February 22, 2005
Baghdad Under Siege
A couple weeks ago, I saw a reporter on CNN International talking about how insurgents had blown up an oil pipeline, “…but we’ve been assured that this attack will not disrupt the flow of oil for sale outside the country. The pipeline only carried oil for the electrical generators in Baghdad.”
US and Iraqi officials have now concluded that attacks on interior pipelines and other infrastructure around Baghdad are part of a carefully orchestrated plan to isolate the city. Baghdad is under siege.
Even the US Congressional delegation that visited Iraq recently was confined to Green Zone. They were flown by military helicopter from the Baghdad airport to the Green Zone, and then had to cancel visits to US bases outside the city because of the security situation,
A year and-a-half ago, "we were able to move more freely in Baghdad," Senator Collins (R-Maine) said. "And one impression I have is how much more fortified Baghdad is than it was during that summer."
You really have to wonder what Iraq would be like now had bush made securing the country a priority. What would have happened if President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld had said, "Gee General Shinseki. Three hundred thousand troops sounds like quite a lot. We think the occupation will only require half that amount, but since it's absolutely vital that this endeavor succeed - and since nothing is certain in a war - we'll go ahead and make the extra troops available. It's just common sense."
I saw on the news a few days ago where US and Iraqi troops were stepping up operations around Baghdad and the Sunni areas. That and the extraordinary measures taken during the election got my hopes up that the Bush administration was finally getting serious. The operations were subsequently downplayed to "business as usual." Business as usual is not a good thing in Iraq.
Here's some interesting statistics I saw in my International Herald Tribune this morning. I liked how the timeline put things into perspective:
| July 03 | Jan 04 | July 04 | Jan 05 | |
| Estimated local insurgents/foreign fighters | 5,000/300 | 5,000/300 | 20,000/400 | 18,000/600 |
| Necessary oil, fuel & gas available | 44% | 78% | 80% | 75% |
| Electricity generated in gigawatts (pre-war - 4.4) | 3.2 | 3.8 | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| Trained security forces (official estimates) | 0 | 0 | 95,000 | 125,000 |
| Trained security forces (independent estimates) | 0 | 0 | 10,000 | 25,000 |
| Iraqis optimistic about the future | 67% | 65% | 60% | 50% |
Hey American Pundit,
Good article and very enlightening on the current situation in Iraq. This is certainly not my area of expertise thus I can’t say much as I am learning from experts like you.
All I have to say is this…get ready for Iran in six months. Scott Ritters leaked it out saying that Bush signed documents (whether or not this is true is another story but Ritters certainly has integrity and knows all their is to know about it as he is not a Liberal and voted for Bush in 2000.) Bush said he will defend Israel (yes, Bush is a raging Zionist) and Israel said that they will attack Iran if they get the weapons. Now, Iran is projected, from what I understand, at getting this started in about six months. Ritters timing, my estimate, based on several different events, diplomacies and alliances occuring; it is a safe bet that we will be at war with Iran in six months. Good article AP and I know I went off topic but this here is a much more grave concern than the current situation in Iraq. Thanks for the enlightenment.
AP,
Great article!
Leon,
Yes, I heard about what Ritter said. Yipes!
Is it ever possible to look at things from an optimistic, positive view? I have a hard time believing the optimistic view of the Iraqi people is declining. Considering their jubilation at the right to vote. Things are going great in that country & no lib has the guts to admit it.
Posted by: Blaine at February 22, 2005 02:33 PMPerhaps the decline is partly due to raised expectations not being met. They thought they would vote and everything would get better.
Instead, people keep dying.
Blaine,
I think you’ll find that in any given situation, things are going great for some and worse for others. If you took 10 Iraqis off the street, you’d probably get close to that 50% number saying things were definitely improving, and 50% saying things have only become more dangerous.
Just depends on who was blown up that day and by whom.
From an American government perspective? It’s a nearly impossible task they’ve told the American people they are undertaking: bringing freedom and democracy to a foreign country through war. Every day we create more enemies over there, and make more friends. How will it all end up?
The question we should be asking ourselves is:
Will it end?
Posted by: Thomas R at February 22, 2005 03:17 PMI have to get this quick hitter out there that I heard on NPR today.
Bush: “The idea that we are making plans to attack Iran right now is just ridiculous. [long pause, then hurriedly] That said, all options are on the table.”
I laughed my ass off. Start buying more halliburton stock now. I smell a new reconstruction effort coming soon.
Posted by: Zoffa at February 22, 2005 04:32 PMBlain,
“Things are going great in that country & no lib has the guts to admit it.”
Oh, really? I hear property is fairly cheap…Why don’t you see if you can’t relocate your family over there?
Didn’t think so! I suppose “great” depends on your point of reference, doesn’t it?
Freedom does not come overnight & it does have a price. There were left-wingers in 1776. They worried about the cost in money & lives. There were also patriots who did not want to serve a foreign king & pay their livelihood to him. They were the ones who stayed the course & rightly deserve to have their names in the history books. President Reagan was a great man & I believe history will prove that President George Bush will also be in the history books as a man of character & purpose. President Clinton tried for 8 years to find that elusive legacy. President Bush was the right man for the right time in history. I thank God for President Bush.
By the way, don’t listen to that liberal NPR. Try Fox News (fair & balanced). I don’t trust a news media that can’t bring in enough money to support itself & has to depend on government welfare.
Posted by: Blaine at February 22, 2005 06:05 PM“Oh, really? I hear property is fairly cheap…Why don’t you see if you can’t relocate your family over there?”
Critique the message, not the messenger?
Posted by: Blaine at February 22, 2005 06:10 PMBlaine,
I think Clinton is going down in history as one of the most remarkable presidents of the 20th century - remarkable for both his accomplishments, his character (as flawed as it was at times), and his intellect. He’s probably more of a leader now than he seemed during the presidency.
And I think NPR is funded by the public, not the government. They have fund-raisers every 6 months. While they have a liberal, albeit non-sensational, slant, the various programs show insight, differing viewpoints, and international reporting - none very common on Fox. I don’t want to over-defend here…I read your Fox comment as tongue-in-cheek and I think you meant it that way. It’s no secret NPR is liberal and Fox is conservative, and both have real, unbiased news at times. But NPR is no Air America either, which is comparable in every way to Rush Limbaugh’s show…95% without credibility or reference, but entertaining to see what they come up with.
Posted by: Thomas R at February 22, 2005 06:59 PMBlaine,
You wrote:
“There were left-wingers in 1776. They worried about the cost in money & lives. There were also patriots who did not want to serve a foreign king & pay their livelihood to him. They were the ones who stayed the course & rightly deserve to have their names in the history books.
Ever hear of a Tory?
This is from Wikipedia’s definition:
“The term Tory derives from the Tory Party, the ancestor of the modern UK Conservative Party. To this day it is often used as a shortened alternative for Conservative. A similar usage for Tory exists in Canada to describe the Conservative Party. It was also used during the American Revolutionary War to refer to British Loyalists in the colonies.”
