No one, but no one, has ever been in the least chastised for the intelligence failures of September 11th. Two of the hijackers booked one-way passage in cash using their REAL NAMES even though they were on terrorist ‘watch lists’.

I find it deeply disturbing there’s never been a word about such a catastrophic failure - nothing about what a complete breakdown we were experiencing at the national level. If something like this could happen, then what does the money spent on the FBI, CIA, NSA buy us?

That said, Clark was completely unlikable NATO commander, a loner and a bit of a nut case. I see some things don’t change.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at October 30, 2003 08:14 PM

After comming into office rumors in foreign countries were circulating of hijackers using planes for suicide attacks. People in restaurants reportedly hearing people pointing to a picture of the WTC on the wall and The FBI is reported to have said they couldnt investigate all the flight training schools. While there are over 2000 flight schools, I understand under 200 deal with large jets. In the days before 9/11 Dick Cheney and his staff were rumored to have been told not to fly commercial becouse of the danger of hijackings by suicide attackers.
Rumors?!? sure. Facts:
On 9/11 an airline was hijacked. Did the airforce scramble and intercept it? no.
Another one was hijacked. Did the airforce scramble and intercept it? also no.
What did the commander and cheif do: he kept reading stories to children for a photo op..
More airlines were reported hijacked. Finally either after recieveing word from cheney or the Secret service Bush gets on airforce one and hides.
Finally the hijacked airlines complete their suicide attacks and finally airforce jets scramble and the civilian aviation is ordered grounded…
In the wake of this tragedy the whitehouse anounces that the terrorists were tracking AF1 to attack the president! They had insider information! No evidence supporting this claim surfaces.
In the wake of the tragedy Bush decides that business as usual is more important then the health of New Yorkers-convinces EPA to lie and say the air at ground zero is safe.
Bush later goes on to use 9/11 to justify anything immaginable:
-Tax cuts for corporations and the wealth,
-rolling back environmental regs, and drilling in ANWR,
-Lying to the Country to justify an invasion of Iraq
-administration officials repeatedly cite 9/11 and Iraq together.
-Rolls back civil liberties,
Bush opposes 9/11 investigation. Then tries to head it with Kissenger, finally forced to put together independant panel but with a deadline. Bush admnistration refuses to provide documents tries to run out the clock on 9/11 investigation.

And with all that said: What is Bush trying to hide?
Its not like he seems to mind dumping the blame on the intelligence community… We must conclude from their behavior that what they know would ‘shock the concience’ if it were released to the public…Blaming Bush certainly seems apropriate.
Alternatively- it seems like Bush and Co. made some pretty seriously bad command decisions that in retrospect might have prevented nearly all the ground deaths.
And before you say it Bush was the commander in chief for most of a year. Its his fault, not clintons…
Finally- There seem to be no limits to the number of soldiers who think Clark is the greates thing since gunpowder, while the only real criticism I have heard about Clark comes from one general who doesnt have the integrity to explain his public stated distaste…

Posted by: AnyoneButBush2004 at October 31, 2003 02:59 AM

Halloween is troll season!

Posted by: Brian at October 31, 2003 09:50 AM

Yup, Brian, although the word “dipshit” comes to mind for me.

Posted by: Kills Alone at October 31, 2003 04:35 PM

This?!? This is what passes for discourse here? Unsubstantiated fantasy? If this is the best you have to offer, Democratic Party, you better get used to being left out in the cold.

Posted by: Kills Alone at October 31, 2003 04:36 PM

Having lost arguments based on fact, having lost the big economic hammer, democrats will go with the last 2 weapons in their arsenal - rumor and joblessness.

If the economy progresses as it has the last 4 quarters, the joblessness argument could disappear by next summer.

But there’s always rumor. I have found no place in any speech Bush gave last year or early this year where he indicated the threat from Iraq was ‘imminent’. But the ‘imminent threat’ is the straw man the democrats will pursue because they can’t win other issues. It’s hard for them to argue we should have just left Saddam alone - they didn’t have an alternative plan for dealing with him (unless you’re counting the genius that is Nancy Pelosi’s “We probably could have brought that statue down for a lot less.”)

As their ship sinks, it will be entertaining to watch which way they dash next. One year to go and yet hardly any democrats know who’s running. Looks good.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at November 1, 2003 09:25 AM

Kills Alone,

Aren’t you baby bubba mozart? Give ‘em hell. They deserve all the scorn they will be getting. Over on LGF they are rightly called dhimmicrats.

Posted by: Dhimmi-God at November 1, 2003 10:37 PM

Wow. So this is how the right operates. You put imminent in quotes so bush didnt actually have to say it. Just so we’re clear ‘imminent threat’ is a charachterization of his statements. Statements like these (all bush quotes):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021105-1.html
Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn’t have weapons of mass destruction, but he’s got them. … he’s a threat.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030316-3.html
The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations. He is a danger to his neighbors.
Saddam Hussein has a history of mass murder. He possesses the weapons of mass murder.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030315.html
The chemical attack on Halabja — just one of 40 targeted at Iraq’s own people — provided a glimpse of the crimes Saddam Hussein is willing to commit, and the kind of threat he now presents to the entire world.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030213-4.html
This country will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our nation, our people, and our friends and allies.

