iraq had WMD, but they never got any serious intelligence that it was connected to terrorism. These were simply the arguments they presented to convince the public of war.
9/12/01 ??? Richard Clarke, head of anti-terrorism briefed Bush saying no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
9/12/01 ??? Bush ordered Clarke and the FBI to prepare a report on whether Iraq behind 9/11. Found no evidence.
9/13/01 ??? Deputy Sec. of Defense Wolfowitz asked the CIA, FBI and DIA to look into claim that Iraq behind 1993 World Trade Center bombing based upon book he had read. He was told Iraq not behind 1993 bombing.
9/13/01 - Wolfowitz conducted his own investigation by sending former CIA chief Woolsey to Europe to look into 1993 World Trade Center Claim. Found no evidence.
9/21/01 ??? Bush had asked for a special intelligence briefing on Iraq and Al Qaeda. During his daily intelligence briefing he was told there was no connection and that Iraq was not behind 9/11.
9/21/01 ??? The Daily intelligence briefing was later turned into a longer intelligence report and given to Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and others.
Fall 2001 ??? Administration asked intelligence agencies to look into claim that 9/11 hijacker Atta met with an Iraq intelligence official in Prague prior to 9/11. Told that meeting never happened.
10/01 ??? Pentagon set up its own unit called the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, staffed by 2 neoconservatives with no background in intelligence. They were told to find connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda and they claimed they found some.
I can continue with these reports all the way up to the war.
Hmm... Let's see... during the Clinton years Iraq was neutralized and contained, terrorist plots were stopped, genocide in Kosovo was stopped, war in the Balkans was brought under control and peace was established there, for the first time ever every Western Hemisphere country was democratic, conditions for workers improved in China, China eased up a little on political dissenters, Russia became more democratic, North Korea put plans for a nuclear bomb on the shelf and started talking to the West.
Let's see what the implementation of the rights ideas have wrought, democracy and limited freedoms were brought to Afganastan which had been the most oppressive goverment in the world, Iraq has become a killing ground and a real world terrorist training ground where Saudi facists are being trained to overthrow their goverment, terrorist plots were ignored, genocide in Darfur is ignored, peace in the Balkans continues to hold, Haiti has returned to a US backed dictatorship, the US backed a coup in Venezuela, business conditions continue to improve in China while personal and political freedoms shrink, Russia has moved away from democracy, North Korea has stopped talking to the West and claims to have built nuclear bombs.
Congratulations.
Yeah but if you want to get relative about it, Vietnam was far, far away from WWII. Almost 6x the number of servicemen died in battle during WWII than in Vietnam. And if you really want to get relative, per capita, the Civil War was far more costly in terms of soldier deaths compared to WWII.
Yet no one would call Vietnam a "minor conflict" based on the fact that "only" 50,000 servicemen died (not including non-theater deaths) vs. 300,000 during WWII. Likewise, no one would ever think of calling WWII a minor conflict compared to the Civil War.
Isn't it largely agreed upon - on both sides of the aisle - that the US military is facing a severe shortage in manpower? And if that's the case, if a third conflict were to jump off, would we even have the capacity to respond efficiently and effectively? If the answer is no, then clearly, what we're engaged with is pretty major.
Recruiting Abuses Mount as Army Struggles To Reach Goals
The thrust of this article is about how, in desperation, Army recruiters signed up an autistic 18-year-old in direct contradiction to recruiting standards.