I’m not sure it’s helpful to cast the American Revolution in terms of ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative.’
“I don’t trust a news media that can’t bring in enough money to support itself & has to depend on government welfare.”
Fair enough. But why trust news media which are owned by multinationals corporations? What is the relationship between profitability and accuracy?
Blaine,
I say let’s start a multimillion dollar investigation into Bush’s past dealings (maybe Ken Starr would be available again) and see what we can dredge up on this guy. Would you be willing to put up some of your tax dollars on that endeavor?
Everyone else
On a more serious note, I appreciate APs post and am interested in knowing the history of trying to improve the democratic lot of a nation by invading or otherwise manipulating them externally. Certainly Germany is better off after Hitler and Italy after Mussolini, but that was a side effect of dealing with their aggression toward their neighbors. Our attempts in Vietnam and Iran both failed in the long run, and many other countries have tried similar “fixes”, with mixed success. Does anyone know of a good analysis of the history of such endeavors? I vehemently opposed the US going into Iraq, but my optimistic heart hopes that there is a chance we will leave it in better shape than we found it in before we invaded.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at February 22, 2005 07:20 PMBlaine,
“By the way, don’t listen to that liberal NPR. Try Fox News (fair & balanced). I don’t trust a news media that can’t bring in enough money to support itself & has to depend on government welfare.”
They also do it without 15 minutes of commercials per hour.
“Is it ever possible to look at things from an optimistic, positive view?”
Yes, but it is important to do it without the rose colored glasses.
“There were left-wingers in 1776.”
Who would those people be? Federalists, like John Adams? Republicans, like Jefferson and Madison?
Please tell me you’re not going to blame the Democrats for that too.
While I appreciate all this abstract talk of the “Good” or “Bad” in Iraq, the Fact remains that the American GI is being cheated from his due. It would help if some of you Republicans would put your signatures where your Values are and ENLIST!!!
Posted by: Aldous at February 22, 2005 07:58 PMMental,
It’s a great question! Offhand, I don’t know of any, but it would make interesting reading.
Personally, I believe that democracy will fail in Iraq due to ethnic divisions. In the longer run, I think the future could be bright for the Kurds, and there’s at least the possibility for an independent southern Iraq to do well. An independent Sunni state might eventually do well too, but that could take a long, long time.
Countries with ethnically homogenous cultures, such as Germany and Japan, have been invaded, and succeeded with democracy. South Korea would also fit into this category.
India rejected colonialism and succeeded in establishing democracy in 1948, although it took a bloody partition to finish the job.
In the broadest terms, in modern times, democracy seems to flourish in ethnically homogenous cultures which either revolt, or suffer catastrophic defeat. (And calling India an ethnically homogenous country is a pretty wild stretch!).
In Central & South America, relatively homogenous cultures alternate between authoritarian goverments and democracy. Perhaps the lack of a cathartic event prevents the tradition of democracy from taking a firmer hold?
In Africa, ethnic strife has caused similar situations, only worse. There are no lack of tragic events which could have been cathartic. But without shared cultural goals, democracy has been on shaky ground.
Posted by: phx8 at February 22, 2005 08:02 PMComparing the Iraq invasion to 1776 and OUR independence isn’t even in the same ball park. We were fighting for OUR independence. Are we the world’s police? I dare say that such an invasion led by a democrat in office would not be anywhere as acceptable to a right winger.
I do sincerely hope we make a difference in Iraq. I hope the people, the land, and the region benifit from OUR sacrifices. I will not pass judgement this early in the game. Ten years from now this will make or break the President’s legacy. BUT, right now it is breaking the bank! No matter who we blame government spending on…it is happening. Both sides are to blame!
As far as policing the world and nation building (as I recall Bush vehemently opposed during a presidential debate with Gore); what about Iran and North Korea? We can’t do a damn thing about them right now because we ARE overextended in Iraq.
I supported president Bush during the Afghan invasion. I feel it was justified. Under the guise of WMD, then terrorism, and now freedom we are in Iraq. I also here the term liberation. Why haven’t we helped the folks in Darfor (sp?)? Maybe…just maybe…we aren’t as “kind hearted”…no I think the term is “compassionate” as we seem. What does Darfor have to offer America. Certainly not oil or a strategic point to operate in the Middle East.
Just my thoughts…echoed around the globe! But then again, we are America, what do we need the rest of the globe for?
Posted by: Tom at February 22, 2005 08:16 PMBlaine,
I DO listen to FOX, CNN, and NPR (as well as many other media outlets). “Fair and Balanced”? Like an elephant on a tight rope.
By the way…I was critiquing the message. If the right wing sees things going “great” in Iraq, then by all means I would recommend to any of them…buy some property and move on over (I’m talking about the cheap stuff….outside the green zone).
I recollect several of our senators including McCain (one of my favorites) visiting Iraq recently. If things are going so “great”, why did they not get outside the green zone? I think it’s called the lack of security, no law and order, banditry, suicide bombers, etc. Sound “GREAT” to me.
Posted by: Tom at February 22, 2005 08:22 PMThere is a model for success in Iraq.
Yugoslavia represents a viable model. Splitting into ethnically homogenous countries, such as Croatia and Slovenia, has been modestly successful, and the future is bright. Areas of ethnic/religious diversity remain problems, fracture zones if you will, and Iraq has similar areas. The original ruling group of Yugoslavia, the Serbs, continue to make a slow, difficult transition, but again, there’s hope. Perhaps the Serbs can show the Iraqi Sunnis the way?
Posted by: phx8 at February 22, 2005 08:56 PMphx8,
“”I don’t trust a news media that can’t bring in enough money to support itself & has to depend on government welfare.”
Fair enough. But why trust news media which are owned by multinationals corporations? What is the relationship between profitability and accuracy?”
You just said we can’t trust any of the news we watch.
Aldous,
“It would help if some of you Republicans would put your signatures where your Values are and ENLIST!!!”
I seem to recall many people(maybe even you Aldous), during the election, pointing out that the military was pro Bush by a larger majority because the larger majority of the troops are already Republican.
Would you prefer it were 100% Republican? Maybe then a Republican President could do to OUR country what Putin, Saddam, and the Iranians, did, and are doing, to theirs.
Mental Wimp:
“Does anyone know of a good analysis of the history of such endeavors? I vehemently opposed the US going into Iraq, but my optimistic heart hopes that there is a chance we will leave it in better shape than we found it in before we invaded.”
Not sure if this is exactly the kind of book you meant, but I can recommend these three books to you - although you better be ready for some very heavy reading - literally and figuratively! :^)
This amazing book deals with economic, social and political change in modern times. He also goes over exactly what conditions are favorable to democracies and which lead to fascist and commmunist dictatorships.
Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy :Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World
This one is more generalized but goes over how warfare can change cultures:
Battle: A History of Combat and Culture
This one is a quick read. As you might guess by the title, it’s about the high price America has paid for waging war in the past. Not just in human lives, but economically, culturally, and in damage to our own freedoms.