So lets review: Bush lies to the country- says Sadam has WMD’s and is a threat. The truth: Sadam didnt have WMD’s and wasnt a threat to anyone except to the residents of Iraq.
And since your too havent noticed- everyone had a plan for dealing with him: continue UN sanctions. They were accomplishing their mission- keeping Sadam from posing a threat.

What about the people of Iraq you ask? Im sure they are better off having been liberated. And as president of Iraq Bush is doing a good job in that regard. Too bad he was not chosen to be president of Iraq, instead he was chosen to be president of the USA. And his responsability is the security of the US and US citizens. And having sent over 100000 US citizens to Iraq, all those who die there are victims of terrorism as far as I’m concerned. Thats hundreds of dead Americans from terrorism thanks to George Bush’s lies.

And lets not forget the alternative- we could have pushed the rest of the middle east toward democratization.. In December 2002, the State Department unveiled its Middle East Partnership Initiative, a basket of projects to encourage democratization in the Muslim world. now instead we are begging and pleading for them to stay on our side…

As for the economy, one quarter of 1.5% growth is just great. Really. I mean it. But that is not sustained economic growth. And thats going to be the measure. I personally suspect that this quarters numbers are due to a number of factors including what may be a one time boost due to his tax cuts and increased defense spending. Now if this continues for a few more quarters, maybe it shows that Bush has something. Despite this we will still have a massive deficit to pay off for years to come (Bush: I wont leave our problems for future generations- thats not an exact quote but thats what he said right??) Could this be the equivalent of a massive spending spree on the credit cards that will have to be paid off with lots of interest for years to come? Im afraid it is…

And despite all this Bushies are estimating 2 million new jobs before the next election. Overall this is still a massive loss of jobs under Bush’s leadership. The worst since the great depression. And its still a great big guess. Quite a Bush legacy ya got there.

Posted by: AnyoneButBush2004 at November 2, 2003 12:17 AM

Wow, you know, you’re going to have to refresh your ‘talking points’, don’t you? The GDP rose 7.2% last quarter, the steepest increase in 20 years.

But let’s not stop there, your economic summation is just the beginning of your cluelessness.

“The truth: Sadam didnt have WMD’s and wasnt a threat to anyone except to the residents of Iraq.”

Oh really? He set a world’s record for firing missiles in 5 (count ‘em, 5) neighboring countries, he gasses thousands of Kurds internally and thousands of Iranians in their 10-year war. He admits, in writing, to the UN, that he possesses tabun, sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents. In 1991 he invaded neighboring Kuwait. His Big Gun design is thwarted at the last minute due to the intervention of the Mossad and German intelligence agencies. His nuclear facilities were producing U-235 before Israeli F-16s ruined his party. Which &@^# part of this did you miss?

Again, the argument put forth by your panties-in-a-knot set was the “imminent threat”. We ALL knew there was a threat. Might still be there(check out the Bekka Valley in Lebanon when you have a chance). No one (including Bush) said it was “imminent”. But it WAS there. Argue “imminent” all you want. It’s your straw man, you play with him.

You know, I might have been worried about the outcome of the game, but when I looked down the bench and saw AnyoneButBush2004 coaching, I knew the game was sewed up.

Talk to your cruel democratic masters about a more up-to-date tip sheet. I am embarrassed for you.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at November 2, 2003 02:38 PM

One more thing: the democrats controlled Congress for 40 years and I NEVER heard them utter a single word about the terrible deficit they ran up in that period.

Why the concern now? Someone boot you off the gravy train?

Posted by: torpedo_eight at November 2, 2003 02:40 PM

No its you who has to update your talking points. Sanctions worked. period. they worked. They convinced Sadam to give up trying to build WMD’s. At least until the sanctions were lifted. And they could just have easily gone on for another 12 years and have been a heck of a lot cheaper and And now its you who are reciting ancient history. Firing missiles into 5 countries? you mean during the first gulf war 12 years ago?? Gassing people-you mean during the 80’s????? The Big gun was destroyed during the first gulf war also… Hey maybe we should go to war against germany, I hear they are about to invade chekoslovakia and liberate the sudatenland….(thats a ww2 reference in case you dont realize). No Bush said Sadam has WMD’s and he is a threat to this country. And he said that at the end of last year and the begining of this year. THOSE STATEMENTS WERE LIES. THEY WERE THE REASON WE WENT TO WAR. BUSH LIED TO GET US TO GO TO WAR.

You also seriously mangle the economic numbers- that 6+% rate of growth… thats anualized- that means that one quarters growth is at 1.5%+ and they multiply it by 4… Now increased defense spending and the bush tax cut money hitting the street could easily explain it and it can just as easily be an unsustainable one time thing.

Ah and another Right wing myth- democrats dont care about deficits. Hey tell it to Rondald Reagan who trippled the national debt! A debt that Bill Clinton was stillo working hard to pay off… Oh and I love the two wrongs make a right mentality.. As for your not hearing a single word about the democrats running up a debt- well as your economic numbers indicate you dont hear very well so that shouldnt surprise anyone.

Posted by: AnyoneButBush2004 at November 2, 2003 03:48 PM

ABB04:

And lets not forget the alternative- we could have pushed the rest of the middle east toward democratization.. In December 2002, the State Department unveiled its Middle East Partnership Initiative, a basket of projects to encourage democratization in the Muslim world. now instead we are begging and pleading for them to stay on our side…

Shit, why didn’t we think of that 20 years ago. All we needed was a frickin’ initiative. Then we could have had a democratic middle east. I guess I’m imagination-impared and this is why I’m not in the State Dept.

