Don’t Blame Bush (or Clinton) but Watch Those Dems

Bill Clinton is all over the airwaves and youtube angrily explaining why he did not get bin Laden. He made a passionate argument that he tried to get bin Laden but during the eight years of his presidency he couldn’t. I believe him. It is hard. Democrats should remember this when criticizing George Bush.

I do not think it is fair to criticize President Clinton for not anticipating 9/11 or not catching bin Laden. Nevertheless, I am glad that it is again on the table. Dem have it too easy. It is always easier to demand a plan than to come up with your own and it is always easier to say what others should have done than to figure out what you should do next. In life (and politics) we have to make choices among flawed alternatives. Dems have been able to compare their omniscient imaginary candidates against the Republican flesh and blood version. When we compare a real world Democratic performance against a real world Republican performance we get a better idea of real world alternatives.

After more than ten years out of power we have forgotten how bad the Dems performed. 1994 - that is when the Republicans took the house. Think back. The Dems brag about the economy in 1999 when Dems had NOT controlled the congress for five years. The landmark welfare reform didn't happen before 1994 and was impossible in a Dem congress. In fact, nothing much happened when the Dems sat in the driver's seat. What would happen if Dems came back? They promise great things. But remember that Pelosi, Rangel, Conyers and many others were there in 1994. What did they do when they had the chance?

Electing Dems again would be the triumph of hope over experience. On the plus side they would no longer be able to blame Republicans for everything. The way our system works, a party with a small majority in the House does not control events but catches all the blame. For example, Dems blocked Social Security reform and blamed Republicans for not passing Social Security reform. If Dems win a narrow victory in November they will no longer be able to shift their share of the blame.

Some pundits say that neither party really wants to win the House. By this Machiavellian calculation they prefer to leave the other side a narrow majority to provide a target for criticism and improve their chances for a sweep in 2008. I don't know if that is good strategy.

A Dem victory would make my blogging a more fun. People like Pelosi, Conyers or Waxman provide endless foibles for me to ridicule. But I fear they would do real damage. Left wing Dems would call the shots and their existential passion is to hate the President. Producing positive outcomes that might also help him is not among their priorities.

My opinion will not determine the outcome of the elections, but I am not even sure what my hypothetical best case would be. As a partisan, I can see the benefits of bearing a short term pain of losing an election in return for a better position for 2008. The question is how much damage can the Dems do in the next two years?

In 1994 the Republicans produced a platform, a contract with America that went significantly into specifics. Can someone remind me of something concrete the Dems promise (besides raise taxes)?

Posted by Jack at September 26, 2006 4:09 PM
Comments
Comment #184075

ROFLMAO! Although I’m a bit dizzy from all the spin, it was a fun read. And I thought Vaudeville was dead.

Thanks

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 26, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #184076

The current crew in power provide easy targets, too, but I don’t get much pleasure out of it. The Dems are playing politics just as much as the Repubs, and, politically speaking, they don’t need to get terribly specific. I wish they would. Individual candidates do, of course. Regardless, the last six years have been disastrous, and I, for one, think that with control of Congress, the Presidency, and a conservative Court, that Republicans have blown their chance to do right by this country. Even many Republicans think the country would be best served right now by a split Congress.

Posted by: Trent at September 26, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #184080
For example, Dems blocked Social Security reform and blamed Republicans for not passing Social Security reform.

Excellent example. The Republican “Social Security Reform” raids the Social Security Trust Fund and tosses billions of dollars to Wall Street and encourages people to gamble their retirement money away (Wall Street always produces losers).

Add to Republicans’ nonsense that they claim we can’t afford to fully fund Social Security — yet they are able to come up with tax cuts for wealth Americans and a War in Iraq that, surprise surprise, is the same amount of money needed to fully fund Social Security.

The Democrats, on the other hand, going back to Clinton’s Presidency, recommended using the Federal Budget Surplus to extend the solvency of Social Security.

The Democrats blocked the Republican Social Security plan because it was not reform.

Posted by: bobo at September 26, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #184084

You can’t be for real. See your doc they have some really good meds these days.

Posted by: Jeff at September 26, 2006 5:13 PM
Comment #184088

Jack:

As always, you have pointed out a major flaw in people’s logic: It is always easier to throw objections at someone else’s strategy than to design your own strategy.

Did Clinton do enough to stop 9-11? Of course not. Did Bush do enough to stop 9-11? Of course not. 9-11 happened, which is proof that neither administration did enough to stop it. The real question, though, is whether either man could have done enough to stop it. And my answer to that is no.

Terrorism has been around for a long long time. It will be around forever because it works. It will be around forever because it is often the only way a weaker force can impress damage upon a stronger foe.

If Dems take back Congress, the argument about Reps being in total power will go away. But I stand here with a guarantee: the left will still blame Reps for everything. The facts will have changed, but the mindset will stay the same.

Jack, keep it up. You have a bright mind and you put things simply. Even so, some can’t keep up with you. Those of us who can see the wisdom in your words. Perhaps through virtual osmosis, others will learn to see it too.


Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 26, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #184094

I sorry…
The tax revenue has INCREASED since the tax cuts. This is a proven fact - check the economy numbers. Increased taxes stifles an economy - not improves it.
The only way that social security is going to make it, is to reduce taxes, get people buying things - which causes companies to make things, which requires workers to make things which reduces unemployment (people using the government). This in turn increases the dollars being put into the income tax base as well as into social security.
We need to get people off of the government handout programs and get them working. Only then can this economy work and social security survive.
I am not pointing fingers at Dems or Republicans … all I want is the right solution to the problem, no matter who gets it done.
The current politician is more worried how things look, rather than what is good for the country - or so it seems.
Write to your representatives and push them in the right direction. I still believe that this is a government by and for the people. If your representative does not do what you ask, replace him/her at the next election!

Posted by: Matt at September 26, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #184105


Are you kidding me!!! You really think there is a Social Security Trust fund!!

Posted by: LT at September 26, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #184110

Stop giving tax cuts to rich and we might have one. And doin’t forget about the the so called death tax more tax dollars for the rich.

Posted by: Jeff at September 26, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #184112

Do not blame bush or clinton for not getting Osama. Well I have to blame both for not getting Osama. Clinton tried but did not go far enough but he was accused of wagging the dog, when he tried. I feel that he could have done a lot more. Bush instead of sending in more troops in Afganistan to go after Osama, he instead gets us bogged down in the middle of another civl war and it is as bad as Nam.

But if you listened to Ann Coulter last night on Hannity and Clombs on Fox, clinton was to blame for 9/11 and not getting Osama. Osama was offered by Sudan to the US, but since he had not committed any crimes against the US, he said he could not take him, but tried to pressure Saudi’s into taking him. MMmm, So who is really to blame, let’s see Clinton (could have done more), Bush (not doing enough),Saudi’s (for looking out for one of their own).

Now on Social Security, if it was left alone the way it was originally setup, then a lot of the problems coming would not be problems. Congress and the President have to stop dipping into it, but at the same time, people have to stop thinking of SS as retirement. It was not made for people to live completely off of when they retired but to supplement what they had to give them a good standard of living. I will be getting SS before it goes down the drain I hope, but I also have 2 other retirement plans(from a previous job and current job) that will provide me with income so that I can live comfortable. This along with what my wife has in her’s.

Posted by: KT at September 26, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #184118

Jack, you lied or misrepresented the truth. Clinton was not “angrily explaining why he did not get bin Laden.”

He said point blank, “he tried and failed!” That is not an explanation of why. Nor, was Clinton enraged, redfaced, or out of control, as your adjectives would portray. Quite the contrary. He was amimatedly cool and composed in his rebuff of the implications posed by the questions. I suggest you watch it for yourself, and ask yourself if what you see is what right wing pundits tell you to see, a mad and enraged individual out of control, or an astute and rational man setting the record straight in no uncertain terms.

“He tried and failed.” I find such an honest admission refreshing compared to the man in the White House today. But, then, Clinton paid a huge price for lying to the public and appears to have learned from it. Bush has yet confront the full impact of having lied to the nation. But, he will.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2006 6:52 PM
Comment #184120
The Dems brag about the economy in 1999 when Dems had NOT controlled the congress for five years.

Republicans brag about the (allegedly) great economy during the Reagan years, but they had NOT controlled Congress for forty years.

Left wing Dems would call the shots and their existential passion is to hate the President.

Blah, blah, blah, blah…

For example, Dems blocked Social Security reform and blamed Republicans for not passing Social Security reform.

I don’t know if they so much blocked it so much as the Republicans ran away from it like scalded cats. And I’ve never heard a Democrat complain about this. That would be very odd.

Can someone remind me of something concrete the Dems promise (besides raise taxes)?

It’s out there, you just have to look.

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 26, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #184122

Here is the key portion of the interview:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/24/clinton-video/

Osama was not a recognized threat during all eight years of the Clinton presidency. The difference between Clinton and Bush is that he tried against an obstructionist Republican congress, FBI, and CIA, whereas Bush came in, ignored the problems, threats, and plans left by the Clinton administration, and has done little since to capture this guy. Bush is a monster failure.

Posted by: Max at September 26, 2006 7:03 PM
Comment #184128

The comparison of Bush and Clinton’s efforts to capture bin Laden is shakey. The result may be the same, but the effort certainly is not.

Bush has spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives to achieve the same result Clinton did with little expense. That is why people are harder on Bush. Hell, the man basically won a second term in office because people trusted him to get this one job done, and he has failed. Why are Republicans so bent on never holding him accountable?

Posted by: David S at September 26, 2006 7:27 PM
Comment #184137

David,

I think that Jack’s reference to President Clinton being angry came from the quote where the interviewer said, “you seem upset,” and President Clinton responded by saying, “I am upset” and then went on to explain why.

David S,

Right after Bin Laden took credit for 9/11, I remember discussing whether or not he would get caught. I didn’t think that he would ever get caught while most thought it was a matter of weeks or months. The man is a multi-millionaire in an area of the world where it is easy to get lost. I agree with your assessment that Bush won the election because people thought he would get him; however, I also agree with Jack’s that it is awfully hard to track down someone with resources who doesn’t want to be found.

Posted by: Rob at September 26, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #184138

Can someone remind me of something concrete the Dems promise (besides raise taxes)?
It’s out there, you just have to look.


Posted by: Woody Mena at September 26, 2006 06:57 PM

In other words, you really don’t know of anything concrete, but you’re sure it’s “out there”……somewhere…

Posted by: Duane-o at September 26, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #184139

Jack,

Here’s my 2 cents. As I’ve grown older, I’ve started to believe that gridlock is a good thing.

I used to identify more with republicans, but since W I’ve headed the other way. He’s such a bad manager and a bad leader with bad ideas, I’m hopeful that a Dem majority somewhere can keep him (and Dick “I’d do it exactly the same way” Cheney) from doing more damage.

Not for a second do I imagine that a Dem president with a Dem house and senate would be any better than what we’ve had since W took over. But I’m pretty sure it couldn’t be worse.

If the Dems win the house and/or senate, I look forward finally having some checks and balances again in our government. I want to see W held accountable for something. Seriously, the guy at a minumum is a f__k up, and is arguably a criminal (torture, spying, etc.) He talks about personal responsibility and holding people to account, but he’s been free from accountability for too long.

On another note, where does the credit go when things go well? According to you, it goes to the party that controls the House, right? Even though it’s the President who proposes the federal budget, you’re saying it is the legislature that gets the credit just because the approve the budget.

If that’s the case then you must give the Dems credit for ending the Cold War. Thank God the Democrats had the House during Reagan’s terms so they could build up the military like they did.

Oh, and to those who say tax cuts increase tax revenue. That is possible, but clearly if you cut taxes to zero ti will stop being true at some point. So, where is the inflection point? At exactly what tax rate do we maximize tax revenue? Until you can anwser that, you cannot claim that Bush’s tax cuts improved tax revenue.