The Costs of War: America’s Pyrrhic Victories
BTW, excellent article AP.
Blaine,
I apologize if this hurts your feelings, but those are the most retarded comments I have heard this week. It is seriously making me stratch my head. I will prove that.
“Is it ever possible to look at things from an optimistic, positive view? I have a hard time believing the optimistic view of the Iraqi people is declining. Considering their jubilation at the right to vote. Things are going great in that country & no lib has the guts to admit it.”
You should never be optimistic nor pesstimistic in evaluating anything in regards to foreign policy. Prayer is fine but by the laws of critical thinking, no optimistic views are abruptly stupid. You look at what is really happening and from the looks of things (although it is too early to tell), it is headed in the right direction but appears to be destined to fail. Like someone already pointed out, a separate state for the Sunni’s will help the tensions. I am a Liberal who has the guts to look at it from what is really happening. I don’t think you have the guts to see what is really happening. Your argument is a double-edged sword. The elections are fine but when they don’t even know who is on the ballot for the most part, I hardly don’t constitute that as a successful democracy. For you to even say the absurd argument that things are going great, it only reiterates my point that you don’t have the guts to look at it from a realistic picture. The problem with the social Conservatives are that they are so in love with the Zionists in Israel. Do you not realize that so much of the tension in the Middle East is caused by the American politicians love for Israel. Israel can do whatever they want and the US either turns a blind eye or does not say anything at all. Not one political faction in Iraq is going to ultimately support the United States when they know that Israel is an influence. Period. It will only cause more tension as time goes on and we will have another enemy on our hands. The American-Israeli relationship has to weaken quite considerably, if we hope to bring a true peaceful solution in the Middle East. When Bush decides to give 2.65 billion dollars to Israel yet gives 300 million to Palestine when the Palestinians need that money way more than Israel; you just have to wonder which country is truly driving the terrorism and hatred even more. I think, deep down, you know the answer to that. Hey, face it man, in six months, this country will go to war with Iran. Why? Because of our love for Israel. It is wrong and it shouldn’t work that way.
“Freedom does not come overnight & it does have a price. There were left-wingers in 1776. They worried about the cost in money & lives. There were also patriots who did not want to serve a foreign king & pay their livelihood to him. They were the ones who stayed the course & rightly deserve to have their names in the history books. President Reagan was a great man & I believe history will prove that President George Bush will also be in the history books as a man of character & purpose. President Clinton tried for 8 years to find that elusive legacy. President Bush was the right man for the right time in history. I thank God for President Bush.”
It is a ridiculous assestment to even compare our modern day politics with 1776. I don’t even see how that can be an argument. The times were different and the debating was different. I will call that the ultimate right-wing spin. Comparing 1776 with Iraq is even more ludicrious.
I find it funny though because if you want a Political Science 101 lesson, I will be glad to teach you. The left-wingers, or rather the Radicals, were opposed to the tyranny of the king. They were on the left of the parliament and they advocated freedom. The right wingers were the Reactionaries and fully supported the king. So even if you wanted to make the 1776 argument, it would be more likely that the Patriot (or atleast in your interpretation, the right wingers) were actually the left-wing Liberals and the Conservatives were the ones worried about money and death (in your interpretation, the left-wingers.) Nice try. Ronald Reagan is in the books as a great President and I have a lot more research to do on him before I make that call. I know though that he sucked up to the Romania’s Prime Minister, whom I believe was a Communist, which indicates how schizophrenic Reagan’s foreign policy really was and why I don’t hold much creedance with Presidential scholars. As far as Clinton goes, he was bad on foreign policy, paranoid of breaking US laws when trying to capture Osama bin Laden, but had a hell of an economy. He will do fine in the history books because his foreign policy was not any better than any US President in the post-WWII era. As far as you thanking God every day for President Bush. I hope you carry a cross with George W. Bush on it. While his team is bankrupting the system to cut social programs, privitizing Social Security scheme, cutting education, increasing defense spending akin to Bush being in the Cold War all over again, lying to the UN and the United States Congress to sell the Iraq War, getting set for war with Iran, putting Israel’s interest in front of the interest of the American people, and sanctioning tortures of “terrorists”; I hope you have a decent case to pray for him. I thank God every day that America only has three more years of him thus the Democrats might just make that comeback. It gives me a chance to have just a little bit of faith in a system that has otherwised failed me, the many people of this great nation, and the armed forces who are dying for mere lies. Just keep on thanking God for Bush, he is probably laughing at your argument.
“By the way, don’t listen to that liberal NPR. Try Fox News (fair & balanced). I don’t trust a news media that can’t bring in enough money to support itself & has to depend on government welfare.”
If you think Fox News is fair and balanced, that is about as good of an argument as lobbying for Ted Kennedy to be the poster child for Mother’s Against Drunk Drivers. I will prove it with one simple statistic. 83% of the guests on Fox News are Republicans and 17% of the guests on Fox News are Democrats. The Democrats that do appear are typically weak. Apparently, you are the prodigal of the Religious Right. Fine, but be forewarned that Bill O’Really doesn’t send a good impression for Republican morality when he tells his guests to shut up and blatantly making an ass out of parents whose kid died in Iraq or parents died on September 11th; all because they have a different set of political views. He is the mantra of a mean-spirited jerk who plays on people’s fears, like yourself, just so he can get a fan base, obtain ratings, and make Bush out like he is a saint. His pattern is predictable and contradictory. Once he said that if Iraq does not have WMD’s, he will personally condemn Bush himself. That obviously never happened. If he does blame Mr. Reverend President for a policy, it is because Clinton did something stupid so Bush has an excuse. The man is pathetic. Sean Hannity isn’t much better. It is the All-American boy paired up with a weenie Liberal, Alan Colmes. Let’s talk about a subliminal message here. I am glad that the Democratic Party wants to fund their talk shows that sponsor their views. They are not fair and balanced nor do they uphold that scheme. It is safe to say that if we only had Hannity’s big mouth on the AM radio, it would be a sad world indeed. Just keep on thanking God for President Bush. Keep on doing what you are doing. I don’t forget his flaws and I will judge him harsher than God himself. While our soldiers are dying in Iraq and will soon die in Iran, Bush is coloring his Jesus coloring book and we and our children are going to have to pay the price for selfish, incompetant politicians who desire more of the almighty dollar rather than protecting our citizens interest. Let’s try diplomacy before we try war. If the Right Wing understood that, I don’t think I would be so harsh on them.
Posted by: Leon S. Blythe at February 22, 2005 09:11 PMLeon,
Nice!
I can only say Amen, but I will add a footnote.
Although I vehemently opposed the Iraq war I don’t think we can do anything about Iran. We have too many troops and cash tied up in Iraq. Although the case for WMD in Iran is probably better than it was in Iraq, our hands are tied at the moment. In his haste to go to war the president may have lost the chance to deal with Iran.
What you said about Isreal….that’s the bottom line. That’s why we are so hated in the Middle East. It has little to do with them hating our freedom (although they may be jealous of it and our wealth).