Posted by: lewy14 at November 3, 2003 04:45 AM

abb04
should’ve stopped when you weren’t so far behind. every post you become more illogical as you try to defend the previous position.

Posted by: wafflestomper at November 3, 2003 11:22 AM

In the wake of 9/11 every country in the world was on our side including France and Germany, even the middle east crap bag countries were sympathetic. We could have organized a multinational diplomatic push for democratiaztion. Instead George W. “Im a uniter, not a divider” Bush decided he needed to unite the world.. against us. Seems our european allies actually didnt apreciate his lies or his heavy handed ‘my way or the highway’ aproach. Who woulda thunk?

And yes lewy14, you are correct: you are clearly not smart enough to work for the state department. And no, I didnt say this would have produced immediate results. But the state department did have a clue about the difficulties occupying Iraq. Wow now if only Bush could get a clue..

Waffle:
thanks for pointing out those logical inconsistencies, youve really cleared things up. Should we assume that you agree with everything that you dont address?

And in other news: Bush has anounced that as for attacks in Iraq: the worse things are the better we’re doing. Seems we will know we’ve won when every single person in the country is dead.

Posted by: AnyoneButBush2004 at November 3, 2003 05:30 PM

“We could have organized a multinational diplomatic push for democratiaztion. “

Yeah, that would have done it. Why, the list of nations that have gone from expansionist dictatorships to democratization as the result of “multinational diplomatic pushing” is as long as your arm.

Not.

What fatuous crap. The world community was on our side right up until the moment it looked like we were actually going to do something that would upset their cozy relationship with a homicidal maniac. If I have to choose between a world united in its desire to cut lucrative oil and WMD deals with Saddam Hussein (yeah, I;m looking at you, France, Germany, and Russia), and a world in which the US removes Saddam Hussein, I will take the latter.

Posted by: R. C. Dean at November 3, 2003 06:52 PM

okay abb, make the following two statements consistent:
1- The truth: Sadam didnt have WMD’s…
and
2 - Sanctions … convinced Sadam to give up trying to build WMD’s. …. Gassing people-you mean during the 80’s
seems your having problems with your qualifiers there.

regarding the second statement, it was a term of the cease fire that required disarmament. it was the cease fire agreement that was adopted into the un resolution that used sanctions as a consequence of failing to disarm. sanctions were the indicator that he did not prove disarmament.

Sanctions worked. period. they worked
how do sanctions prevent weapons and material from being developed inside the country? if our country had sanctions placed against it, would i be unable to make chemical weapons in my basement? it’s not the sanctions, champ. (see above)

…convinced Sadam to give up trying to build WMD’s. At least until the sanctions were lifted.
what are you talking about? sanctions have been lifted. are they building wmd now?

re: your invasion of germany, you have to know what the hell your talking about about before sarcasm can be used effectively. perhaps a tie-in with the remainder of your comments would be helpful.

re: the way growth rates are reported, how about a little competition? you cite every non-blog website that uses percent per quarter, and i will provide you with a greater number that uses percent per annum as t-8 referenced it. double points goes to the wall street journal, financial times, and investors business daily citations. did you notice that you failed to challenge the key piece of information: the steepest increase in nearly 20 years? rather than challenge that assertion, you attack the way it was reported. if it were an average daily percent increase, it still corresponds to phenomenal growth.
and, btw, you do not simply multiply by 4 to get from per quarter (nominal rate, r) to per annum (effective rate, i) growth rates. i=(1+r/k)^k-1. k=4

in my next session, since you seem so interested in debunking myths, i’ll help you with analyze deficit comparisons of clinton and reagan and how they relate to gnp.

Posted by: wafflestomper at November 3, 2003 07:19 PM

I hate Bush more than you do. I hate his every atom and DNA. I hate the dirt in his finger nails. You can’t hate Bush that much. hate! hate! hate! hate!

I hate Bush so much, I hate him more than Howard Dean. If I hate him enough, I might be Dean’s running mate.

Hey - did you ever notice that you never see Hitler and Bush in the same room? Do you think they might be the same person? This fits all of the rumors that anyonebutbush2004 came up with! But I hate Bush more!

It makes since - Bush IS Hitler, which is why I hate him. No wonder he supports Israel, -er, no wonder he stopped genocide in Iraq, -er, no wonder he let us keep our guns, -er,

I know! No big social programs! Where are the government handouts? Goddamnit, I want my entitlement! Free Healthcare! Why the Hell should I have to work for healthcare? I’m entitled to it!

And I hate Bush! Free abortions for all! Kill ‘em while they’re screaming! Screw Bush! Take my money, I don’t want you tax cuts, it’s the government’s money, not mine! No economy ever grew with money in the hands of the people! I hate Bush!! Burn the SUVs! Legalize Pot!

See you at the Phish concert,
Karl Marx

Posted by: Karl Marx at November 3, 2003 07:57 PM

Last week I was telling someone that, although dirk was a pain in the ass, he was probably the most coherent leftist on the board. The rest of them were ‘crapping on the sidewalk, screaming at the buildings-types’.