I suspect that the real reason for the tax revenue increase (assuming that’s actually true, I haven’t seen a source yet) is from the economic stimulus from massive deficit spending. Think about it, if the US borrows like crazy and spends like a drunken sailor on tanks, bridges to nowhere, etc. you’re going to have a lot of companies (Halliburton, for example) with increasing revenues and therefore paying higher taxes. If you keep doing that, though, you’ll never catch your tail.

Posted by: Another Jeff at September 26, 2006 8:06 PM
Comment #184140

Jack

It sounds like your saying the same thing as David Limbaugh, that the Dems are ‘Bankrupt’. They have no ideas, no plan. Whether the issues are economic, security, international affairs or cultural they cannot be trusted. They are devoid of anything positive to move the country forward for the coming generations. They are obsessed with ‘Bush bashing’,derailing, and subverting anything he does or says, while being absolutely ‘bankrupt’ of any vision. Do they think that the people of this country are so ignorant as to be oblivious to this fact? In the arena of ideas they will lose. People are tired of hatred and politicizing of
every issue - including national security. And even though the Republicans have been far from perfect—-the stakes are too high to allow the liberal Dems to be in “control” of anything in our country at this point in time.

Posted by: linda at September 26, 2006 8:16 PM
Comment #184154

“But if you listened to Ann Coulter last night on Hannity and Clombs on Fox”
enough said.

Posted by: micky at September 26, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #184159
That “bridge to nowhere” went to an international airport that delivered thousands of people every day. The bridge replaced the ferry system that was previously used.
Are you serious? “International airport” means something completely different in a small Alaskan community not far from the Canadian border than it means in the lower 48. The airport in Ketchikan is tiny, as one would expect from the size of the town.

You make it sound so awful to wait for a ferry. This is a part of the world where a significant percentage of transportation is by ferry - it’s not a hindrance. In fact, the average time to go from the town to the airport would increase with the bridge because the bridge needed to go a significant way out of the way in order to be tall enough for cruise ships to pass under it.

So, millions of dollars to take people somewhere they could get to more quickly without the bridge? Sounds like a waste to me.

Also, there were actually two “bridges to nowhere”. The more expensive one proposed ($2 billion instead of $200 million) would have crossed the Cook Inlet from Anchorage to a tiny community miles away with practically no commercial value (and no international airport, either).

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 26, 2006 9:28 PM
Comment #184161

Matt,

The tax revenue has INCREASED since the tax cuts. This is a proven fact

Please provide proof, then. I’ve heard that business revenues have increased, but I’ve seen nothing for overall tax revenue or for individual revenue.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 26, 2006 9:32 PM
Comment #184165

The Dems have no real plan for the war on terror. What do they drool about when thinking about a possible House Majority? What are their big focus items? Nooooo, not Bin Laden. And heck, by the sounds of it they’ll do everything they can to reinstall Saddam and reincarnate his rape rooms sons. In their view, they were all no big deal! I guess the FRENCH, SAUDI, ISRAELI, and GERMAN intelligence analysis in 2001 that the Iraq WMD threat was significant was all Bush’s fault.

No, their big focus is hearings, law suits, and impeachment. Apparently they’re all very very upset that we haven’t had another 9/11 type tragedy.

*** THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE A SUICIDE PACT ***

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 26, 2006 9:44 PM
Comment #184172

Jack, If the dems can just get the Country past this neocon illness pushed by W and his administration then that is enough for me. Well maybe a bit of gridlock after a big helping of fiscal responsibility.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 26, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #184174

If one side has made an absolute mess of dealing with a problem in a Democracy, then it is only fair, only just, and only smart to let the other side have its chance. All this talk about potential screw-ups angers me when actual screw-ups are out there to be seen.

I have yet to be told why, in the factual sense, I should believe things are getting better. Oh, there’s plenty of emotional blackmail, plenty of evocation of this nation’s common tragedy as a goad to continue in Bush’s policy. Trouble is, from what I’ve seen, this policy will do little to improve things, so the horrors of the past don’t provide much encouragement for me to support Bush’s policies.

This is the kicker: they actually encourage my negative reaction. For me, there’s too much at stake to leave a faulty approach in place. It would be a sick, cruel joke not to oppose those in power who are screwing things up.

Contrary to Bush’s malicious allegation, we do care about facing down al-Qaeda, and we will give Bush the power to investigate and to interrogate our enemies, consistent with the principles and laws of our land! Bush or his successor must learn that this is cooperative effort, and that shutting out the opinions and the sentiments of the rest of the country is not doing his part or this country any good. No defenses will remain upright long if it doesn’t work in harmony with the nature of the society it protects.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 26, 2006 10:05 PM
Comment #184175

Stephen D. said: “It would be a sick, cruel joke not to oppose those in power who are screwing things up.”

Spoken like a true anti-incumbent voter! Bravo!

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #184178

Watch out everybody.The Democrats are about to be switftboated like they have never been before.By the time this is over nobody will ever know that the infallible Ronald Reagan ceded to Hizbollah after the Beirut bombings.I would like all rightwingers who are kicking Clinton for leaving Somalia to defend Reagan for this action.

Posted by: john doe at September 26, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #184179

Matt, The Comptroller of the U.S., a Bush appointee, has said flat out that the tax cuts did not replace the lost revenue with an equal amount of new revenue. Many others including the CBO have also made this fact plain.

Tax cuts stimulate the economy WHEN the economy is a slowing phase or recession. But, this Republican government’s own records show that the projected losses from tax cuts have not been fully replaced with increased economic activity revenues. Tax cuts are appropriate under many circumstances when economic activity is bogging down or halted, but, then so is government spending on public works projects which give out of work persons jobs through which they can pay taxes.

But, please don’t invent facts which your own government contradicts, including many a respected conservative Republican.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #184189

however, I also agree with Jack’s that it is awfully hard to track down someone with resources who doesn’t want to be found.
Posted by: Rob at September 26, 2006 08:01 PM

Rob, with all of the massive resources at the disposal of the US Government, military, technological, financial, personnel, how hard can it be to track the likes of Bin Laden in that part of the world? Hell, they screwed it up at Tora Bora by letting Bin Laden’s erstwhile allies go after him, when the world and his wife knew that these afghan tribals do deal with their enemies and friends all the time. They did this, when US military assets were on the ground. You talk of Bin Laden being wealthy as if his money would have been a great asset to him in evading capture in Afghanistan. I don’t see how you calculate that. This is a pretty barren country, in many ways very backward. The greatest protection Bin Laden had there, was not his money, but his religion or his political strategies or both, which bought him the allegiance of his supporters in Afghanistan. But against US and British listening capabilities, sattelite assets, remote targeting weapons, a whole array of assets to track and attack this over six foot tall arab who we all knew was in Afghanistan, his defences were I would think pretty poor. Piss poor even. But lets face it, Bush is the greatest Pres even. He is the most eloquent, the most intelligent, the most charming, the wisest, most infallible etc etc etc and whatever you’re having yourself, mums the word and bobs your uncle, say no more.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 26, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #184193

John Doe,

Actually most Republicans believe that leaving Beirut after the bombing was one of the biggest mistakes he made.

The problem we are having is that the dems won’t admit that Clinton ever did anything wrong.

Posted by: Keith at September 26, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #184195

Ken Strong-
You folks were wrong. Get over it, please. Bush gets the blame because he’s taken up space in the most important job in the world, failing to do what the people who he represents want him to do. Simple as that.

Tell me something: Who said they weren’t all that concerned about Bin Laden anymore?

Tell me something: What exactly did each intelligence service say, what were their conclusions, and was there great resistance in our ranks to those assertions?

The Right is giving up hope on America’s values, America’s people far too quickly, mistaking the weakness of their faith in those outside the party for the weakness of those people’s character. It’s failing to realize its own fallibility, and the strength of those who resist it. It’s so easy, isn’t it?

The choice that Democrats like myself advocate might carry greater risk, but it requires greater strength on ever level to carry though. The reward, too, is greater. There are some who want to prove that the freedom and justice Americans pride themselves in is but a deluded shell over the old barbarism and tyranny that prevailed in western society for so long.

Should we grant them their wish? Shall we demonstrate that America is not strong enough to live up to its ideals when the chips are down?

I believe America is strong enough to be be both free and secure. What’s your opinon on the matter?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 26, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #184200

Jack,
“I do not think it is fair to criticize President Clinton for not anticipating 9/11 or not catching bin Laden.”


It (certainly) is fair to criticize our elected leaders when they drop the ball. Clinton and Bush both did nothing in regards to terrorism, Bin Laden and 9/11; Clinton for 8 years and Bush for 8 months.


However, as bad as they were, the main people responsible for 9/11 are the terrorists. These fascist pigs have been waging war and preaching their hatred for the Jews and the rest of the “infidels” for generations; yet, no one will take them seriously. Heck, it’s post 9/11 and people are still trying to blame Bush; calling him a Nazis, blaming him for everything, all while ignoring the hateful leaders b/c they utter the same disdain and malevolence for Bush. That’s bull. How many 9/11’s do we need to get it through people’s heads?! This is just ridiculous!!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 26, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #184202

Keith-
Clinton not only admitted what he did wrong, he told the Commission to make the mistakes public. Democrats are fine with carrying some of the responsiblity for the disaster of 9/11. We’re not so proud to deny those facts.

We’ve got enough regrets to mull over, though, without somebody inventing them for us. The Bush administration wants to distract people from the now well known facts of its initial disinterest in the subject.

Instead of admitting your own parallel failure to prevent 9/11, as majority in the House and Senate and tenants of the White House, your folks have tried to make it out like you were the folks that knew the score first.

Nobody was prepared for 9/11, in the practical or psychological sense. The only question worth asking now is: “Are we prepared for their next attempt on our lives?” That is an issue other Americans will judge our leaders harshly by, should they fail. Nobody will be able to say now, “There was no warning of this”

9/11 was the warning, the wake up call. Do we heed it, or do we play games, hoping our complacency pays off with coincident avoidance of danger.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 26, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #184203

Stephen,

I’ll make a deal with you!

I’ll vote democratic this year if you can assure me that the Democratic party is headed towards recognizing the basic rights of the individual, not just concerning ‘search and seizure’ but all other rights that we should possess but have been taken away from us by the likes of the Dems in power during their druken reign of control during the latter half of the 20th century before they were booted out for the promise of a return to those values.

More simply put, have they learned their lessons yet? Because everything I see and hear tells me that they just think they didn’t go far enough violating our individual rights for the ‘common good’ and that once they get back in they’ll go even further than Heir Bush has his bunch have thought of going.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 26, 2006 10:54 PM
Comment #184205

David R Remer

“Matt, The Comptroller of the U.S., a Bush appointee, has said flat out that the tax cuts did not replace the lost revenue with an equal amount of new revenue. Many others including the CBO have also made this fact plain.”


David M. Walker became the seventh Comptroller General of the United States and began his 15-year term when he took his oath of office on November 9, 1998. As Comptroller General, Mr. Walker is the nation’s chief accountability officer and head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), a legislative branch agency founded in 1921. GAO’s mission is to help improve the performance and assure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. Over the years, GAO has earned a reputation for professional objective, fact-based, and nonpartisan reviews of government issues and operations.

I believe GW took office in 2001

Posted by: Keith at September 26, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #184207

Stephen

I would have thought the first WTC bombing would have been the wake up call.

Posted by: Keith at September 26, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #184209

Stephen,
“9/11 was the warning, the wake up call. Do we heed it, or do we play games, hoping our complacency pays off with coincident avoidance of danger.”