Posted by: Tom at February 22, 2005 09:36 PMAldous: I did enlist & served active duty from 1966 until 1970.
“Personally, I believe that democracy will fail in Iraq due to ethnic divisions.”
If that’s the case, then the United States should never have succeeded.
“ Are we the world’s police?”
We have been & so has the UN since the end of WWII. Actions that have been taken by Democrat & Republican presidents.
The Middle East is a hot bed and the entire industrialized world has a stake in it & that includes our friends in Europe. That being said, we also have an ally in that area. Even if the rest of the world goes anti-Semitic, Israel is still our ally
The Chinese will reign in North Korea, & Israel will take out Iran’s nuclear capability. So where’s the problem?
This is my thinking & perhaps I’m wrong, but I believe the left hopes the US will never succeed in Iraq. Just like I believe they would like to see our economy tank, interest rates skyrocket, the price of gas go to $10.00 a gallon. I believe they would like to see terrible things happen to this country, because they hate President Bush that much. Then they could gloat & say “told you so”. Isn’t that happening already? He is our President & he as well as our troops need all the support they can get.
Leon:
I thank God we support Israel. We were the first country to recognize them as a nation in 1948 & we will be the last to support them. When all the rest of the world has the mentality of Hitler, we will still support them. My God man, do you people hate everyone?
As for the Democrats making a comeback. It will never happen. The Democratic Party has lost touch with the American people and with radicals running the party, they will never regain. The smartest Democrat out there is Hillary & she is sounding more Republican every day. That woman has her eyes set on the White House & she knows what she is going to have to do to gain it. She ha slearned a lesson the rest of you haven’t learned yet.
Blaine,
Good try!
No! I don’t want us to fail in Iraq. We’ve already sacrificed too much and a democracy in that area would be a model to the region and “hopefully” make the world safer. I have relatives serving in Iraq…so, don’t preach to me about supporting our troops.
I have young children…If you think I want interest rates to skyrocket you’re absolutely NUTS! It’s hard enough making it as it is.
Hate the president? Absolutely not! Disagree with him…ABSOLUTELY! I think that’s the major difference in the far right…if anyone disagrees with their point of view they are labeled “unpatriotic” and “hateful”. I’ll have you know, most of us are AMERICANS before we are Democrats or Republicans! I would like nothing better than to raise my children in the safest, wealthiest, freeist, and strongest country in the world. And believe it or not I don’t care who gets the credit for maintaining this type of society…whether they be democrat, republican, libertarian, independent, green, or whatever.
Sure, there are extremes on the left that would love to see all those things you mentioned…but, I dare say, there are VERY few. We all have the same dreams and fears for our families.
There are also extremes on the right that reveled in president Clinton’s personal woes.
I pray for president Bush often. I prayed for president Clinton often. Even if we didn’t vote for them, they are our leaders and need all the strength they can get.
Just because we criticize doesn’t mean we hate. It’s called a democratic society. Things are open to debate…although it is hard to debate a closed-minded person.
Posted by: Tom at February 22, 2005 09:59 PMBlaine,
What makes the Isreali people more valuble than people in other countries?
I have nothing against the Isreali people. The simple fact remains that most, if not all, of the aingst against us in the Middle East (and in other Islamic areas) is a direct result of our support for Isreal. That’s just a fact.
Our support of Isreal wasn’t labeled as “evil”. The statement was made that it has caused most of our problems in the Middle East. I’m not sure that can be debated.
No, we don’t hate everyone. Actually, I think we feel everyone should be treated equal. But what do I know.
That “love thy neighbor” thing….It didn’t say you got to pick priority over the neighbors.
Blaine,
“Personally, I believe that democracy will fail in Iraq due to ethnic divisions.”
You responded: “If that’s the case, then the United States should never have succeeded.”
The US at that time was relatively homogenous; European, mostly English, with some German and French. English as a language predominated, and Christianity predominated. Blacks, if you recall, were for the most part slaves, and Indians were not considered part of the political picture.
Bugcrazy,
“You just said we can’t trust any of the news we watch.”
Trust? I wouldn’t use that word. Just being aware of the bias, the frame. Do you ‘trust’ the news?
Leon,
“As far as Clinton goes, he was bad on foreign policy…”
On balance, I’d disagree. Returning to what I referred to earlier, the idea of using Yugoslavia as a model for Iraq.
If you’ll recall, Clinton overruled the Army (Wes Clark, and politicians like John McCain), and their demands to solve the Serbian problem by invading, putting ‘boots on the ground.’ Instead, Clinton relied on a bombing campaign targeting infrastructure. The Serbs said ‘uncle.’ The US accomplished its goals without a US combat casualty, and did that in a hellaciously difficult, complex political situation. And although we’re still in Kosovo, it’s relatively tame; other republics have been very successful, especially Croatia and Slovenia.
Compare this to the foreign policy decisions surrounding the invasion of Iraq. Again, if you’ll recall, Saddam Hussein offered to go into exile just before ‘shock and awe.’ US foreign policy goals might have been accomplished without an invasion. Partition along a Yugoslavian model might have worked. Consider how many lives that could have saved… woulda… coulda… shoulda… Obviously, it’s hypothetical, we’ll never know.
The situation can still be salvaged with a partition. It carries its own complications, but those seem preferable to a pipe dream, to imagining the Sunnis will ever submit to Shia rule.
Posted by: phx8 at February 22, 2005 10:10 PMTom:
My children are grown & have families of their own. I also pray that this country remains strong, but I fear a house divided will not stand.
I have seen many men take the oath of office of the President of the United States. Most of them were relatively young looking when they took office & very old looking when they left. I believe the president hears & knows things that would cause most of us to have heart attacks if we knew. We have all heard the old saying about, “Monday morning quarterbacking”. It’s easy to criticize when you don’t know all the information. I believe we elect congressmen, senators, & even presidents and trust them to do the job. They have access to a lot more intelligence than we do. I remember a time when the congress had heated debates but the senate was different. There was cordiality among senators, a politeness even during debate. That has all changed. The opposition senators speak as vile as the talking heads on TV. I believe that personality has rubbed off on the citizens of this country. It seems there is no limit to the viscous attacks & venom that comes from people’s mouths. You are right, we are all Americans. When I was growing up I fought with my brother all the time, but when someone else picked on him, I protected him. When the rest of the world says hateful things about our president, we should have the patriotism to stand up and say “that’s my president you are talking about”.
phx8:
We may not have been a mix of different religions of ethnic backgrounds in the beginning, but we are now. Our forefathers came to this country leaving behind religious persecution & tyranny & their desire was to establish a nation where all men would be free. We have had a rocky road, some things we can be proud of & some we can’t. But that doesn’t change the fact that whether it be Saturday or Sunday, we can meet in our respective houses of worship and know that we are safe to worship as we want. What a great land in which we live.