Which brings us to AnybodyButBush.

Twelve years ago is ancient history to anyone who begs the lie ‘Saddam wasn’t a threat to anyone except the Iraqi people’. Yeah, I know, I shouldn’t confuse you with the facts. As Cicero noted, to know nothing of history is to remain a child forever. That must be you. Remember years ago when you had lunch yesterday? Seems like years, at least.

Saddam knew for 14 months that Bush was coming. That’s plenty of time to hide a few things, incinerate a few things, ship a few things off. The left misses the point (!). We don’t have to PROVE anything now - we’ve successfully separated the man from the weapons. Personally, I don’t care if the weapons, which were very real to the people in ancient times (i.e. 1987) that died from them, ever existed. They DID (past tense). We responded to the threat. Ask your great-grandparents about it, sweets, maybe they can tell you all about it. During McKinley, I think.

On economics, what can I say? You’re dumber than a sack of hair, but it’s fun to watch you try to bury the facts with a ton of kitty litter. I’m not going to reiterate here, since wafflestomper eviserated you in the previous post.

I wouldn’t send you to Ralph’s with $2 for Kool-aid.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at November 3, 2003 09:34 PM

so anyway, i stop by mcdonald’s steakhouse and lounge on the way home to pick up something to eat. after i place my order, i realize that i have no cash on me. rather than silently slip away from the counter, i decide to finance my big mac on the ol’ visa card. coincidentally, i received my visa bill today and the statement revealed that last month’s payment covered the entire balance except $1. i chuckled a little at last months underpayment until i remembered that with the $2 happy meal, i had just tripled my debt! oh no!

Hey tell it to Rondald Reagan who trippled the national debt!

that, abb, was an example of the reason why these types of numbers are normalized. relating debt to gdp is common enough, and that comparison shows that, for the most part, clinton’s debt ratio was higher than reagan’s, and both of them had less than what truman had. clinton did reverse an increasing trend, but that happened in his second term. in his first term, the debt held by the public increased 20 percent (the same as ghwb) and the reduction in the second term still left a net increase in debt over his duration in office.

you should remember from your civics class that while the prez prepares the budget, congress holds the purse strings. try to remember that the next time you pshaw 40 years of democrat-controlled congresses. but, if you refuse all the prior points i’ve made and still think tripling the national debt is so significant, then you better consider what happened under abe lincoln, woody wilson, and frankie roosevelt. those last two are dems, (if you didn’t realize). these fellas did a little more than triple the debt. what’s that? something about wars? seems to me that reagan is generally the one who takes credit for winning a war too. if it weren’t so damn cold here maybe i could remember the name. how did the ussr crumble, i wonder? perhaps the abb crowd has already revised those pages in the history books, too.

Posted by: wafflestomper at November 3, 2003 10:46 PM

Hey waffle,

Those presidents were so irresponsible- after all Lincoln was president during the civil war… wasnt that 4 years. Wilson was president during WW1- 3 years worth. And FDR… maybe youve heard of World War 2, and of course the majority of the great depresion… Now these were all total war- the entire country was mobilized to support the war effort. Now your suggesting that Reagan and the cold war are comparable? Fine lets go with that..

But how is Iraq comparable? Bush started with unafordable tax cuts, followed up with unaffordable tax cuts, and continues to push unaffordable tax cuts. Throw Bush’s discretionary Iraq adventure on top of that which of course they said we would only cost 1.7$ billion for the reconstruction. Oh look republicans in congress are working with Bush to implement another tax cut for corporations this time. But even with the actual almost 180$billion Iraq cost over two years is only a small (20% a year for two years) portion of the Bush extra deficit….

Lets not forget that Clinton oversaw a record number of overseas commitments of US troops and still managed to cut the deficit…

When you grow up become an adult and outgrow your happy meals you will learn many things- like running a budget. In actual real life numbers waffle, your share of the debt has just gone up by 1700$ this year thanks to Bush. Oh and Bush has arranged for your share to go up by another $1700 next year. and the year after that, and so on. and thats without interest on the debt. or the 21000$ that you already owed. Or on the interest it costs to carry that debt…Thats more like 5$ in added debt- every day- just from this Bush…How are you going to pay this off?

Also under reagan taxes were raised by 300$ billion (adjusted to todays dollars) during his tenure to deal with the deficit- in comparison, W.’s and republicans in congress feel the answer is to institute even more tax cuts.

And btway- while some might like to give Reagan all the credit for ‘winning the cold war’ - well lets just remember star wars is still just a movie. Lets also not forget Gorbachev, the Pope, and a whole host of european allies as well as numerous previous presidents executing a policy of containment that paved the way to winning the cold war…

Posted by: AnyoneButBush2004 at November 4, 2003 02:00 AM

do you ever defend your previous position? or do you just use sarcasm as some poor segue into a new thought?

Posted by: waffestomper at November 4, 2003 10:38 AM

It’s the mark of the troll, Stomper.

Posted by: jpm at November 4, 2003 10:49 AM

Waffle - Let’s recap all we’ve learned: what you ate last week at McDonald’s is “ancient history” - all that matters is the here and now when abb is making a point. Let’s not let recent events sully our point. As Otter said to Boone “He’s on a roll.”