It is clear that the left (and a few on the right) have taken the “play games” route. They’ve decided that Bush is the enemy and he’s more dangerous than the terrorists. That’s absurd, as much as I couldn’t stand Clinton, I never considered him the enemy. Ever!!! I served under Clinton; he was (in my opinion) the worst Commander in Chief we’ve ever had, yet I respect our leader and routed for him. That’s certainly not happening here with Bush; some people have lost their (damn) minds over Bush.


Can’t you call out the people that are comparing Bush to our enemies and move on. Let’s win this war!!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 26, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #184215

9/11 was the wakeup call? How many do we need? From the Iran hostages, Beruit, Somolia, WTC1, Cole, Embassy Bombings, etc…

I think we have been hitting the snooze button for decades and through at least 4 presidents…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 26, 2006 11:16 PM
Comment #184230

Rah,

What rights did the dems take away from us exactly? Was that like the militia thing?

The dems were voted out because they had become corrupt and stopped representing their constituencies. Sounds like the current bunch of suspects.

Posted by: Loren at September 26, 2006 11:43 PM
Comment #184234

Jack,

How many plans would the dems have to put out before you said that they had a plan? You can look at the websites of any dem leader. Please do. Criticize them on this blog. Then we can have an intelligent discussion. Start reading the dems instead of what the gop say sabout the dems. I don’t believe you’ll change your mind, but at least hopefully you’ll stop this clichéd script.

Posted by: Loren at September 26, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #184236

I enjoy the way most Liberals and Democrats continue to blame Bush for anything and everything negative. When a Democrat is Questioned about a flaw in anything they do, the supporters are fit to be tied. Bush has been blamed for many things for 6 years. Clinton gets one question about his policy and he throws a tantrum and his fans have fits. The plan from the Democrat side is to impeach Bush, raise taxes and run from Terrorists, just like they did in the 90s. Nothing new there. Continue throwing blame at the Republicans, thats all you got.

Posted by: George at September 26, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #184237

Loren,

Rubbish.

I just went to www.dnc.org. You are familiar with the site I’m sure?

I selected ‘agenda’ and the first agenda item was ‘honest government’. Ooookay, so I looked at what they said there.

Our goal is to restore accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of government. To do so, we will create and enforce rules that demand the highest ethics from every public servant, sever unethical ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, and establish clear standards that prevent the trading of official business for gifts.

Great! Now, now that the warm fuzzies are out there, what does this mean? Where is the plan? can I read it somewhere? What specific items are they talking about? And I heard the same thing from them when THEY were in office during the time of the massive scandals that they were a party to so I am going to have to demand specifics here in order to evaluate the validity…

That’s what I think Jack was trying to point out, I hear a lot of rhetoric, very little substance, coming from the DNC. If you know of a group that better represents Democrats than the Democratic National Party… well, let’s see it!

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 26, 2006 11:55 PM
Comment #184240

Well whinehold

I went to gop.com, and found “spending restraint.” Ain’t that a kicker? If we keep the gop in power, we’ll be sure to get more of that…

And look at this list of agenda points. Looks like some highschool economy student’s first powerpoint presentation:
1. Line-Item Veto Authority. That’s rich. He controls both houses and needs line item veto.


2. Fiscal Discipline & Managing for Results. our govt is definitely debt free tanks to these policies.

3.Restraining Spending and Cutting the Deficit. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

4. The Long-Term Fiscal Danger. If the gop stays in.

5. Managing for Results. Making certain Halliburton continues to get results.

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #184243

BTW I said look at a candidate or someone currently in congress. If you can’t follow instructions I’ll have to lower your grade.

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 12:10 AM
Comment #184245

Oh, so you assumed I’m a republican and brought out your tailored retort designed to wound me because you were cutting rnc.org?

Sorry, you’ll have to do better.

And you’re right, I’m looking at the DNC for a representation of what a democrat stands for, silly me. I should go to Nancy Pelosi’s site instead! Of course, when I do that are you going to say I didn’t go to the right site…?

Surely you can point me in the right direction or even give me ONE single thing here so we could all avoid the trouble? No? Too busy writing your ‘anti-republican’ retorts?

*shrug*

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2006 12:17 AM
Comment #184247

Loren

Here’s Dennis Kucinich’s ten key points.

1. Universal Health Care
2. International Cooperation: US out of Iraq, UN in
3. Jobs and Withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO
4. Repeal of the “Patriot Act”
5. Guaranteed Quality Education, Pre-K Through College
6. Full Social Security Benefits at Age 65
7. Right-to-Choose, Privacy, and Civil Rights
8. Balance Between Workers and Corporations
9. Environmental Renewal and Clean Energy
10. Restored Rural Communities and Family Farms

You might like it. But if he were to get half of these 10 items, we all be working 4 jobs to pay for it.

Posted by: Keith at September 27, 2006 12:19 AM
Comment #184249

Jack and whiney

Everybody knows what the issues are. Everybody knows that there are thousands of possible solutions. Decent people can sit down and debate these solutions. I’m sorry, but other than whitewater and monika, the gop and dems worked pretty well together during Clinton’s term. I give both parties credit for that. GW is a divider. The GOP stifles debate and questions patriotism. Who wants to work with someone like that?

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 12:26 AM
Comment #184250

No, you went to one site and stopped. You wimped out. Don’t blame me

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 12:29 AM
Comment #184252

Loren,

The only divisiveness I see is from the Dems. when the dems say they want more bipartisanship this means vote with us.

I’m still waiting for one quote where someone in the administration called someone unpatriotic or unamerican. Also where is the stifling of debate. Turn on any channel, watch any news program and all you will see is dems talking about what they want and how bad the reps are doing.

Posted by: Keith at September 27, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #184253

Ah, such a great example.

You have restorted to namecalling, yet you are calling others dividers.

Democrats.com called for bush to be impeached, before he was even sworn in. He was never given a chance by the democrats of this country. Clinton was also hardly given a chance by the Republicans, you forget a whole host of things he was accused of; travelgate, chinagate, filegate, the years and years of investigation by Kenneth Star, etc, etc…

You have an odd idillic view of the past, one that is required to blame all of the division between the two parties that have existed for decades on one person who was elected just 6 years ago. The main reason that clinton was a decent president was that he didn’t have control of both houses for most of his time in office. I shudder at the thought of Hillary’s ‘universal healthcare’ program had been ramrod through congress like much of bush’s programs have been during the past 6 years.

The GOP stifles debate and questions patriotism.

And the LIBs stifle debate and questions the racist and selfishness of their opponents. Same coin, different side.

Thanks for playing.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2006 12:35 AM
Comment #184257

If we all had 4 jobs, GW could really brag about job growth.

You’re right Keith I might like some of them. Now which of these will break our banks? Just like Jack said at the beginning of this post, politicians have to make decisions. DK makes these priorities. He doesn’t expect to get all of them. But I see these and I think he actually cares about the real american people, not the imaginary ones GW always brings up.

Some of them might even save us money, like the UN taking over Iraq, or withdrawal from NAFTA. Most of them would just be the right thing to do. But we have to be realistic, and financially prudent. A balance in congress would achieve that.

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 12:40 AM
Comment #184258

You got whiney because you responded to me with rubbish. My arguments are garbage. Who’s resorting?

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 12:43 AM
Comment #184261

Loren,

I would suggest reading the Rules For Participation (the link is right next to the Post button) if you are going to stay with the namecalling in the future here at Watchblog.

As for your side-stepping the point that you are being devisive, I’ll accept that as an acceptance of my point being made.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2006 12:48 AM
Comment #184264
Same coin, different side

No, when you are in power politically and you stifle debate, you repress the voice of the people.

Keith, you just want me to come up with an example of being called unpatriotic or stifling debate so you can weasel out of it by rationalizing the comment. You can always do that. Like Falwell, sure he was just kidding. And Rove and Cheney have never equated dems with the terrorists. They weasel out of it, but those comments will stick in the minds of the avg FOX watcher.

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 12:50 AM
Comment #184265

Loren

That was the funniest of the 10 items. The UN cannot get a peacekeeping force into the Sudan to stop a genocide. They have had more bad press then our troops.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42088

Posted by: Keith at September 27, 2006 12:51 AM
Comment #184266

So please explain why rubbish isn’t being divisive?

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 12:52 AM
Comment #184268

Didn’t you hear McCain? If we get Bolton in the UN all will be fixed. They’ll certainly be able to fix everything with his tough leadership

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 12:54 AM
Comment #184269

Loren,

Like I said, same coin, different side. There was a history to the US before 2000 you know.

Starving old people and little children, trying to keep blacks from voting, living off the backs of poor people…

All of these ‘arguments’ the Dems used to keep power for decades. But it’s ok when they do it, but not the Repubs!

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2006 12:54 AM
Comment #184270

Loren

That was one of the worse non-answer answers I’ve ever seen. I want you to come up with a quote, because I know you can’t. The whole unpatriotic/stifling debate talking point is a phony argument. If someone on the right says You don’t agree with me, that’s calling someone unpatriotic?

Posted by: Keith at September 27, 2006 12:56 AM
Comment #184271
So please explain why rubbish isn’t being divisive?

If I posted rubbish, point it out and debate it. I would say that I didn’t and without even pointing out what it was you had a problem with it makes it impossible to debate it. Instead you resorted to namecalling. That is devisive. Having a difference of opinion is healthy. Mindless namecalling is not.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2006 12:57 AM
Comment #184272
The main reason that clinton was a decent president was that he didn’t have control of both houses for most of his time in office.

Great idea. Vote Democratic in 2006

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 12:57 AM
Comment #184273

Loren,

Rubbish.

I just went to www.dnc.org. You are familiar with the site I’m sure?

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 12:58 AM
Comment #184274

Actually, I’d rather the Democratic Party disappeared or at least returned to the true liberal principles that they use to represent until the past couple of decades.

Until then I’ll go with the party that actually does, the Libertarians.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2006 12:59 AM
Comment #184275

Are you familiar with that post?

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 1:00 AM
Comment #184276

So I’m waiting…

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 1:01 AM
Comment #184277

Oh Mr. Devisive?

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 1:03 AM
Comment #184278

Oh, I see the difficulty, we weren’t being clear on what we were arguing about. I was claiming that your argument was rubbish, I then went on to detail why. If you are offended at the term, I apologize.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2006 1:04 AM
Comment #184279

Loren,

We finally agree on something Bolton is the best thing that happened to the UN in years.

Posted by: Keith at September 27, 2006 1:07 AM
Comment #184281

BTW, there is a difference between

* labelling a statement as rubbish and then detailing that label with the reasons why and

* simply resorting to namecalling…

Do you not agree?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2006 1:11 AM
Comment #184283

apology accepted, Rhinehold.

BTW I went to the libertarian party website(thanks for the idea), and it proves my point above. Sensible decent people(like those who wrote the info on the site) know what the issues are, and know that there are many ways to correct them. Their list of issues and policies are very informative and I found myself agreeing with them on many. Many on the right use the same talking points, but use authoritarian means to solve them, or use them as distractions to make money for their buddies. Many on the left use the same talking points, and want to throw money at it, or are completely intolerant of compromise. Believe me, I would never vote for someone who I felt took either extreme. Most of the time for me, that has meant voting democratic.

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 1:18 AM
Comment #184285

not if you start with the word rubbish in my face

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 1:20 AM
Comment #184286

Loren

“Many on the right use the same talking points, but use authoritarian means to solve them, or use them as distractions to make money for their buddies.”

Just can’t help yourself can you?

I think if you actually look at it wit a open mind, you will find that the main differences between true conservatives and libertarians is drugs and isolation.

Posted by: Keith at September 27, 2006 1:23 AM
Comment #184287
If someone on the right says You don’t agree with me, that’s calling someone unpatriotic?

That sentence makes no sense

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 1:24 AM
Comment #184288

David

He looked angry to me. It may have been an act. Watch the film. Maybe we disagree.