Tom:
I personally believe there will never be peace in the Middle East. The Jews and the Arabs are both descendants of Abraham & both believe they have the right to the land of Israel. There is a blood hatred between these people & it has been that way since our ancestors were living in mud huts in Europe. But, Israel is special, to God and to us.
In the Old Testament God chose his people. In the new testament his people denied him. That doesn’t make them bad…it was a prophesy fulfilled…but it doesn’t mean God loves them more than anyone else. Christ brought Christianity to the Jew and the Gentile.
Let’s let God decide what to do with Isreal. Not that we should abandon them…but we shouldn’t hold them in more regard than the Africans, the Arabs, or the Orientals.
Our relationship with Isreal is still what causes the hatred toward us from the Islamic world. This is the point Leon was making and a point I don’t think you disagree with.
Regarding peace in the Middle East…does this mean we shouldn’t try for a peaceful middle east? It may never happen but it will DEFINATELY not happen if we don’t try. Especially if we continue to throw our support so blindly behind one nation above MANY others. I’m not saying abondon Isreal. However, spreading our wealth among other nations would be a great olive branch.
Posted by: Tom at February 22, 2005 11:07 PM“When the rest of the world says hateful things about our president, we should have the patriotism to stand up and say “that’s my president you are talking about”.”
Blaine,
I am just a few years younger than you. I protested the “Police action” in Vietnam. That doesn’t mean that I didn’t support you as part of the military, it just means that I was against the decisions that made it nescessary for the military to be there.
In much the same way I was against our involvement in going into Iraq.
However this time my feelings were a little different. Once we were there, I wondered why we didn’t take the time do the job right. I am still against us being there. I wish that the Iraqi’s would have stood up to Saddam, it would have made securing the country infinitely easier. But we, America, had already screwed the Iraqi’s once before, after Desert Storm, and I suppose I can understand their reticence to stand up for themselves, when they couldn’t be sure what we would do.
This is an experiment that must succeed or America will look like the biggest bunch of morons that ever walked the face of the earth.
A lot of the decisions that have been made by Mr. Bush don’t make any sense. I have to blame him, because, as a manager, that’s his job, and he doesn’t seem to want to take any responsibility for it. It seems that the “buck” doesn’t even slow down here, when it comes to George Bush.
Posted by: Rocky at February 22, 2005 11:08 PMApologies, AP, for wandering further from the thread…
There was a very, very big story today which should be the headline in the mornings paper…
http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/22/markets/bondcenter/bonds/index.htm
The South Koreans are suggesting they’ll invest in Euros instead of the Dollar. Japan and China could follow suit. Between the falling dollar, rising interest rates, and inflation, long-term US Treasuries are simply not an attractive investment for a foreign country.
This is a huge problem. I cannot understate it. David has posted repeatedly on the problems with the annual deficit, trade deficit, and total deficit, but right at the moment no threads are open on it. I won’t go into the details… again, sorry AP… but a very large red flag was just waved… And the only way to keep the foreigners investing in our debt is to pay higher interest rates.
Here’s a novel thought-
We might have to walk away from Iraq for a reason no one imagined. We may have to walk away because we simply cannot afford it.
Posted by: phx8 at February 22, 2005 11:16 PMFYI. About 60% of the Military voted for Bush last Election. Right now they are desperate for Recruits. Republicans should do their Patriotic Duty and Support Dear Leader. ENLIST. I am sure there are many people out there who needs Extraordinary Rendition. Go and Help!!!
Posted by: Aldous at February 22, 2005 11:24 PMI believe the left hopes the US will never succeed in Iraq. Just like I believe they would like to see our economy tank, interest rates skyrocket, the price of gas go to $10.00 a gallon… Then they could gloat & say “told you so”. Isn?t that happening already?
Blaine, nobody wants that. The fact that the country is headed in that direction is what has Democrats up in arms. From our standpoint, we left Bush with a great economy and lots of friends around the world, only to watch him trash everything on an ideological binge.
This is an experiment that must succeed or America will look like the biggest bunch of morons that ever walked the face of the earth.
Rocky, I wish I’d put it that way. We all wanted Iraq to be a shining model of representative liberal democracy, but President Bush made far too many bad decisions - the most basic being the inability or unwillingness to secure Iraq. Nations and governments are built in security, not in the middle of an insurgency. Even the US waited until the Revolution was over to write a constitution and elect a president.
Here’s some positive: Iraqis will eventually be better off than they were under Saddam Hussein.
Here’s some negative: They won’t be particularly grateful to the United States. Oh, and Iraqi women will be worse off than they were in Saddam’s secular society.
phx8, I think you’re correct that Iraq will fragment. In the short-term, Shiites will trade Kurdish autonomy for a free hand dealing with the Sunnis in the rest of the country. That’s a no-brainer. Long term may see an independent Kurdistan.
As for American involvement, I think we’re done as an influence in Iraqi politics. Our only role now is to ironically provide security for our fledgling anti-American Islamist state while we train our future adversaries. Kind of a hoot, huh?
phx8,
No. Not completely. That is why I will watch more than one channel, listen to NPR, and catch some of the opinion shows both on radio and TV. Somewhere in all that mess lies the truth * maybe.
Posted by: bugcrazy at February 23, 2005 06:54 AMAP:
“Our only role now is to ironically provide security for our fledgling anti-American Islamist state while we train our future adversaries. Kind of a hoot, huh?”
Yeah, in a gallows-humor sense.
That’s why I couldn’t help but add that last book recommendation to MW, because no matter what kind of society the Iraqi people end up with, it can only be viewed as a Pyrrhic Victory for us, seeing as we’re to pay such a high price for it - in the lives of our troops, economically, culturally, politically, and in a future of wars yet to come.
Rocky: I assume then that you were not part of the bunch that spit on us when we walked through air terminals while in uniform. How do you support the troops & not support the Commander in Chief?
What kind of message is sent to the troops by the rhetoric back home?
Posted by: Blaine at February 23, 2005 10:58 AMBlaine,
That incedent only happened once, and I was not there, I was in California. I didn’t agree with that.
Those that serve in the Armed Forces, serve at the whim of the politicians in Washington. You guys do a job that many don’t want to do. I had placed myself available to be drafted, but my number wasn’t picked that year.
As for supporting the President. I have supported Republican Presidents in the past. I voted for Reagan’s second term (I don’t know what came over me). George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan. Hell, George W. Bush isn’t even his father. I don’t support him for many reasons. Most of them having to do with the bunker mentality he and his followers represent.
You know as well as I that discent is an important part of the American heritage, this is where we came from. To be called treasonous, or unpatriotic, or UnAmerican, because I speak up when I see something that is so obviously wrong is bullshit. I do not agree with what this President and many of his followers stand for, much of which I find abhorent. We, in this country, are giving away our liberties without even questioning why.
I support my country, I fear my government.
That was very well said, Rocky.
My thoughts closely mirror yours (though I didn’t, and would never have voted for Reagan! :^).
I have an older cousin who also protested the Vietnam War, but he did so after being drafted, fighting, and having half his arm blown off.