Tax cuts are now “unaffordable”. This is one of my favorites, because the underlying assumption is - quite obviously, that the government owns every cent you make. Therefore, it’s not a question of whether you can afford to pay your taxes, but whether the government can afford to let you keep anything you make. Somewhere Lenin is smiling (okay, it’s just the formaldehyde, but it looks like he’s smiling).

Oh, that $12,000 I borrowed from you last week? Hey - eh, yeah, I’d love to ‘afford’ to pay you back, but I really can’t right now. I’m going to try this one at the bank.

Wish me luck.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at November 4, 2003 08:26 PM

i tell ya t-8, the things i am learning on this thread are simply amazing! why, just in the last post of abb04 i picked up the following tidbits:

many of the wars fought by the u.s. lasted finite lengths of time (but i really should look up this ‘world war ii’ thing i’ve been hearing so much of lately and find out what that’s all about.)

those wars had a nation prepare for war and absolutely clobbered the national debt (particularly when viewed as a percent increase). but that is in no way similar to the increase that occurred during reagan’s years even though it was defense spending that increased during that time frame. (we should have prepared for war with that money, dammit)

the cold war may or may not be comparable to other wars.

the term ‘unaffordable’ can somehow be applied to goverments. but somehow, even though the tax cuts are unaffordable, the government can still proceed. (as a result though, i think alaska will get repo’ed and we might have to pawn delaware)

clinton oversaw a record number of overseas commitments of u.s. troops, but it is bush that is the warmongerer.

abb04 is getting dressed down by a child of limited intellect.

the national debt must be evenly distributed between every man and woman, even though the top 10 percent of taxpayers pay roughly 2/3 of all income tax. (just a sidenote here: i think karl marx and abb sparked a fat one at a phish concert to arrive at those figures)

$5/day is an unimaginable amount to pay. (that sally struthers is so full of sh*t acting like i can sponsor a child.)

even though my ‘portion’ of the national debt also increased under clinton, it is only bush’s and reagan’ s increases that matter.

the deficit is the number one important item to consider when running a government. creating conditions to produce a growing economy is not even in the top ten. always remember to tax your population in any economic condition.

gorbachev deserves some credit for winning the cold war(!)
the pope deserves some credit for winning the cold war(!)

containment is encouraged restrain the spread of idealistic demagoguery, but only if its communists, not muslim extremists.

about that $12k… if it’s not a big imposition, i kinda like you to hang on to it until after next year’s election lest i be tempted to give to abb’s political party.

Posted by: wafflestomper at November 4, 2003 10:22 PM

a couple of replies
regarding the democratic push idea- no, that was not for Iraq, that was for all the other crap hole countries in the middle east but hey its only the state department suggesting that, its not like they got anything right like predicting that occupying Iraq would be dangerous and difficult- oh wait, they did. Now instead all those countries are turning increasingly anti american on the street..

Second, again one good quarters numbers do not a miracle make and why dont you all post to a mainstream news source that says that 7% growth is for one quarter. And no I dont believe the compound interest fomula applies here..

third Bush is a warmonger based on his new unilateral policy expressed in Iraq ‘we can attack anyone we want if we think theyre a threat even if we have no evidence it at all’…

Fourth sanctions and their enforecement worked the similar to the way having police in the neighborhood prevent crime..

fifth the fall of the USSR- read a book. The pope visited poland in I think it was 79- and 3 million poles turned out, he took other actions that influenced the turn of events. Second- gorbachez- he decided which way his country was going to turn- he wasnt forced, he could just as easily have turned up the political represion to an 11 and we could be faced with a soviet union to this day albiet an increasingly less dangerous militarily and financially one but still armed with lots of nuclear weapons detering any military action against them…

sixth - Iraq is costing more like 1$ a day for every citizen,

seventh- re:debt doesnt matter/its not the goverments money/whatever…- Its great that your buying into the grover norquist theory but you both fail to answer the all important question- when you cut government income- what spending gets cut? education?? the military?? government spending is a zero sum game.

eight- the point that I clearly made was that lincoln/fdr/wilson had very good reasons to increase debt- they faced a major war. Is bush in the same situation? I dont think so- Bush said Iraq had WMD’s and was a threat but this was clearly a lie and Iraq didnt present any theat to the US.

nineth Iraq is turning into another vietnam… Oh wait you all will tell me that they are in different parts of the world.. why am I bothering…oh wait I remember- becouse Bush used 9/11 as an excuse for anything and everything and now he’s using it as an excuse not to cooperate with the 9/11 commision and Clark is calling him on it!

Posted by: AnyoneButBush2004 at November 5, 2003 11:45 AM

abb - #1 our actions post-9/11 did not create anti-American sentiments in the ME (or the fabled ‘arab street’). It has been there all along. Did you miss all the happy, toothless morons dancing for glee 9/12? Where was the ‘exploding arab street’ the media promised us if we invaded Iraq? They barely looked up from their hookas.

#2 - No one, no one has claimed it was 7.2% growth for a MONTH. It’s ALWAYS annualized. You’re playing with yourself here. But this was the biggest rise in 20 years MEASURED ONE MONTH AT A TIME. (This is how they do it, get used to it.)

#3 - We have known for years we no longer enjoy the ‘cushion’ we had at the beginning of WWII. With nuclear weapons, the first day of the war could be the last day of the war. Self-defense is not only a moral concept, it supports pre-emptive action to protect the innocent. Don’t wait for the bear to pop into your teepee, kill him in his cave. Which part of this concept needs clarification? Should I talk slower?