Woody and another Jeff

I think presidents, congress and politicians in general get too much credit or blame for the economy. The reason I bring up the 1999 economy and congress is because it fits the specific case. This is a CONGRESSIONAL election. The president will remain constant, so that is not part of what we can change. When something happens, you need to look at what has changed. In Reagan’s case, we kept the Dem congress and the economy improved when we had the Republican president. To the extent the president controls the economy (see above) it makes sense to consider the change. In the case of the 1990s, the president stayed the same and the Congress became Republican. In that case THAT was the difference.

Linda

The left wing of the Dems is bankrupt. What NEW ideas have we heard from them? Moderate Dems have some good ideas. I wrote a post re the Hamilton project, for example. It is the lefties who hold the power right now, unfortunately.

Lawnboy
I wrote a postre revenues. They are at an all time high, from various sources.

Rahdigly

Of course we can criticize leaders. But we should put it in proper perspective. Before 9/11 nobody really thought such a thing would happen. Now everybody is looking for details where somebody said it would happen. You can find such things, but it is like saying Jules Verne invented space flight because he referred to it.

After something happens, it is easy to see why people SHOULD have seen it coming.

Stephen

The Dem mistake admitting is not very contrite. Clinton implies that he was ready to take firm action. Of course he did not. There are many people who brag about what they were or are going to do. We can measure only what they did.

Loren

Maybe you can help. In 1994, the Republicans published a set of objectives. All I hear from Dems is that they think they are better than Republicans and that they will raise taxes. Will they pull out of Iraq? When? Will they increase the size of the military? How? What will they change? Their general list includes things like make America safe, improve the economy etc. Good things, but not different or specific.

Keith

Thanks for the list. Some of the things sound good. If he knows how to get an EFFECTIIVE UN in Iraq, he might let us know. Renewable energy also good, but how? Other things are actually silly and you are right he has not figured out how to pay for these things or make them work. I suppose he would just tax the rich. Dems think that is a good idea (and it might be) but since the rich already pay almost all the taxes and we have record revenues today, I wonder how much bigger they want to government to get.

Posted by: Jack at September 27, 2006 1:32 AM
Comment #184289

Here you go Keith. Let the weaseling and rationalizations begin

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=10955

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 1:32 AM
Comment #184290

The dems aren’t going to raise my taxes, but then, I’m just a poor teacher.

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 1:34 AM
Comment #184291
I think if you actually look at it wit a open mind, you will find that the main differences between true conservatives and libertarians is drugs and isolation.

Actually, what you would find is a party of principle to individual liberty and small government not accepting the institutionalization of religion onto the individual lives of the citizens or interested in what individuals do in the privacy of their own homes.

More than drugs are issues of personal liberty that the republican party abandoned decades ago. Instead the Republican party has become a mouthpiece of the religious right and military establishment.

I’m a libertarian yet I supported both Afghanistan and Iraq. I don’t do drugs. How is that possible given your ‘characture’ of the party? The Republican party of the past 6 years has shown just as much of a disregard for ‘small government’ as the democrats. Instead of understanding that the federal government should be following it’s constitutiontal limits, the Republican party supports and passes legislation that takes it outside of those natural borders, just as they eschew Democrats for doing. only for the things that they feel are necessary. No principle needed here, just do what you want and claim moral superiority when attacked by your opponent.

No, there is much difference between the Libertarians and the Republican party, that you can’t recognize that is why many people are turning away from the party and why they will most likely lose control over the house in november.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2006 1:37 AM
Comment #184292
The dems aren’t going to raise my taxes, but then, I’m just a poor teacher.

Yes, actually, they will. That’s one thing they have been very specific on.

Posted by: rhinehold at September 27, 2006 1:39 AM
Comment #184293
He looked angry to me. It may have been an act. Watch the film. Maybe we disagree.

That’s the FOX news line and their sticking with it. You guys should get out more. The GOP doesn’t get angry, they bully(like GW with Matt Lauer) and snarl(like Cheney with Russert)

FOX has called Howard Dean angry, Hillary Clinton Angry, and now Bill Clinton angry. So being angry makes you unworthy of political office?

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 1:40 AM
Comment #184294

They’ve been pretty specific about capital gains and inheritence tax. Name another. BTW, since GW, I always have to pay AMT, so my taxes are higher, not lower.

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 1:43 AM
Comment #184295

Loren,

You’re link didn’t work to well, but I got there anyway.

When somebody says “Your tackets will help the terrorists” How is that calling someone unpatriotic.

During the 80’s and 90’s when all we heard from the left was that we wanted to starve babies and old people, that we are all racist and homophobes. We didn’t rant and rave about us being called unpatriotic or unamerican, we said they were lying and showed how.

Posted by: Keith at September 27, 2006 1:46 AM
Comment #184296

That’s why I support the fair tax, applying any tax on income is, IMO, evil.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2006 1:47 AM
Comment #184297

Loren

“FOX has called Howard Dean angry, Hillary Clinton Angry, and now Bill Clinton angry. So being angry makes you unworthy of political office?”

No. Lack of any self control does.

And I don’t think FOX called anybody anything.

Posted by: Keith at September 27, 2006 1:48 AM
Comment #184298

Loren

Get a new accountant

Posted by: Keith at September 27, 2006 1:49 AM
Comment #184299

Why?

Why is it such a hard concept that people shouldn’t have to subsidise a tax preparation industry just to keep from getting screwed by our own government?

Maybe our government shouldn’t be screwing us in the first place?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2006 1:52 AM
Comment #184301

And I don’t think FOX called anybody anything.

Selective memory loss? Or is it the Cheney stance: Ur um, I um haven’t read that report.

So GW’s policies are only good if you have the right accountant?

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 2:00 AM
Comment #184302

When somebody says “Your tackets will help the terrorists” How is that calling someone unpatriotic.

Read on, and continue weaseling for them

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 2:02 AM
Comment #184303
During the 80’s and 90’s when all we heard from the left was that we wanted to starve babies and old people, that we are all racist and homophobes.

I promise Keith in the 80’s and 90’s I never called you a homophobe or a racist.

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 2:04 AM
Comment #184304

Those were probably in response to the welfare queens, Reagans favorite little chestnut

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 2:06 AM
Comment #184313

Loren

Watch the clip re being angry. I don’t work for Fox. IT is just the body language I read. Do you feel he was not angry?

Re Welfare queens - the welfare reform 10 years ago got rid of most of them. That is why we talk about them no longer.

Posted by: Jack at September 27, 2006 4:28 AM
Comment #184319

Keith, thank you, BUT, Walker served at the pleasure of Bush until August of 2005. Ergo, he continued to be Bush’s appointee for 4 years. Like many of Bush’s appointees who spoke the truth to power, he was replaced last year. Anyone remember Colin Powell (questioned Bush’s cherry picking of intelligence) , Greenspan (said deficits and debt at these levels would wreck our future economy), or Tom Ridge, (who said our porous borders made Homeland Security impossible).

All replaced for speaking truth to power.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2006 5:16 AM
Comment #184321

C’mon, folks, this is what angry looks like.


Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2006 5:30 AM
Comment #184336

Jack,

Electing Dems again would be the triumph of hope over experience.

Hope vs Experience?
I take hope, without any hesitation.
What’s a life without hope!? Without hope there is no point in accumulating experience.

By this Machiavellian calculation they prefer to leave the other side a narrow majority to provide a target for criticism and improve their chances for a sweep in 2008. I don’t know if that is good strategy.

As a partisan, I can see the benefits of bearing a short term pain of losing an election in return for a better position for 2008. The question is how much damage can the Dems do in the next two years?

Bush raised damage bar very high during 5 years. Could the dems in just 2 years do better… hum, I mean worse? That’s indeed challenging.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 27, 2006 7:15 AM
Comment #184343

Jack,

I looked at the clip labeled “Part 2”. I’m not seeing anger. His words are very forceful, but he seems calm and collected. He even smiles a few times.

If there is a specific part where he is “angry”, let me know.

Ah, the glory of Youtube. Right-wing spin debunked.

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 27, 2006 7:33 AM
Comment #184344

The GOP reaction to this reminds me of what Harry Truman said,

I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.
Posted by: Woody Mena at September 27, 2006 7:40 AM
Comment #184347

Loren:

…..I’m just a poor teacher.

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 01:34 AM

After having perused your voluminous comments above, I’d have to agree with you.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 27, 2006 8:04 AM
Comment #184351

Woody & David Remer:

Clinton was angry. He says so. He said he was upset:

WALLACE: I just want to ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative, but what’s the source? I mean, you seem upset, and I…

CLINTON: I am upset because…

Let’s not delve into the semantics of whether “upset” equates to “angry”.

Woody, compare Clinton’s tone and body language in clip 1 and clip 2—you’ll see a marked difference. I don’t know if it was a calculated anger or genuine anger. Clinton sure seemed ready to take Wallace on very quickly.

It doesn’t matter to me whether Bill was mad or not. His point was that he tried but couldn’t accomplish his goal. Clinton was a lot of things—some good and some bad—but many people felt that he didn’t have the spine to take swift strong action. His administration began with his strong comments about ending the “gays in the military” issue. It continued with him backing away from it with the ‘don’t ask-don’t tell’ policy. Same thing with health care.

He tried a number of things that he didn’t accomplish. Some of that was due to obstruction from his political opponents. But the bottom line is that he failed in those areas.

He says in the interview that he doesn’t blame President Bush, but he also says that while he tried to solve the al Queda problem, Bush never even tried. Sounds like blame to me.

As I said very early in this thread, I don’t hold either President fully accountable for 9-11. I hold the terrorists who did it accountable.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 27, 2006 8:16 AM
Comment #184352

JBOD

Uh, let’s say the Democratic party spent a lot of money convincing the world that you were a terrorist and responsible for the attacks on 9/11, Joe. But, of course, you weren’t. Would you be upset?

Posted by: Mental Wimp at September 27, 2006 8:30 AM
Comment #184354
Lawnboy I wrote a post re revenues. They are at an all time high, from various sources.

According to your post, corporate income tax is up, as I acknowledged at 09:32 PM. However, you posted nothing to support the notion that Matt brings that overall tax revenue and individual tax revenue are up compared to pre-tax cut levels.

The only thing you have for those categories is that individual tax receipts increased from FY 2005 to FY 2006. Without a comparison to what receipts would be without the tax cuts, or to what they were before the tax cuts, the comparison is pretty useless.

Looking back at Matt’s original comment, he said “The tax revenue has INCREASED since the tax cuts”. I took that to mean that tax revenue is higher with the individual income tax cuts than it would be otherwise, and I have yet to see any evidence of that being true. If, instead, he simply meant that the current tax revenue is higher today than it was a year ago (independent of what it would be without tax cuts), then your post is relevant. But then I would consider Matt’s claim to be irrelevant.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 27, 2006 8:40 AM
Comment #184356

JBOD,

I think we need to delve into semantics just a little bit. The word “angry” (or for that matter, “upset”) can mean different things to different people. You can being angry/upset about an important moral issue and not shout at somebody or punch them out.

I didn’t see Clinton as losing control of his emotions. He was speaking very clearly and making a very cogent argument. The finger-wagging could be seen as a bit aggressive, but I didn’t read it as someone being of control.

I guess the bottom-line is, I saw someone who was intelligent, rational, and in control of their emotions. Anyone who claims he was boiling over with rage either has an overactive imagination or is simply spinning.

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 27, 2006 9:06 AM
Comment #184367

Mental Wimp:

I didn’t comment on whether Bill Clinton had the right to be upset…just that he was. I’m sure he sees his past as having taken, or as having attempted to take, the right steps. He sees that he didn’t succeed enough. My feeling is that Clinton did not live up to his abilities, in part because his selfish urges prevented him from doing so, and in part because he didn’t want to make some of the tougher decisions.