There are many times on this blog that I wish his voice could be heard alongside of the opinions of others who protested that war as you did, or those like David Remer who were in the military during the same era - people whose opinions stand in sharp contrast to those of many rightwing military vets. But to my dismay, the man can’t be convinced that forums like this one are an important new way for American’s to communicate.
As a note: everyone should check their spelling before they post (especially you, Blaine). Nothing will sink your argument faster than attempting to make a point and misspelling key words!
Posted by: brico at February 23, 2005 03:41 PMThe left, liberals, democrats, those that don’t hold the right republican viewpoint clasped tightly in their hands…I’m sure they don’t want Iraq to wind up in turmoil, or for the people there to feel like things were worse than they were 10 years ago.
I think the left’s concern is, we have already failed. Iraq may become a free, secure state with no more uncontrolled differences than Northern and Southern California. It may not be a democracy in the end, or it might be. But if the people there can walk down any street in the daylight without fear of kidnapping, bombing, shooting, then perhaps there was some success.
The failure lies in America’s role in the world. Some say the U.S. and the U.N. were the world’s police - Earth has gotten pretty small and now that we can look out for the little guy (say, Kuwait for example), we do. But with our shunning of the U.N.’s example of moderation, our attack on a sovereign nation, and our administration’s confrontational stance on foreign policy with growing countries (Why does everything have to be a thinly veiled threat? Why not an incentive program or an alliance?), we are lessening America’s ability to lead.
“Lead by example” is a tried method of success. Imagine if the rest of the world was following our example.
Posted by: Thomas R at February 23, 2005 05:50 PMAdrienne
Thanks for the reference material. Not exactly what I asked for, but a good proxy. Maybe someone with more time and intelligence than I have to spare could take those and other references and construct a careful analysis. Some day I’ll retire and take a whack at such quixotic quests. Until then, I depend upon the beneficence of better read compatriots like you.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at February 23, 2005 05:54 PMGive it up Blaine
Respecting your President and loving your country isn’t allowed here.
I think it is pretty well known that the left is hoping for failure in Iraq because it isn’t their war. Now take Bosnia, there is a war for you because that was a liberal war.
Pretty sad.
KCtim,
Love of country is unconditional. Respect for an office is given. Respect for a person is earned.
Craig,
Yes, there was something called ‘The Powell Doctrine,’ remember? It involved the the public being behind a war, and an exit strategy. Remember those protests before the invasion of Iraq, some of the biggest this country has ever seen? Ugh. I don’t want to go back over it.
On another note, I think we’re looking at a two-recession president. Still confident about the economy?
Posted by: phx8 at February 23, 2005 06:45 PMAlways remember that Iraq is a Republican War. BushCo will try to spread the feces around but don’t let them!!! Iraq is a Conservative operation only!!!
Posted by: Aldous at February 23, 2005 07:32 PMAldous,
As much as my gut tells me to agree with you (I definately opposed the invasion of Iraq), my heart tells me that it is now OUR war. I’m a left-leaning moderate, but I’m telling you, we MUST succeed now. Now that American blood has spilled, now that our children will be paying for this for years to come, now that we are in debt over our heads….yes, we must prevail!
The far right started the war….now, we are in it together.
As far as you far right people go…don’t stereo-type the left! The problem with most of us “left-leaning” (that’s moderate for you single minded right and left wingers)…anyway, as far as the moderate crowd goes…we’re tired of both sides! I’m particularly tired of the right calling anyone who disagrees with their whole agenda, “anti-patriotic” and “fascist”.
Clinton didn’t want to ruin a country that his daughter and grand-children will grow up in. Dor that matter, neither does Bush!
I only wish Bush would have approached this invasion of Iraq as if his daughters were going to be “front-line”. I’ve got relatives there now. It seems to me that the folks that are on the “front line” are the least likely to benefit from the Bush tax cuts. Did we all benefit? Sure, I could have went out and spent my tax cut on a large-ticket item…like a micro-wave. yipee!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Tom at February 23, 2005 09:03 PMBrico said, “As a note: everyone should check their spelling before they post (especially you, Blaine). Nothing will sink your argument faster than attempting to make a point and misspelling key words!”
I checked my postings and found a typo. Perhaps you could enlighten me? Of course, I’m just a dummy from fly-over country. I used to not be able to spell republican & now I are one!
The left likes to bring up Vietnam a lot. It was a democrat (Kennedy) who sent military advisors in & a democrat (Johnson) who started sending troops. It was also a very controversial war, more than this one. But try as I might, I can’t remember the anyone calling Kennedy or Johnson war mongers. I never heard the vietnam war refered to as Kennedy’s or Johnson’s war. I never even heard it called the democrat’s war.
Posted by: Blaine at February 23, 2005 10:04 PMExcellent article, American Pundit.
I don’t want another $80B to be going to Iraq.
Want that $80B to be spent here in the U.S. (Applying Use of Reason, not ultraliberal style either). Want to see the taxes on the wealthiest returned to previous amount. (Also, want to see govt. benefits means-tested and govt. costs sliced at all levels of government, including education, govt. employees salaries, etc. and non-citizens off all govt. benefits usage.) Strongly think that citizens of all ages need to make some sacrifices not only for our troops but to turn this ship around.
No, some should not have to put his/her life on the line for spoiled yuppies & their spoiled offspring guppies( gorging on foreign made goods & partying, planning their fun, fun, fun activities)
Blaine,
Differnent time…differnent place in history!
Hard as you try…it won’t change the fact that the right wing got us into this mess….and a mess, it is…and now, we are ALL in it together.
Many that post here weren’t even born during the Kennedy or Johnson administrations. Even if they were…times were much different with the cold war and communism.
Anyway, Keep being far right and watching FOX and believing EVERYTHING the far right says. After all, if your moderate or left you are a spawn from hell and shouldn’t be allowed to voice your oppinion.
Posted by: Tom at February 23, 2005 10:15 PMTom
I don’t believe the left are “spawn from hell”. I believe they don’t think or perhaps don’t have common sense. It takes a lifetime to gain a lifetime of knowledge. I was there when they were drafting men for vietnam & even as a young man I knew the ones running to Canada were not running in protest of the war. They ran because they were scared & they used the excuse of an unjust war. How do I know they were scared? Because I was scared too. There were a lot of things that bothered me about vietnam. If the military had been allowed to do their job, but they weren’t. It was a politician’s war. The shots were called from Washington.
There are a lot of people who post here & I believe some are like I was when I was a kid. My dad would say, “your just talking to hear yourself speak”. If there are so many people on this blog who know the secrets of this world, the messages that pass over the president’s desk or are read by the CIA or FBI, then why arn’t they in Washington? I’m sure we could use a few more intelligent people in Washington to spend our taxes.
Unlike vietnam (I know it was another place & another time), this war is conducted by the military. That is why it is a success. For whatever reason we went & I believe Sadam was or would be a threat to us, it is still a success.