#4 - UN sanctions against Iraq were like hiring the Mafia to clean up Sicily. As long as a few members were making coin on the side, they were willing to look the other way indefinitely on violations of 1441. Your side’s right on 1 point, it WAS ‘all about the oil’.

#5 - Early tests of anti-missile missiles from the Vandenburg test range proved you could hit a ‘bullet with a bullet’. Perhaps some of the telementary was faked, no matter, Gorby realized most of the Soviet ICBM force could be neutralized in their boost phase, necessitating an unaffordable upgrade to their 1st strike capabilities. It’s called ‘quit while you’re ahead’. Solidarity and the Pope helped the cause quite a bit, but just the threat of the High Frontier defense had the desired effect. PS the Russian military is still armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, most of the new ones (Topol-M, SS-27) are mobile. The threat has NOT disappeared - read a book.

#6 - And who told you nation building was cheap?

#7 - Government spending is a zero-sum game where they can always raise their revenues until the population has Zero Income. More than half of federal expenditures today are unconstitutional. They have no authority within the Constitution to do what they are doing. Start cutting there. I see 4 departments as being Constitutional in nature - State, Treasury, Defense and Justice. Ditch the rest - we’d all be better off without them. Remember not to confuse the government with the economy. One makes money, one takes what the other makes and moves it around.

#8 - Millions of Americans argued that Nazi Germany was no threat whatsoever to the US, Charles A. Lindbergh among them. You have a luxury Lindbergh never enjoyed in that you now cannot be disproven. Ever bury a MiG-25, Sparky? Do you know what the shelf life of VX is? Oh my, tell the UN all the documentation was destroyed with the nerve agents. The dog ate my homework. While you’re at it, help OJ look for ‘the killers’.

#9 - Oh yes, the 9/11 commission, I already saw what your party bosses plan for next year - results of the commission unseen. You guys would be a lot better off with some decent shredders. You can pick up a Royal at Costco for about $19. And what about Serbia, is that another VN? Or don’t Clinton’s VNs count? Or do you mean VN in the sense that our military wins it while the press loses it? Or that it’s warm there?

Posted by: torpedo_eight at November 5, 2003 09:34 PM

” but that is in no way similar to the increase that occurred during reagan’s years even though it was defense spending that increased during that time frame. (we should have prepared for war with that money, dammit)”

Actually, speaking as someone in the military at that time, I was impressed at the deal Reagan cut with the Democrats. Seems like for every buck extra he could spend on defense, the Dems could spend two on their programs. Sometimes, I realize, you’ve got to take crap to get what you really need - which is why I’ve had NO respect for the Democrats since then. They were so worried about deficits they cheerfully added double what Reagan did. Yeah, they really cared about the taxpayer’s money.

But hey, don’t pay attention to anyone who lived through that time. You can pick up a used 1990 almanac at a bookstore and take a look for yourself at the changes in government spending between 1980 and 1990. Defense increased, but social spending REALLY climbed.

Posted by: Iwasthere at November 6, 2003 10:38 AM

#1 No our actions in Iraq and our failure to push progress in Israel have incensed anti american hatred and likely increased the number of violent jihadists. Actions have consequences. What a concept.

#2 t-8 said “The GDP rose 7.2% last quarter” no it didnt. it increased at an anualized rate as I repeatedly indicated. Also they measure the gdp quarterly not monthly as you indicate. And again this may be a temporary phenomenon for the reasons I previously indicated.

#3 ‘kill the bear in his t-p’. Its called unilater preemptive war. We might remember it from the Japanese attack on pearl harbor- that was the japanese policy and its what made them the bad guys. Sadam had no nuclear weapons, and he had no long range missiles. Despite this Bush said Sadam had WMD’s and was a threat. He lied.

#4 its clear sanctions were keeping Sadam in his box. they were working.

#5-over 20 years later this is just looking to be remotely possible and then only against a limited missile attack from north korea and then only when we can get close enough to the launch site (not possible in USSR’s hinterlands) and theres no indication its ready to use against SSBN attacks. And then only after spending years deploying and teasting and then only if the USSR didnt take preventative countermeasures which were much cheaper. And of course it doesnt deal with the short range missile and cruise missile threat. So when is this strategy going to work on north korea?

#6 Administration officials said it would. USAID chair Natsios said it would cost 1.7 billion US dollars to rebuild Iraq. This year.

#7 I see some lame arguments that have been debunked by the courts generations ago. In the meantime government provides some very concrete and tangible services that cost actual cash money and have to be paid for. Hey I think everyone wants to pay less in taxes (especially me) but as an adult I realize that there is a direct relationship between taxes and services and I just have to assuage my disapointment over having to pay taxes with the knowledge that tax money pays for tangible programs, yes even many that I disagree with, and that US citizens pay the lowest taxes of any 1st world country.