Nevertheless, I have no problem with him being upset….I just pointed out that he actually was upset, while others in here have denied that.

Woody:

I’d agree with you. I don’t think Clinton lost control. I do think he was bullying Wallace a bit with his mannerisms and all, but that’s part of the Clinton persona. Wagging his finger is as much a Clinton habit as is biting his lower lip.

I would say he was upset and mad, but not that he lost control. His supporters will like that he went on the attack while his detractors will say he lost control.

I don’t like how he went back to the mantra about the “right-wing conspiracy” thought process. That seemed to me a bit contrived. But he may truly feel its real, and he certainly does have his political enemies.

All in all, its a bit of a tempest in a teapot to me. His supporters will believe he did all he could do; his detractors will note what he did not accomplish. Is there really a story in that???

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 27, 2006 9:48 AM
Comment #184372

The tax revenue increase is another Myth and also a wrong-wing lie that is technically “not a lie”

Tax revenues AS COMPARED TO A CERTAIN TIME FRAME did indeed increase
Funny thing tho
The tax revenues that were used as the comparison were reduced from earlier levels
it is similar to a shop owner upping the price of an object, then putting a slash mark thru the higher price — writing in the lower price and then claiming to have “reduced prices”

Additionally — this boast of Tax revenue increase does not really address the question
The comparison should have been (but might be difficult to do) is to compare the current tax revenue levels with what they would have been without the tax cuts
Methinks that the current revenue levels would show that there is a net reduction in revenue as compared to what it would be without the Tax Cuts
However that is all moot point
The main concern should be two things
1) The deficit is at record levels and needs to be eliminated
2) and more importantly (and something that most people like to ignore)
THE NATIONAL DEBT IS A NATIONAL DISGRACE AND IS A HUGE DRAG ON THE ECONOMY AND ON THE NATIONAL BUDGET.
Consider that right now interest rates are relatively low, and yet the service on the debt absorbs a HUGE amount of money from the Budget (for which we have to BORROW even MORE just to PAY the Interest?? and this is fiscal responsiblity????)
What is going to happen to our Budget, the Economy et al when interest rates rise and the service on the debt starts going thru the roof??? Especially since THIS PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED congress has pumped up the debt to stratospheric levels????

EVEN IF (BIG IF) the tax revenues have “increased” — By ANy MEASURE — who cares??????????????
We are STILL running a HUGE DEFICIT that is ADDING TO THE HUMONGOUS DEBT that will be catastrophic should something happen to make interest rates rise.
THIS IS A BIGGER TIME BOMB THAN ANYTHING ANY TERRORIST COULD SMUGGLE ACROSS OUR POUROUS BORDERS OR BRING IN AN UNINSPECTED CONTAINER AND THE “FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE” WRONG-WINGERS ARE RIGHT THERE LIGHTING THE FUSE!!!!

Posted by: Russ at September 27, 2006 10:12 AM
Comment #184377

jbod
TALK ABOUT revisionist history
amazing how your side (yea, for convenience sake I’m going to lump ya in with “that crowd” — if the shoe fits sort of thing)
likes to present things without the whole picture

The documented evidence of what Clinton did during his term is there and exposes the wrong-wing attempts to lie about it — and your efforts to promote those lies (hmmmm Bush and lies seems to be a common theme of the past 6 years — and Clinton got crucified for ONE published incident of “lying”)
Regarding whether he was “Blaming Bush or not”
The current wrong-wing strategy is to Blame Clinton for Not doing enough (oh, they are not REALLY blaming Clinton for 9/11 but if he had gotten Osama……..”You do the math”… quite disenginuous!!)
Clinton was responding to criticism that he “wasn’t doing enough” by YOUR CROWD.
President Clinton was pointing out that whatever effort HE made while in office — (and admittedly unsuccessful — hmmmm how refreshing a president that ADMITS failure!!!) the following president did not even approach the level of Clinton’s effort. — YOUR CROWD BROUGHT UP THIS LINE OF THOUGHT — BUT REFUSE TO TAKE IT TO THE LOGICAL END — IF WHAT CLINTON DID WASN’T ENOUGH, HOW DO YOU RATE DOING EVEN LESS??????? (PRIOR TO 9/11)
i.e. — If you criticise me for what I did, then why aren’t you criticising Bush for doing EVEN LESS???
Remember at the end of the discussion Clinton ADMITTED THAT THE QUESTION WAS FAIR, BUT RAISED THE POINT OF THE HYPOCRISY OF THE QUESTION
WHY WASN’T THE SAME QUESTION POSED TO BUSH ET AL???
AND TO FURTHER THE SLIME AND HYPOCRISY — CHRISSY CLAIMED THAT THEY DID ASK THE QUESTION — RESEARCH SINCE THEN HAS SHOWN THAT THEY HAVE NEVER POSED ANYTHING LIKE THOSE QUESTIONS TO BUSH NOR HIS GANG OF THUGS.

Posted by: Russ at September 27, 2006 10:27 AM
Comment #184384

This board is getting ridiculous. Clinton will be remembered for 2 things, Monica and not getting Bin Laden. Bill had a somewhat successful presidency, but those are the only 2 things that will stand out through history. He was defensive during the interview and rightfully so, it’s not 100% his fault for 9/11 taking place.

Bush has had to answer the same questions about Bin Laden on a daily basis, so I don’t want to hear that the questioning was unfair.

As to other points on this blog:
1) Taxes - Of course the rich get a bigger tax cut, they make more and also pay A LOT more in taxes. I’m not rich by any means (combined family income of $125,000) and I’m all for some billionaire having to pay the same percentage as me. He’s the one hiring new workers, or buying the new products so that Jo Smo on welfare can sit on their ass all day. Get over it Left-Wingers!!!
2) Split House/Senate - I don’t think this will happen. I actually believe that the Republicans will continue having their majority and may even grab an extra seat or two.

Posted by: Matt at September 27, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #184386

Matt
If you CAREFULLY watch the tapes — CLINTON SAID THAT THE QUESTION WAS FAIR.

and he ANSWERED THE QUESTION
The point being made is that the SAME QUESTIONS ARE NOT BEING ASKED OF BUSH (OR AT LEAST NO ONE IS REQUIRING AN ANSWER!!)


Regarding rich people getting “bigger tax cuts”
how about getting the ONLY tax cuts????

As for your statement: He’s the one hiring new workers, or buying the new products so that Jo Smo on welfare can sit on their ass all day. Get over it Left-Wingers”

Get over it yourself — the biggest Billionaire in History has come out AGAINST the tax cuts!!
Saying that he is all for paying his fair share — and that tax cuts would hurt the economy and have NOTHING TO DO WITH their employment policies nor strategies for growth.
IN FACT, I HAVE READ INTERVIEWS WITH CEO’S WHERE THEY ARE GRATEFUL FOR TAX CUTS — BUT DO NOT DEVEOP THEIR COMPANIE’S GROWTH PLANS BASED ON TAX CUTS — THE CONDITION OF THE MARKET IS WHAT MAKES THEIR DECISIONS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE TAX CUT MAY BE.
SO IT TURNS OUT TO BE A GRATUITOUS “FREEBE” FOR THE COMPANIES THAT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE GOV’T LARGESS.

Posted by: Russ at September 27, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #184395

Let’s face the facts here both Republicans and Democrats are dividers, that is the nature of the two party system. The us against them mentality keeps us common folk more interested in fighting each other than actually fixing a broken system. Really the basic argument from either side is “Our guys are less bad than your guys”. All politicans want to maintain the status quo because it always always benefits them and they like it that way. Clearly the only loser here is the American public. This bickering between parties keeps us from doing the only thing that will help the problem, and that is voting out incumbants regardless of their party. That will clearly send a message that we have had enough of professional politicians and their self serving agendas. Once they realize that, like everyone of us with a job, the only way to keep their jobs is to perform to the expectations of their employers (the American people). Take a look at voting records, how is it that a politician can represent their constituents accurately when almost all votes fall along party lines. Honestly I feel that borders on criminal. Since there is no accountability in Washington the parade marches on while we Americans push and shove to get front row seats so we can wave at the clowns hoping they will throw a small piece of stale candy our way.
America made by politicians for politicians.

Posted by: Manonfire at September 27, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #184403

Matt,

Just putting something in caps does not make it true.

I cutting tax rates across the board is a tax cut only for the wealthy I guess that’s what they did. Who do you think increasing the tax credit helped more the wealthy or the middle. If the top 5% of earners pay 50% of the taxes wouldn’t it stand to reason that they would get the biggest monetary cut.

And most importantly I have never gotten a job from a poor person.

Posted by: Keith at September 27, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #184404

Sorry Matt I meant to say RUSS

Posted by: Keith at September 27, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #184405

Sorry Matt


I meant to say RUSS

Posted by: Keith at September 27, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #184406

Russ:

I’ve read and reread your comments. Its hard to understand someone when they get in a huff and type in capitals and ramble around in their points. But I think I eventually got what you were trying to say. Allow me to respond.

Regarding whether he was “Blaming Bush or not”

Clinton said he was not going to blame Bush, but then continued on to say that Bush didn’t even try to stop 9-11, while Clinton at least tried. That sounds suspiciously like blame to me. I recognize the context in which Clinton said it, but its just too much like a politician (all of the bastahds) to say “I’m not going to do ‘X’”, followed by them doing ‘X’.

your efforts to promote those lies

Perhaps you’d be kind enough to show what “lies” I tried to promote. Seems to me that Clinton admitted not accomplishing all that he wanted to regarding bin Laden. I agreed with him on that. I also commented that he didn’t accomplish what he set out to accomplish with regard to health care and “gays in the military”. I even went so far as to say that he got lots of opposition on those issues, but nonetheless, he was unable to accomplish what he wanted. That is all simple fact. You can apply whatever conclusions you wish to those facts, but you can’t change the facts themselves.

I think the question was fair as well. Bush has been asked many times why he does what he does and doesn’t do what he doesn’t do. He has been asked about Tora Bora, Afghanistan, Iraq, bin Laden etc endlessly. You must be seriously ignorant of the last several years if you’ve missed the multiple times that reporters have asked Bush about these issues. Regarding Tora Bora, Bush has been asked why he didnt use US forces, why he didn’t send more troops, why he “allowed” bin Laden to escape etc etc.

These are legitimate questions, and they’ve been asked. If you missed them, then that’s more a measure of your lack of attention than anything else.

Lastly, when we resort to name calling, it shows more about us than others. That’s why you won’t see me calling people by cutesy little names. When you called Chris Wallace, a generally reasonably respected journalist, by the cutesy name “Chrissy”, I suppose it might have been your attempt at high minded thinking. If so, it failed. If you have another rational reason to justify name calling, please explain it—-I’d love to hear the rationale. For the record, whoever it was that pejoratively called Clinton “Billy”, gets the same question.

I’ll await your response.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 27, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #184408

Sorry for the poor formatting of the previous post. If an editor can fix it, please do so. The block quotes were only meant for the two phrases that Russ used regarding blaming Bush and the lies I supposedly spread.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 27, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #184415

Manonfire:

That’s a pretty good way of putting it. If you have not yet done so, you should check out VOID. I hear David Remer is looking for converts. You sound like a perfect prospect.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 27, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #184426

Russ
You should read both sides of an issue before putting chocolate covered shoes in your mouth. The tax cut was not for the rich only. As stated above Matt got a tax cut and is not wealthy. I too got a tax cut and I am not wealthy. I am better off than a high school graduate working at the local burger flipping headquarters. I know of other examples that this fits. Did you get a tax cut? Get a different accountant.

This fall will be deja vu all over again as Yogi Berra would say. The House and Senate will be controlled by the Republican majority. That’s great because we will not see Alcee Hastings in a chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee. AH is an impeached judge from FL. This will also hurt San Fran Nan’s chances for running for President.