Posted by: Blaine at February 23, 2005 10:43 PMBlaine:
I agree completely!!! We should send another $80,000,000,000 to Iran as a follow-up!!!
By the way, I really liked watching Bush beg the Europeans for help in Iraq even if we don’t need it. I say we should go it alone and bring it on!!! Let us spend whatever is neccessary in Iraq. Halliburton will get it all anyway.
Posted by: Aldous at February 23, 2005 11:04 PMBlaine…Blaine,
Maybe I’m talking to hear myself speak or maybe the right wing is…
Either way, I think you said something like this:
“There are a lot of people who post here & I believe some are like I was when I was a kid. My dad would say, “your just talking to hear yourself speak”. If there are so many people on this blog who know the secrets of this world, the messages that pass over the president’s desk or are read by the CIA or FBI, then why arn’t they in Washington? I’m sure we could use a few more intelligent people in Washington to spend our taxes.”
Some of those secerets that cross the president’s desk involve WMD in Iraq. Maybe the folks in Washington aren’t so SMART after all?
WMD was the reason we invaded…remember, the imenent threat……wait, no! It was to stop Sadaam from hurting his people (forget Sudan… forget North Korea…they don’t have oil…and they aren’t in a strategic location…let them do as they please to their people). But I digress; It wasn’t WMD…it wasn’t getting rid of Saddam…it was…it was…oh yeah, it was all about democracy. That’s the new “spin”.
Don’t get me wrong! I do want things to work out with Iraq. I simply hate being deceived. You must admit that the reason we went into Iraq was, per the President, due to WMD and an imenent threat. Now, I may be wrong but I think most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudia Arabia. I also think most of the visible terrorist training was in Afghanistan.
Sadaam didn’t deserve to be in power. But, what gives us the authority to invade a sovereign nation on the grounds of “pre-emptive” strike when in hind-sight there was no threat?
We had better grounds invading our “now bed buddy” Pakistan or Saudia Arabia or Iran (you know the guys that proabably are developing nuclear weapons…the ones we can’t do anything about because we have the majority of our troops tied up in Iraq…not to mention most of our money). Sure, the president knows things we don’t know. Does that make him right all of the time? Did it make Vietnam right?
Faith in our leaders is something we must have. Our leaders getting respect from us must be earned. Lying is not a way to get it! If we wanted a good Middle East base for the war on terror…Fine…I’m a big boy…just level with me. If we wanted oil…fine, phrase it in a politically correct way and I’ll take it for what it’s worth. BUT…Don’t lie to me!
I’m honestly not sure I would have supported the Iraq invasion had the truth been told…I would have respected our leadership more, though. I think, like most should, war should be the LAST resort. Approach war as if you are sending your own to the front line. If you can still justify the loss of your own….then it “might” be worth it.
Posted by: Tom at February 23, 2005 11:24 PMHey Mental Wimp, I just read a good, short essay/book review by the Senior Political Officer in the Office of the UnderSecretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations at the United Nations. It covers three books about the history of peacekeeping missions and the lessons learned.
If there are so many people on this blog who know the secrets of this world, the messages that pass over the president’s desk or are read by the CIA or FBI…
Blaine, nothing discussed here is a secret. We’re all really interested in our government, and we do a lot of research. We don’t make this stuff up. It’s all from public and private analyses, memoirs, biographies, source documents, and the news. And I mean the real news - the FOX News entertainment channel doesn’t count. ;)
I’m honestly not sure I would have supported the Iraq invasion had the truth been told…
Tom, the mantra of this administration is, the ends justify the means. Just look at how they deceived Congress to get their failure of a prescription drug plan passed - even threatening the Medicare actuaries if they told the truth about the cost.
Seriously, if the Bush administration had told the whole truth about Iraq, there wouldn’t have been any public support for a unilateral invasion.
I’m thinking of Tenet’s “Slam dunk!” WMD presentation described in Woodward’s book. Bush wasn’t even convinced.
“Nice try,” Bush said. “I don’t think this is quite - it’s not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from.”Card was also underwhelmed. The presentation was a flop…. Bush turned to Tenet. “I’ve been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we’ve got?”
From the end of one of the couches in the Oval Office, Tenet rose up, threw his arms in the air. “It’s a slam dunk case!” the DCI said.
Bush pressed. “George, how confident are you?”
…”Don’t worry, it’s a slam dunk!”
…The president later recalled that McLaughlin’s presentation “wouldn’t have stood the test of time.” But, said Bush, Tenet’s reassurance - “That was very important.”
“Needs a lot more work,” Bush told Card and Rice. “Let’s get some people who’ve actually put together a case for a jury.” He wanted some lawyers, prosecutors if need be. They were going to have to go public with something.
That’s a product launch meeting, not an intelligence assessment meeting.
Posted by: American Pundit at February 24, 2005 02:54 AMBlaine…You said, “This is my thinking & perhaps I?m wrong, but I believe the left hopes the US will never succeed in Iraq. Just like I believe they would like to see our economy tank, interest rates skyrocket, the price of gas go to $10.00 a gallon. I believe they would like to see terrible things happen to this country, because they hate President Bush that much. Then they could gloat & say ?told you so?.” You need to do a reality check as THOSE ARE NOT YOUR THOUGHTS OR BELIEFS!! THEY ARE THE THOUGHTS AND BELIEFS OF HANNITY, LIMBAUGH, AND ALL THE RIGHT-WINGNUTS THAT ARE BRAINWASHING PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF! I HAVEN’T HEARD AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT FROM A SINGLE ONE OF YOU FOR AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER! You need to stop watching corporate media/propaganda (like I did) and finally wake up to see what the underlying plan is! It will be as hard as when you found out Santa Claus wasn’t real, but you’ll get over it and hate them for lying to you for so long…and kick yourself for being so naive for believing them (Fox News, Bush, et al). Or maybe not, if you’re really stubborn.
Posted by: Carri at February 24, 2005 03:23 AMCarri,
Thanks for your post. You are correct. The media/propaganda that passes as “news” on the networks, particularly that of TeeVee, is largely responsible for the fog of obliviousnes that pervades the right these daze. And much of the left.
Unfortunately, the painful, unpleasant circumstances that you mention will certainly come to pass—-IF this country does not clean up its act, turn itself around, and start behaving honestly and ethically. It’s Karma. Our economy may tank, we may suffer a massive disease epidemic, we may have mass social unrest leading to a bloody civil war. Or all of the above.
Some of us are ready for that, and very sad to see it coming. Others are in total denial. This country is the schoolyard bully and sooner or later he is going to get knocked to his knees.
It will be painful, but on a much greater magnitude than learning that Santa Claus does not exist! Some of us are aware of the inevitability of all this, and it is beginning to look quite eerie—-like there is some underlying master plan for it all to happen, the strings for which are being pulled by persons or forces not immediately visible to all of us. I am NOT talking about anything Biblical here. That is nonsense.
Baghdad is under seige? Yeah. So is this country, in other ways. We are under assault by those who would prefer profit over ethics, “patriotism” over good citizenship, convenience and comfort over doing what is right.