#8 so Sadam hid/buried the wmd’s?. Thats strange, despite having more then half of the deck of war criminals nobody has been able to find out where they are. Funny Bush said he was a serious threat to our nation. Now hes hidden and buried everying. So Bush was lying? Why havent we seen any proof yet? Of course Bush was lying and as you say I cannot be disproven. Oh and the documentation- much of the Iraqi documentation was destroyed when we ‘forgot’ to protect the site after the invasion. And the comparison your making- Nazi germany armed to the teeth and having already succesfully invaded how many countries and Sadams Iraq- his military already blasted and unreconstructed from the first gulf war, under sanctions and world scrutiny- that was a comparable threat? No you clearly have bought into the Bush administrations repeated attempts to somehow link 9/11 to Sadam despite the lack of any evidence.

#9- So Bush Lies repeatedly to the country, repeatedly links 9/11 to Sadam, lies to the country about the Sadam threat, claims that Sadams been trying to buy Uranium even when the administrations own investigators disprove it, uses 9/11 for every partisan political purpose, outs a secret agent, and now when the report that shows what a giant liar he is comes out we should all be shocked and appaled that politicians intend to use that report which shows just what a liar Bush is to prove what a liar he is. I am just shocked and appaled. Hey you know what, maybe if they had talked about using confidential information you guys would really have something there.
Oh and as for the press losing it, yes I understand that a severe op-ed piece in the NYTimes shot down an american helicopter killing 16 Americans just last week. I also understand that the number of attacks on Americans in Iraq (terrorist attacks against americans) has increased by 50% over the last month just becouse of the Washington Posts reporting. Yup thats what it was, the press. Or we could learn one of the important lessons of Vietnam- the president lying to the american people will cut support .

Oh and Mr. Iwas there: Maybe youve heard of the Veto- the president has it. That is if Reagan actually cared. Heres a great quote from former chief of staff Donald Regan in For the Record:

In the four years that I served as Secretary of the Treasury I never saw President Reagan alone and never discussed economic philosophy or fiscal and monetary policy with him one-on-one. From first day to last at Treasury, I was flying by the seat of my pants. The President never told me what he believed or what he wanted to accomplish in the field of economics.

Thats all folks.

Posted by: AnyoneButBush2004 at November 6, 2003 03:03 PM

As Dieter would say, your conversation has become tiresome. I’ve never argued with a dyslexic before.

#2 I clearly indicated the growth was “annualized” - you may not recognize the term because I spelled it correctly. Have someone else re-read my post for you.

#7 Here’s some more ‘lame arguments’ debunked by the courts: 1956 Nestor vs. Fleming: the government owes you nothing for all your SS contributions, there’s no legal obligation to repay, there is no ‘social contract’. To wit: “To engraft upon the SS system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands…..It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the SS Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of a holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.”

The Supreme court has also ruled that the federal government has rights to 100% of your income, and the amount they let you keep is up to……the federal government. I realize the idea that we own what we earn, or that the feds owe us something for all those SS payments are ‘lame’, but I thought I’d share a few of them with people who are reading this now and can understand what I’m saying (as opposed to, say, YOU)

You obviously don’ t understand the concept of enumerated powers. [government provides some very concrete and tangible services that cost actual cash money and have to be paid for.] This is NOT THE POINT. These ‘tangible’ services you’re enamored of, many are NOT in the Constitution, therefore, the government has no right to provide them nor to tax us to provide them. It’s not a question of “we can do more” as Clinton used to like to phrase it, it’s a question of legality.

Okay, wait - there’s LOTS of things you don’t understand - and hopefully “That’s all folks” means just that. Give Hillary my best.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at November 6, 2003 08:55 PM

abb04
i have been trying so hard to avoid posting yet again on this subject, but i just feel obligated to try to explain just once more because i think you are capable of understanding these concepts, and believe that you only respond the way you do either because you don’t bother reading other people’s posts, or you like t-8’s and my writing style so well that while you do understand, you still intentionally piss us off just to provoke us to write more.

you need to drop that 3q growth issue. i have been trying like hell to find a single credible source that reports economic growth the way you describe just to find out where you are coming from. where do you get this from? seriously. in your last post, you touched on the very reason why the annualized percent is reported. because regardless of the duration that is analyzed, the figure makes sense because it is intuitive that its annual. anything else forces the reporter to explain the value. for the third quarter, what did the economy grow by? 7.2 percent,. what was the average monthly growth over that duration? 7.2 percent. what was the average daily growth over that period? 7.2 percent. see? that is the beauty of the system. you better review that formula again, it applies to all growth, interest included (since you correctly identified that is growth, too). you want a simple example? let’s just suppose you are right for a minute, that the quarterly growth rate can be multiplied by four to get the annual growth rate. i say, in this hypothetical example, that the gdp doubles over the first quarter, and continues to double for a total of four quarters. in your method, you would say that the quarterly growth rate was 100% and the annual growth rate was 400% (since nothing changed between quarters). do you really not see how that is wrong? The true growth rate annualized is 1500%. and the quarterly interest rate? (15+1)^0.25-1=100%.