Posted by: tomh at September 27, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #184437

When talking about the “rich” does anyone know what the threshold is for being considered rich. How about middle-class? The threshold for being in the top 10% of taxpayers is $99,000. Certainly someone making a hundred grand a year is not considered rich right? BTW check out taxfoundation.org for all the data you want on who pays what in taxes both Federal and State, some very interesting stuff.

Posted by: Manonfire at September 27, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #184455

Tax cuts for the wealthy. Hmmmmmm. I guess it only makes sense that since they pay the most, they should reap the most benefits of a tax-cut. Call me crazy, but I thought that was Economics 101. If you Dems/Libs are so concerned with tx-cuts, and how much $$$ they take away, give yours back, and send a check to the U.S. Treasury. In the memo section write, “Pork-Barrel funding only.”

Posted by: Ryan DAugherty at September 27, 2006 2:44 PM
Comment #184457

tomh
Read both sides of an issue? — — why do you think I am trying to let you know that not everyone in the country feels they have benefited by Bush and Repubs bowing to the corporate masters on this!!
If you can afford an accountant — you qualify for a tax break and therefore can brag about how “everyone” is getting one
The people that cannot afford an accountant have not gotten tax breaks
I make a very comfortable living and my wife works as well
We saw something due to the removal of the marriage penalty — but it wasn’t enough to pay for icecream for one night!
Whoopeee doooo — saying someone got a tax break and then not making the distinction between something that would really help the economy vs only getting (literally) pocket change (not folding money, CHANGE) is disingenous at best
elimination of Estate tax — reduction of capital gains taxes, elimination/reduction of taxes on income derived by speculation/investment — Yea, I know alot of middle-low income taxpayers that are whooping it up over the largess!!
NOT
talk about out of touch
and like I said — MOOT POINT
DEFICIT is UP/ National DEBT is an ANCHOR
NOBODY should be getting tax cuts until the DEBT IS ELIMINATED.
We talk about our dependence on Foreign Oil causing problems, it is NOTHING compared to the dependency we currently face over Chinese money supporting our National Budget — talk about a National Disgrace!!!! and you are gloating over getting money back when the country is DROWNING in DEBT??? talk about UNPATRIOTIC!!!
why don’t you just hand over the keys to the Chinese????

jobag
I explained myself well enough
sorry if you are unable to comprehend
If you think CW is an esteemed journalist — you have a right to your opinion
You also know mine — we agree to disagree
re: blame
This whole BS blame game got started by your side bringing up actions taken prior to 9/11 and rewriting the historical record (there’s that ABC liberal media network again!!)
now it is quite disenginuous for your side to “cry foul” and attempt to label Clinton’s defense against your OWN accusations as “trying to blame” — talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!
Furthermore, if you honestly believe the fluff job that most of the media and especially Faux News has been doing with the Bush adminstration is anywhere near holding them accountable, and asking them the tough questions (and INSISTING on a honest, actual response) then you are more in the dark than I thought.

Posted by: Russ at September 27, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #184461

RUSS

When are Dems/Liibs going to learn that the best way to create more revenue isn’t by taking money out of people’s pockets? Taking it from our poor, low-income pockets (yes I mean me, although I am in school) only increases our financial burden. However, if you put money back into people’s pockets, and let them decide how to spend it, you will reap more revenues. More $$$ equals more spending. More revenue through sales and proerty taxes. It’s simple, really. Give the money back to the people. Let them spend the money they earn in a way they see fit. Or do you as a Dem/Lib think the Americans are too stupid to be able to spend their own money, and therefore, need a Dem/Lib to spend it for them? If you want to be angry at someone, be angry at the house and senate for voting themselves pay raises every year, I believe, for 10 years running. The same can be said for raising minimum wage. Raise it, and everything will go up too. everyone in business passess along costs to the end consumer. Consequently, people will be worse off with a higher minimum wage, because things will cost more, plus the amount of taxes will be higher, because it is taxed on the higher cost of goods and services. It’s simple. Really. Economics 101. Consider it.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 27, 2006 2:57 PM
Comment #184462


I have still not seen anyone answer the question

The right wing started this train of thought with the “Clinton didn’t do enough prior to 9/11” hatchet job on ABC
so the question is posed
If what Clinton did prior to 9/11 wasn’t “enough” then how to you rate /explain/defend doing nothing?
Simple question —
again, would never had come up if the right wing hadn’t decide to try to pin it on someone (else) just before the elections.

Matt- Jobag — all others
Clear enough for you??
No nasty names, nor inconvenient caps or anything else to distract you from the main question

If you feel that Bush shares “blame” (credit, responsiblity, whatever) then let’s just shut the F*&k up and get on with getting out of the mess in Iraq that Bush got us into (can’t lay that on anyone else’s door step, unless you’re among the crowd that feels that Bush I should have gone in 10 years earlier (or so))

Posted by: Russ at September 27, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #184473

Sorry but
ya gotta pay the bills
right now we have a deficit/debt
gotta pay the bills first

Ya can’t cost cut to profits and ya can’t tax cut your way out of a deficit (Reagan proved that one)

We elected these guys in there and while you moan and groan about how it is all the fault of the other guy’s pork — you ignore your own complicity in this.

If you are going to let them spend in your name, you get the bill dude, as someone said
Economics 101

another problem with your little convenient scenario
You bought into the right-wing lie
It is right, if the money gets back into the hands of the consumer, the economy bucks up because it is driven from the bottom up
that is why the CEO’s say that their growth is a function of the market
The current wave of tax cuts do not go to the consumer — they go to investors and speculators that do NOT return the money into the consumer market
but back into “investments”
slight problem
“investments” in the stock market are not really investments — they are further speculation
other than IPO’s the stock money never gets back to the company — you are not funding work by the company — in fact you are skimming profits from the company (dividends) so how exactly is that creating jobs??
I have never gotton a job from a poor person, but I also know of many CEOs that have never created a job because of a tax break, or that did NOT create a job because a tax break did not exist.
As I said earlier, interviews with CEO’s have pointed out that they are not so stupid as to make company plans based on the tax code.
They take advantage of it and put the money in their pocket and say thank you very much and then go and implement the company strategy that they were on schedule to implement anyway.
and they keep it that way with “investments” in politicians — after all, why not keep some of this free money that helps their profit margin?? they would be stupid not to
You guys who THINK you know economics just slay me
this is real world crap, not the BS line fed to you by Wall Street, Bankers and the other guys who only laugh at the stupidity and gullibility of the people that display that line of thinking.
but don’t feel bad, the CEO’s and company managers also fall victim to buying into a load of crap
Remember “re-engineering” and all the cost cutting and reorganization efforts in the past (to say nothing of the “flavor of the month” type of activity we were all subjected to for some time depending on what books were on the executive night stand that month)

Posted by: Russ at September 27, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #184475

i like how you think! its about time we stopped pointing the finger and started fixing the problems. im rooting for a republican in office..i cant stand pussy dems

keep up the good work.


nikki

Posted by: nikki at September 27, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #184476

min wage
I always love that one
the national min wage has not gone up in years, so we use that as a whipping boy
Slight problem, most of the states have enacted min wage laws above the National level
another boogey man shot down.
most companies already pay higher than the national limit (due to state requirements)
everything else has already gone up
YOUR Wage
GAS
loaf of bread
everything
Yet if we adjust something that has not been adjusted in over 10 years the economic machine is going to come to a screeching halt
tooo much
yea, some things may go up, slightly but not enough that you will have to give up filling up your SUV or buying your latte.
yea, imagine having to actually pay true value for what a product or service is worth
A bit inconvenient isn’t it, but so what that someone cannot make a decent living working even 60-80 hours a week — hey, don’t raise my prices I might be inconvienced!!
think about this — you said you wanted to get more money into the hands of the consumer??
don’t people trying to live on min wage (in those backwards states that go by the National limit) deserve a bit more money to feed into the economy and help to bolster it up??
This min wage thing is a load of crap as well
conveniently forgotten is that more money in THEIR pockets will be spent, upping demand for consumer products (survival basis at that) which then drives up demand, offsetting the slight cost increase represented by the pay increase (minimal and inconsequential at best in the whole scheme of things)
Remember, most of the products you are so concerned about (higher prices??) come from China, Mexico, Indonesia, Peru, whatever — so don’t worry, the min wage incease is not effective in those countries.
don’t even try to pull the Economics 101 game on me, I will run you over with a bulldozer — based on reality not the “cliff notes” version of it
“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”
and by that measure — you are dangerous.

Posted by: Russ at September 27, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #184478

Nikki
You just revealed your true colors
quite pointing fingers except at those “pussy” dems?????

lead follow or get the f*&k out of the way

Posted by: Russ at September 27, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #184479

Ryan
Re: Econ 101 and the BS that libs/dems don’t understand it?
why is it that the richest man in the world doesn’t support the tax cuts??
If you want Econ 101 go talk to that guy, I think he has more Bones to his credit than you do.

Posted by: Russ at September 27, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #184481

RUSS

Thank you kindly for proving mine, and every other conservative’s point. When you can’t argue factually, you degenerate into personal attacks. You’re scared of the simplicity of my logic, because it’s right. You can’t factually refute it, so you attack me instead. By the way, the information I’m getting is from Economists and Business instructors here at my local institution of higher learning, which is hardly a bastion of conservatism. So I will merely interpret your personal attck on me as proof that I am on the right track, and that you, as a Dem/Lib are runnign scared of the truth. As for tax breaks for the wealthy, don’t they contribute the most, financially, to the economy? It only makes sense for them to get more back. If you’re so obssessed with not enough taxes being paid, leave my tax cut the hell alone, and you can pay the taxes for both of us. Again, it’s criticize, criticize, criticize, but don’t come up with a plan. Run and hide. Truth is truth, not the Dean, Pelosi, Rangel, Clinton talking points. Notice how I have not attcked you directly. I have merely poked holes in your argument. Have a nice life, my friend. GOD BLESS AMERICA! That’s right! I said it! GOD bless America. P.S. Where did you get your economics degree from?

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 27, 2006 3:38 PM
Comment #184482

Russ,
If someone can not afford an accountant they probably do not pay enough taxes to need one, I have found that a good accountant more than pays for themselves, and tax preparers work quite cheap. The elimination of the marriage penalty is not a tax cut of the variety that we are speaking of here, but rather a revision of a ridiculous oversight in the tax code so your point on that issue is moot. Since you speak of middle/low income people that you know maybe you can answer a question I posed earlier. What is the income threshold for what you consider middle/low?
Also how does me (or anyone else) wanting to keep more of the money I bust my butt to earn make me unpatriotic? I (as many of you do) already pay way more than my fair share of taxes (taxfoundation.org). If I am unpatriotic for wanting some of my excessive tax money back then what do you call low income people that pay very little federal income tax? Theoretically they do not pay their fair share during this time of high deficit.

Posted by: Manonfire at September 27, 2006 3:39 PM
Comment #184484

Russ:

You ought to start by discussing points that I actually make, rather than points you might have wanted me to make. The latter are much easier to refute, as you’ve done, but they have nothing to do with me.

For example, I wrote that Chris Matthews is “a generally reasonably respected journalist”. You wrote in response: “If you think CW is an esteemed journalist — you have a right to your opinion”. The two versions are self-explanatory, and show that I don’t hold Wallace up as the paramount of journalists, but as one who is reasonably well respected. If you think he is not, then explain why.

Regarding the ABC miniseries: I’m on record as saying it was poorly done. I’m on record as saying that it was a fluff piece. And I’m on record as saying that I don’t consider mini-series to be the means for getting information. Why you bring that up in OUR discussion is beyond me, since it has nothing to do with what I’ve talked about. You seem to have ready built comments all set to be printed…problem is they don’t address what I’ve been talking about with you.