Off the topic I know, but to all you Israel lovers out there, Israel is part of the problem, a BIG part of the problem. I for one wouldn’t mind one bit if that nasty little boil was erased from the planet.
Posted by: escobar at February 24, 2005 12:52 PMphx8:
On another note, I think we’re looking at a two-recession president. Still confident about the economy?
Yes I am. The fundamentals look great. Corporate America is awash in cash. Interest rates are still low, Inflation in under control, Housing starts are very strong, Job numbers are consistant, unemployement is low, the budget deficit is within historical norms. The dollar is also trading within historical norms. The fed is tightning (raising) interest rates which means the economy is accelerating and needs to be restrained.
I think the chances of a recession in the coming year are very small. The Fed agrees with me.
I also see no evidence that Democrats or Republicans are better at managing the economy. Statistically, it simply doesn’t matter which party is in office.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 24, 2005 01:57 PM“You need to stop watching corporate media/propaganda (like I did) and finally wake up to see what the underlying plan is!”
Hopefully you stopped watching it during the 90s. If you did, then I will agree with you when you say you “finally woke up.”
Posted by: kctim at February 24, 2005 06:01 PMCraig wrote:
Yes I am. The fundamentals look great. Corporate America is awash in cash. Interest rates are still low, Inflation in under control, Housing starts are very strong, Job numbers are consistant, unemployement is low, the budget deficit is within historical norms. The dollar is also trading within historical norms. The fed is tightning (raising) interest rates which means the economy is accelerating and needs to be restrained.
I think a very close read of AP’s newest Blue Column post should be required reading here! An overnight spike in oil prices sent the Dow into an 174 point, one day spiral and 133,000 new jobs in January was well below expectations, again failing to equal population growth, while the Unemployment rate does not reflect those who quit looking for work.
The Budget deficit is an abnormality considering the administration’s bookkeeping is being judged as sloppy, Rumsfeld arrogantly will not give any numbers on war costs (therefore off budget), who knows where the Drug Bill’s cost is going, add the cost of making the tax cuts permanent, a trillion or two for Social Security, and on and on…
I think the chances of a recession in the coming year are very small. The Fed agrees with me.
Greenspan gives a tepid, unsubstantiated endorsement of Social Security private accounts, then says they won’t save it. Paul Krugman called him a ‘partisan hack’.
He agrees with me.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 24, 2005 06:31 PMCraig said:
I think the chances of a recession in the coming year are very small. The Fed agrees with me.
Bert said:
Greenspan gives a tepid, unsubstantiated endorsement of Social Security private accounts, then says they won’t save it. Paul Krugman called him a ‘partisan hack’.
He agrees with me..
The fed raises interest rates when it is worried about an overheated economy that leads to inflation. If the fed were worried about a recession rates would be heading down or at the minimum staying where they are.
As for Mr. Greenspan, he has served presidents of both parties very well. He did a great job during the Clinton years. The democratic party owes Mr. Greenspan a large debt for his service in the nineties. Only a political hack would try to diminish Mr. Greenspan’s service to our country. It’s that old if you disagree with me, your motives must be not as pure as mine thing. I think you are trying to diminish Mr. Greenspan because it fits your current political needs. I doubt there was much criticism of him from the left during the late nineties as the lefts political needs were different then.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 24, 2005 07:15 PMCraig,
I’d agree that the chances of a recession within a year are low. However, I’d suggest the chances of one within the next four years are very high.
Corporations are doing very well. Agreement there, too.
Inflation is another story. Increases in oil prices take time to pass through the economy. Those increases fuel inflation, so to speak.
Will interest rates rise slowly? With deficits and a falling dollar making the US an unattractive investment for other countries, and inflation gathering steam, the Fed will have little choice but to raise rates faster than Greenspan would like.
Job numbers are consistent, you’re right- consistently low. In the fifth year of the Bush administration we’ve just added our first 100,000 non-farm payroll jobs; this, while the US population has grown by over 11 million. Personally, I blame outsourcing, but that’s another topic.
Unemployment is low, but I’m sure you understand that number. The percentage of the Labor Pool employed is the lowest since 1988. Frankly, I don’t understand how that many people could be unemployed, or parcipating in an off-the-books, black market.
It’s not really a Dem/Republican thing. Bonds rule the world. Bonds are boring, bond money is dull and conservative, and bond people like safety. They dislike uncertainty, inflation, and rising interest rates. They dislike hedging falling currencies.
Well, this should probably be under the newest thread. We can come back to it…
Posted by: phx8 at February 24, 2005 07:57 PMGreenspan’s in an interesting position. People are going to read whatever they want into every twitch makes makes. Personally, I think he’s done a pretty good job - and while he did endorse tax cuts (a surplus is also a problem), he never said he endorsed Bush’s tax cut plan.
phx8, don’t worry about going off topic. I think Iraq is (or should be) about done as a foreign policy topic. We toppled Saddam and the Iraqis want an Islamist government.
Bush might as well have pulled us out in the summer of 2003 for all the half-assed work he did. The result would have been the same.
Posted by: American Pundit at February 25, 2005 07:15 AMphx8:
I’d suggest the chances of one within the next four years are very high.
Since we are in the fourth year of recovery, four more years would be great. Recessions are very normal, That would make this expansion inline with the expansion from the Reagan and Clinton years in terms of length. I am less optimistic, although the previous recession was one of the briefest and shallowest on record, I think we could see something in 07 or 08. I would love it to be 09 as you suggest.
Craig
Only a political hack would try to diminish Mr. Greenspan’s service to our country. It’s that old if you disagree with me, your motives must be not as pure as mine thing.
If you go back and look at my exact comments Craig, you’ll find my criticism of Greenspan (as well as Krugman’s column) are based solely on his disingenuous endorsement of Bush’s private accounts scam. Therefore, having no qualms (let alone a discerning opinion) about his performance previous to this incident, am I absolved of the partisan hackery label?
Prior to this incident, my estimation of the Fed chair always fit his persona of a non-partisan, wise and beyond capable public servant entrusted with making decisions based solely on sound financial acumen. I would venture, you’d be hard press to find any such harsh condemnations from Paul Krugman either, before this point.
Yet, every time I listen to Greenspan’s wife NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell, I further doubt his impartiality. Granted, I have no hard evidence to suggest that Mitchell’s more than obvious partisan ideology as another administration apologist is shared by her influential spouse, my suspicions continue to mount.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 26, 2005 06:14 AMBert:
Greenspan has served well in his position. There may be some very sound fiscal reasons for supporting private accounts, such as improving the return on investment to eliminate unfunded future liabilities.
The above does not mean someone backs any private account proposal. I believe Mr. Greenspan was for a well thought out, go slow approach. I would support such an approach myself, under the guise of borrow some now instead of borrow a great deal later. It does not make any sense to me to invest soooo much of our nations capital into such low returning investments. Am I a hack??
CH
CH
Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 26, 2005 11:01 PM