the other item that you really ought to reconsider is your view on sanctions. they were not placed on iraq to prevent him from acquiring wmd. they are a consequence of unmovic not being satisified that iraq was free of wmd. is that clear enough? the un wanted sanctions against iraq because they thought it was possible that iraq may still possess wmd. had iraq been entirely forthcoming in 1991-2, not thrown out inspectors, not “played games” per bush, provided all details of the destruction of known existing (their declaration, not ours) wmd, sanctions would not have happened. the purpose of the sanctions was not to prevent iraq from creating wmd. essentially, the existence of sanctions meant that iraq had wmd because no one was satisfied that they didn’t(!) sanctions were extended to cover items that may be used to create wmd (the uranium, dual use chemicals, etc.) but that was not the purpose of the sanctions. it would have been unconscionable to maintain sanctions if it were proven that iraq had no wmd programs - this was un’s call btw, not the us’s. consider the fact that gwi was won (define it however you like), why would the un place sanctions against iraq to prevent them from acquiring wmd, but only iraq? why not also north korea? syria? the usa? why does the un care only about iraq wmd? the reason is because that was the consequence of iraq failing to live up to the agreements of the cease fire agreement. the cease fire agreement was adopted into the un resolutions.

your lack of comprehension on these two issues is simply astounding. i am amazed that i can disagree with someone as much as i do you, abb, but at least with the other issues i can attribute some of the disagreement to matter of opinion or spin of data or at least something that could be construed as at least somewhat argumentative (or at least once i get past the “quotes” you attribute to bush and, gee, all those bush lies - ptg could probably explain to you the irony in that). but the points i make can be none of that, and yet you refuse to back down and it only showcases ignorance. you are going to have to show some improvement soon, i am ready to let you ride off to trolldom and it appears that t-8 is about to that point, too.

and how lucky can i be? a real live person that was in the military in the 80’s. how can i possible ignore such a person that quite obviously has the qualifications to be an expert in government spending not only in the military but gov’t spending in general? pull out your almanac, grandpa, ‘seems like’ isn’t gonna cut it. total gov’t outlays increased about 10% in reagan’s first term, defense increased on the order of 30%, net interest on the debt increased over 60%. means and non-means tested social programs increased about 2 and 7 percent, respectively. all other goverment outlays combined decreased. in his second term, the changes were much more mild in all categories, although means tested social (medicaid) did increase 10 percent (this was drastically increased under ghwb while defense spending was reduced). i have little respect for the democratic party as well, but i don’t need to make up numbers. but more importantly, you do see that i may have been somewhat facetious in my earlier posts, doncha?

i will remember you next tuesday. your service to our country is greatly appreciated.

Posted by: wafflestomper at November 7, 2003 12:47 AM

Lets review: t-8 makes an unqualified statement that “The GDP rose 7.2% last quarter” November 2, 2003 02:38 PM. I respond that thats an annualized figure so the actual growth (of the economy) last quarter is only one quarter of that. Heres a citation http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm
Then you guys respond that Ive somehow gotten it confused. No I havent, why dont you reread my posts.

As for sanctions- hey tell it to Bush. The UN teams were back, in Iraq, hunting for whatever he had. Bush unilaterally decided that the 100+ days were enough to find whatever Sadam had. Now Im being told we really cant expect to find anything for years and years. Look its clear to me that Sadam was gaming the system- that he wanted to drag inspections on for years becouse it suited his purpose. So what? I think it was great (not that it was good for the people of Iraq). The longer sanctions went on the longer it would have been before Sadam, free of inspectors could have pursued his nefarious goals (of aquiring WMD’s). So you think we had to invade? And you guys where where during the Clinton administration when he needed to institute military action? Oh thats right you were bitterly opposing it (http://www.conservativeusa.org/iraq-war.htm)
Now Im supposed to accept this posturing and hipocrasy as an excuse for Bush’s lies (again my earlier post here with numerous citations)..

Oh and t-8 what can I say about the government and money- tell it to the courts, in the meantime your also not entitled to any of your SS money if you die before your eligible also…

Posted by: AnyoneButBush2004 at November 7, 2003 12:14 PM

Waffle - I knew his ‘that’s all folks’ was too good to be true. At least now he’s spelling ‘annualized’ correctly.

Dumber than a sack of hammers, though.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at November 7, 2003 08:13 PM

Wow you guys are pretty pathetic… few facts, no citations, complaints about spelling, wacko ‘I dont believe in the government’ and name calling.

Back to the issue at hand: Was Clark criticising the Bush for failing to cooperate with the 9/11 investigation? wow thats some (lack of) integrity on Bush’s part.

Posted by: AnyoneButBush2004 at November 8, 2003 08:14 PM

The Tao’s principle is spontaneity.

Posted by: Hooper Chris at December 20, 2003 08:02 PM

I count the falling tears
They fall before my eyes
Seems like a thousand years
Since we broke the ties
I call you on the phone
But never get a rise
So sit there all alone
It’s time you realize …
Secret Corner

Feet Sexy Feet, Foot Sex

Fetish Bondage, Fisting

Gay Studs, Twinks, Hairy

Hardcore Straight, Threesomes, Orgies

India Teens, Models, Sex

Interracial Blacks On Blondes, etc

Latina Brazilian, Carribian, Mexican

Lesbian Kissing, Pussy Licking, Dildos

Mature 30+, 40+, 50+, 60+

Models Porn Stars, Hot Babes

Oral CumShots, BlowJobs

Shemales Babes with Dicks, Transsexuals

Softcore Strippers, Naked, Butts

Teen 18+, Schoolgirls, Coeds

Tits Big Tits, Tiny Tits

Voyeur Upskirts, Spy Cams

Watersports Pissing, Wet Panties

Posted by: Secret Corner at January 19, 2004 10:19 PM