If what Clinton did prior to 9/11 wasn’t “enough” then how to you rate /explain/defend doing nothing?

Clinton himself said he didn’t do enough in his comments to Wallace. He said he tried, but failed. Personally, I think he had options at his disposal, but was preoccupied. For instance, I was fully in support of his Operation Desert Fox initiative, but I felt he called it off too soon. Tell me, were you in favor of Desert Fox or were you against it, seeing as it was a pre-emptive military strike against a foreign nation, prior to the supposed “Bush doctrine” of pre-emptive military action?

These are my words from earlier in this very thread regarding what Bush and Clinton did in regard to 9-11: “Did Clinton do enough to stop 9-11? Of course not. Did Bush do enough to stop 9-11? Of course not. 9-11 happened, which is proof that neither administration did enough to stop it. The real question, though, is whether either man could have done enough to stop it. And my answer to that is no.”

Lastly, I noticed no remarks from you justifying your name-calling. Thanks, because I think its easy to agree that there is no justification for name-calling.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 27, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #184490

RUSS

For the record, I cannot 100% factually say that I know without a doubt who the richest man in the world. Enlighten me please. Also for the record, if the tax-cuts were only for the rich, wouldn’t he be for them? You two postings seem paradoxical. Perhaps you can elaborate eloquently, and explain what you meant, just so I can make sure there is no mis-understanding.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 27, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #184492

Blaming Clinton for 9/11 is an act of desperation. It has been timed for this election cycle. I’ve never blamed GW for 9/11, but IMO Giuliani looked more presidential than GW at ground zero. For the same reason, I don’t give credit to GW for the lack of further attacks on US soil. It’s like blaming the president for a bad economy or praising him for a good one. The office has little impact.

Lastly, I noticed no remarks from you justifying your name-calling. Thanks, because I think its easy to agree that there is no justification for name-calling.

Joe you sling it around as much as anybody, so stop playing hurt. What goes around…

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #184496

Ryan: You get into an arguement on economics —giving the impression you actually know something about it and then you say:

For the record, I cannot 100% factually say that I know without a doubt who the richest man in the world. Enlighten me please.

consider yourself enlightened — Bill Gates — by a wide margin — followed (not so closely) by Warren Buffet (not Jimmy!!)

You also asked:
“Also for the record, if the tax-cuts were only for the rich, wouldn’t he be for them? You two postings seem paradoxical. Perhaps you can elaborate eloquently, and explain what you meant, just so I can make sure there is no mis-understanding.”

The Tax cuts were and are for the rich — however the Repubs justify this giveaway as “stimulating the economy” and “increasing tax revenues”
The richest man in the world, who knows something about economy stimulation — disagrees with that justification — and has commented on the negative impacts to the American deficit and debt as a result of the tax cuts.
the fact that the richest man in the world — and someone who would benefit from the tax cuts if he were that greedy — just lends him some credibility in the matter —
also, consider — here is someone who recognizes that when you get to his level, trying to line your pockets with even more is just plain greedy and is indefensible when there is so much need in the world (and he is stepping up to that responsiblity — unlike a Mr Lay who at one time was a darling of this adminstration)
He and Warren Buffet have just donated Billions (yea, merely for the tax write-off I’m sure — not) they both recognize that you can only spend so much, and that the accumulation of wealth for its own sake is a somewhat petty attribute — consider that neither of them plan to leave much of their estates to their heirs — THEY (unlike the right-wingers that moan about the “death tax”) feel that the next generation needs to earn their own way.
and so the complement to that is that they feel that THIS generation needs to pay its own bills (the deficit) and not pass THAT on to the next generation either
Now THAT is what I call ethical, moral values.

class dismissed

Posted by: Russ at September 27, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #184500

Joe
sorry if I didn’t quote you 100%
consider the wrist slapped — ouch
re: my opinion of Chrissy
who the heck are you that I need to justify my opinion of a third rate journalist hack?
I am not asking, nor do I care why you think he is anything other than a 3rd rate journalistic hack
Your opinion, who cares? and is illrelevent to this discussion, just as Chris is illrelevant to journalizm (otherwise why is he relegated to the backwater of Faux News)

Justify name calling — see above

re: ABC etc
I threw you in with “the crowd” — said so from the beginning
If you are going to look like a duck, quack like a duck, sorry for being mistaken for a duck
get over it

YOUR take is that he was “distracted” — oh yea that monica thing — that prudish obsession with his sex life
His explanation (backed up by historical records) offers a different explanation
can you back up your assertion (and the other ducks in your crowd) that he didn’t do enough because of “distraction”??
Nice how you forget that the rightwind criticized him for what he WAS doing — and now it is NOT Enough??

I don’t care if you think Bush didn’t do enough
that was apparent from the beginnning
the point was that nobody was making a point that ANYBODY didn’t do enough until your flock of duck started quacking about Bill’s effort
and now that Bill refutes your efforts to pin him and his party with the blame you act all hurt and indignent at his response!!
Like I said elsewhere — Chris must have thought he was asking the question to the current president rather than someone who could rebut with an articulate, intelligent FACTUAL response.
When Chris saw that his ambush was not going well he was back-peddling like mad.
Clinton nailed that guy right on Faux News and you guys (ducks) just can’t stand it
“Truth, YOU CAN’T STAND THE TRUTH”
You are so used to being fed pablum and BS from the administation you panic when faced with TRUTH.

Posted by: Russ at September 27, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #184501

RUSS

Thank you professor. I speculated that you were referring to Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet, but wanted to be clear, so no one would accuse me of not knowing what I’m talking about, as you just did. Where again did you get your economics degree? Trust me, you don’t get as rich as these two guys without an army o tax lawyers figuring every loophole to avoid paying taxes. Which is one of the reasons they won’t be leaving much to their estate. Saying the tax-cuts were only for the rich is pure politics. Trust me, John Kerry, John Edwards, et. al. don’t mind a bit that they are paying less in taxes. Why do your posting have such a hostile air to them? Do I anger you? If so, why? Am I just another”…stupid conservative…” that doesn’t deserve a forum to voice my opinion? I’m confused as to why you all of a sudden bear such wrath and animosity from you, when we’ve never even met? Why? And you never did answer the question as to whether or not you paid less or more after the cuts were signed. What gives? I have been considerate and respectful in all of my postings, but have not been given the same consideration, save by one other postee, unless they are conservatives. Please explain your hostility to me. Am I just “…too simple…” to understand the lofty language of economics, or am I “…too stupid…” to have authorization to post on this site, which is primarily listed as Republicans and Conservatives? Why do wish to silence me? Do I not deserve the right to post in the same forum as you? Or am I too stupid to even deserve to be in your lofty deitic presence? Have a great day!

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 27, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #184506

Ryan
why are right wingers so thin skinned?
if you dish it out, then take it
regardless of whether or not they have tax lawyers — which is only speculation on your part — actions speak louder than words and Warren and Bill’s actions are out there in the public forum.
and I SAID already that the CEO’s take advantage of whatever largess is provided— they don’t have to think they are in the best interest of the country, but if you’re going to offer it, why should I be so stupid as to refuse??

The hostility comes from 6 years of being name-called, bashed, mudslinging etc coming from the right side of the aisle, only to hear whinning from the same group whenever the shots are returned.

and from all the lies that are perpetrated by the current administration and all of their apologists.
especially when it comes to all the vo-doo economics that passes for fiscal restraint and “economic stimulation” — when it is merely justification for greed at the public trough

name calling to you??
you started pulling the Economics 101 line, then made a statement that you didn’t know who the richest person was, when I told you, you went “oh yea, I knew that” — then why pretend you didn’t??
I was going by YOUR post — and posting
posting on “economics” but not knowing something so basic??
and then you think I am calling you names and being hostile???
brother you ain’t seen one word of “hostile”
if you think THIS is hostile!!
talk to Karl, maybe he can give you a taste of what is Hostile!!
then you will know what it feels like to be on the recieving end of “hostile”

Posted by: Russ at September 27, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #184510

Ryan
You asked to be enlightened and then say I assumed you didn’t know????
also
“Trust me”
You don’t get that rich by having tax lawyers
You get that rich and THEN you can afford to have tax lawyers
(by the way, that is also a load of crap, it is a “pay me now or pay me later” what doesn’t go to the gov’t goes to the lawyers, accountants, etc — they love that people buy that scam as well — but it does create jobs!!!)
again, so what?
how does that have anything to do with the fact or basis of their statements??
How does their having tax lawyers have anything to do with whether or not tax cuts hurt the economy
or the fact that the Debt is hurting the economy and is being ballooned by the tax cuts passed by your prez and your congress??
typical change the subject, dodge technique

Posted by: Russ at September 27, 2006 5:09 PM
Comment #184511

Loren:

Joe you sling it around as much as anybody, so stop playing hurt. What goes around…

I most certainly sling my opinions around as much as anybody, and I’m most certainly not playing hurt. What I said was that I don’t use name calling as part of my arsenal. If you care to prove me wrong by showing me where I’ve done that, I’ll most certainly apologize. I doubt you’ll have any luck, though, as I find other acerbic means of jabbing people with the sharp tip of my foil.

Russ:

You’ve really proved all my points and suspicions about you. Thanks for playing. When you start with namecalling, and move on to attacks, its time for your show to come to an end. You’ve shown your true colours, and they are in the pastels of someone without the intellectual paintbrush to paint in strong rich colours and strokes. It’s been real, and its been fun, but it aint been real fun. Have a good day.


Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 27, 2006 5:09 PM
Comment #184515

There’s namecalling and then there’s arrogant condescending criticism. If you practice the latter, don’t whine if you get the former

Posted by: Loren at September 27, 2006 5:13 PM
Comment #184517

Ryan
I keep responding piece meal, sorry, but you have so many mispoints I don’t know where to start!

this time
re: your right to post
Where did I ever give the impression that you didn’t have a right to post??
Just that (once again) you argue economics and then in one posting indicated that you didn’t know a basic item
just offering that if you want to start arguing BS points you better be able to back it up
You write authoritively about the benefit of tax cuts, etc and give a “that’s Economics 101” and then write something that indicates ignorance of the topic and you don’t expect to get called on it??

Item 2
I answered right away regarding my “largess” from Bush
not enough to buy icecream for two — due to the removal of the “marriage penalty” —- however since they have let lapse the exemption for sales tax, I am right back (or worse) than before
I am lucky I get to pay taxes twice!!!
sorry if you feel abused
Join the club
We’ve been the recipients of your brand of “love” for six years,
don’t like the heat??
quite whining

Posted by: Russ at September 27, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #184519

Joe
your comments are only the pot calling the kettle black
Joe, it hurts me to the quick that you feel that way, how can I possibly go on living
ohhhhh ouch that hurts, oh my
what shall I do???
geez how lame can you get?
Don’t like it when someone else hijacks your tactics??

Posted by: Russ at September 27, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #184534

RUSS

I see. So because you feel that I have somehow “wronged” you, that necessitates hostility when talking to complete and total strangers that have a different political philosophy than the one that you prescribe to. Forgive me, but such behavior seems a bit beneath you. I assume you are an adult, yet spewing hostility, hatred, and vitriole toward all those around you would appear to be the behavior of an adolescent. I don’t want you to mis-interpret me, here, but you have not once heard me take an angry or hostile tone toward anyone on this site. And again, I ask the question, if you think I am unqualified to speak of things economic, please tell me what makes you more qualified than I. Have a Great Day!

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 27, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #184544

Lawnboy

I am not really concerned whether or not revenues would be higher w/o the tax cuts. I assume they would be slightly higher w/o the cuts but the economy would be slightly worse. The point, however, is that revenues are at an all time high. The point of my post was that had we not increased spending, we would not have a deficit so the time is now to cut spending, not raise taxes.

The money does not belong to the government. They take the money from the people to pay for agreed services that people cannot do for themselves. I believe that it should take as little as it needs and stay out of the people’s business as much as possible. Others may disagree.

The goal is to keep government smaller, not raise taxes until we can fund an ever bigger slice it takes out of our economy.

Tax revenues have increased since the tax cuts. That indicates that the problem is spending not tax cuts. That is all.

Russ

All time high tax revenue is an all time high in tax revenue. You can compare it to any other year and it still is an all time high. The goal of government is not to maximize tax revenue, BTW. It should provide its essential services at the lowest practical costs.

Re blaming Clinton. I do not blame him. He (and Bush) acted on the information and context of the times. Neither president thought a 9/11 type attack was a high probability. Now everyone can see the error. Many people are good at predicting the past, but do less well with the future. That is why we are not all rich, healthy and well adjusted.

Woody

He looked angry to me. His response seemed out of place given the question. Whether or not he is angry depends on your definition of IS, but we do not need to get into that kind of thing again.

Re anger in general, you can be angry w/o losing control. Anger does not mean you go nuts. I have not lost control of my emotions since I was a kid, but I have been angry on some occasions. I did not say (and do not think) Clinton lost control of his emotions. In fact, the more I look at the clip, the more I think he calculated that anger.

Posted by: Jack at September 27, 2006 6:52 PM
Comment #184556

Loren:

I’m glad you understand the difference. I have yet to whine, but I do consistently call people on the name calling issue. If you have a problem with that, consider it so noted. If you choose to try to justify name calling, so be it.

I’ll consider you among the initiated now. :)

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 27, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #184559

I just love it that apparently Jack keeps going back and watches a real President over and over. Don’t you just hope that the new numbskull we have now will ever be so eloquent?

Posted by: ray at September 27, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #184656

Ray

Clinton was a good president and a great communicator. Being a great communicator doesn’t mean he is right about everything, nor does being less articulate indicate error.

I wish President Bush was more eloqent. Lack of eloqence is Bush’s major flaw and that may keep him from being a great president. Clinton had all the raw material to be a great president except character. In fact his cleverness may have been the reason. He could always talk and charm himself out of trouble.

As I said, I think Clinton was a good president. He could have been a great one. He was elected too early and did not suffer enough time in the political wilderness. Had he spent another 4-8 years in the polical wilderness maybe his character would have hardened and other parts of his body softened. He might have been great and that is his (and our) tragedy.

Posted by: Jack at September 28, 2006 2:10 AM
Comment #184679

Rah,
I believe that the Democrats were angry when Bush “WON”. If memory serves me correctly I believe Bush was technically put in office by the Supreme Court.

Jack,
I believe Clinton was President 10 years ago. Thank you for giving him credit.
Re: Welfare queens - the welfare reform 10 years ago got rid of most of them. That is why we talk about them no longer.

As for the topic you brought up I believe Clinton’s explaination he was unable to get Bin Laden has been left out. According to what I heard, Clinton could not get the FBI or the CIA to give him evidence nor did he have the support of the pentagon, or the Congress..I may be wrong, but wasn’t that the time period the Republicans were in a slight majority? Agreement somewhere along the line just might have allowed for the capture\death of Bin Laden.

I would like to ask what differnce it makes in our present and future who did the least amount of trying to contain Bin Laden. While history is very important, I truly believe we need to be more concerned with NOW instead of the past. Regardless of hind-sight, we are still at war,NOW.

As to other points on this Blog:

Matt,
To me $125,000 sounds fairly well off to me. My husband and and I make a combined income of $70,000 a year. We raised my 3 girIs from my first marriage, and his 3 children from his first marriage, on significantly less than what we make now. With no child support. These days we actually have some money coming in (I won’t even begin to talk about Health Insurance costs) that isn’t being spent on our kids,as most of them have grown up. Believe me, the $600 dollars would have helped more going to the deficit
- however it did cover 1 1/2 of our medical prescriptions, for 2.

Ryan,
I think you are probably a well thought out young man, and welcome to this Blog.(An assumption I make as I have not read anything from you before.)

I do want you to re-read 2 of the sentences you wrote:

Trust me, you don’t get as rich as these two guys without an army o tax lawyers figuring every loophole to avoid paying taxes.
Saying the tax-cuts were only for the rich is pure politics.
If the rich have money to pay people to find loopholes,(which they do), then why would you want to give them more money? Many of the richest people find enough loopholes to actually avoid paying any taxes or very few taxes at all. Just out of curiousity, what major purchase\necessary items did you try to buy with your tax cut?

joebagodonuts,

Tell me, were you in favor of Desert Fox or were you against it, seeing as it was a pre-emptive military strike against a foreign nation, prior to the supposed “Bush doctrine” of pre-emptive military action?

Your sentence actually appears to be trying to compare apples and oranges. The action in the Gulf War was not an INVASION. rather we were asked to help intervene with the attack on Kuwait.

No one asked us to invade Iraq. President Bush appears to have simply decided he wanted to go after Saddem. He managed to find some rather convincing documents, (later proven to be mostly fake)and in then convinced almost all of Congress that Saddem was a party to the terrorism. Both the Republicans and Democrats were mis-lead into believing Iraq was “out to get ‘US”. Actually I believe this is the first time we’ve ever invaded a country without being asked to intervene. I may however be a mistaken about this.

Russ, and Loren,

I totally agree with up you both wrote, however, I sort of need to go along with the crowd and say I was not crazy about how it was written. I hope neither of you is offended, by my comments.

The extreme right Republicans are the name-callers. Sometimes they even use names that I have never heard a Democrat say, then accuse Democrats of saying them. I honestly don’t think either of you meant to lower yourselves to their level….

Russ,
If you don’t mind, I’d like to make a suggestion regarding the language you used.
As you probably noticed few actually responded to your posts, once you started using so many common vocabulary words. Instead they jumped on you for how you wrote it, not really paying much attention to what you’d actually written.

Seriously, in my own mind you lost a tremendous amount of creditably once you allowed your emotions to take over. I have found using common or vulgar expressions here merely make a very intelligent post or response sound well,I guess like it comes from a poorly educated person, or someone who actually has little to nothing to say, or is frankly stupid.

I hope you are not offended. It is because I found your original post to be very clear and intelligent,I offer these suggestions to you. In a “for what it’s worth” manner.

Posted by: Linda H. at September 28, 2006 4:37 AM
Comment #184680

Linda:

Tell me, were you in favor of Desert Fox or were you against it, seeing as it was a pre-emptive military strike against a foreign nation, prior to the supposed Bush doctrine ofpre-emptive military action?

Your sentence actually appears to be trying to compare apples and oranges. The action in the Gulf War was not an INVASION. rather we were asked to help intervene with the attack on Kuwait.

You have mistaken Operation Desert Fox with Operation Desert Storm. Desert Fox was the 4 day bombing raid conducted primarily by US forces in 1998, while Desert Storm was the intervention on behalf of Kuwait.

The parallel between the current war and Desert Fox is quite clear. Both actions were initiated by the United States pre-emptively. Both actions led to death and destruction of both combatants and civilians. Both came at least partially under the idea of ‘regime change’, which was signed into law in 1998 as the official US position on Iraq under the Iraq Liberation Act. Both came without explicit approval of the United Nations.

Linda, by comparing these two situations, you can see that they are apples to apples. The difference lies mainly in the scope of the military action, as opposed to the rationale or approval of the action. That is why I asked the question. Perhaps you’d like the opportunity to answer again—-I’d be interested in reading it.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 28, 2006 5:45 AM
Comment #184684

Actually, if the Dems won the House, nothing would happen in 2007 and 2008. Even id they won the Senate, Bush would veto everything they’d send up so, again, nothing would happen.

Doesn’t sound too bad, but there’s too much going on in the world to just drift along for 2 years.

Until the Dems come up with a tangible “to-do” list that the voters can see, I don’t see that they have any chance in November.

Posted by: mac6115cd at September 28, 2006 8:22 AM
Comment #184701

Linda H
I enjoy your nonconfrontational way of writing it is a breath of fresh air. However I need to take you to task for a common misconception regarding the rich not paying taxes. Got to taxfoundation.org click on data then income tax then at the top there is a link to individual federal income tax data. It shows exactly what the “rich” pay in income taxes, and once you read it you will see that basically they pay the vast majority of income taxes. I keep referencing this site because it is very enlightening.

To Russ
You make it seem like Bill Gates and Warren are giving all their money away. Let’s face it they can give billions away and still have enough left in the family coffers so that their families will be comfortable for many many generations. Do you really think either one of those guys’ children will earn their own way? Come on now, I saw a piece on Good Morning America that featured Buffets kids and while they all seemed to have gotten good work ethics from their Father, I am sure they have trust funds worth more than the income of every poster here combined. Let me put it this way if I have 100 million dollars and the government takes half what do I care I still have 50 million dollars. The reduction of the estate tax is not aimed at Bill Gates, it is aimed small business owners. Estate taxes are based on assets not cash. If you own a business and you die and want to leave the business to your kids, they have to pay taxes on the value of that business, not the revenue, the value. Your business might be worth $500,000 but only generates $75,000 a year in income. At one time estate taxes were around 50%. How is the person that just inherited a family small business going to come up with $250,000? Two ways borrow money (which with your rants on the deficit you know how bad that is) or sell the business to pay the taxes. How sad is it to work and sacrifice your whole life and upon your death your business gets sold to pay Uncle Sam. Before you start any economics b.s. on me, let me say I know this from experience. Fortunately my Father’s business was valued under the threshold for inheritance tax or I would have to sell the business. Of course it cost me $25,000 in accountants and lawyers to come up with the value of my business but that is another story.

Posted by: Manonfire at September 28, 2006 10:08 AM
Comment #184725

LINDA H

Thank you for your compliments, and the welcome to the blog. I don’t necessarily want to “give” more money to the rich. My point is that everyone, across the board, got a tax-cut. The reason it’s more substantial for the rich is due to the fact that they pay the majority of the taxes in this country. If you invested 60% of the start-up capital into a business, and then sold it later for 300% of what the total start-up costs were, would you not expect to get 60% of the sale price? The percentages are just examples from off the top of my head. All I’m trying to say is that it’s not a bad thing that the rich get tax breaks too. The tax breaks were across the board. It’s just the reality of the economic system we’re in. And if we are about equal treatment for all, why should the rich not benefit from the same things we do, just because they have more $$$? In effect, that would be punishing hard work, entrepreneurship, and creativity. To answer your other question, I did not try to make any major purchases with my share of the tax-cut. I’ low-income right now, so share didn’t amount to much. But it did help put gas in my car, and buy a couple of packs of diapers for my babies. I pay cash for everything, and intend to always do that, save for when I am able to buy/build a home, or buy a brand new car. I try not to be confrontational, and I appreciate your well-thought out arguments and responses to others’ arguments. Thank You.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #184733

Ryan and Linda:

You both are great examples of how honorable people can disagree honorably. Great lesson to all of us.

With that, I meekly apologize to Loren for my snarky comments.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 28, 2006 12:15 PM
Comment #184756

JOEBAGODONUTS

I know not what position, politically speaking, that you may occupy. But thank you for your compliment. Again, whene I say the things I say, I don’t say them to offend, accuse, demean, or polarize, I only voice my opinion. Some in this room would have my opinion silenced, because they disagree. It is their hypocracy that leads them to this. They preach free speech, then criticize me for voicing my opinion when they disagree. I don’t blame them though. I have fought for their right to criticize me, and will do so again if called upon. I just wish they were as open-minded towards my political philosophy, as they calim we should be toward Muslim extremists that want to kill ALL Americans.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #184818

Jack,

This is a pretty good article. I would like to second most of what David Remer and Stephen Daugherty said.

It is true that Clinton made a number of mistakes. Osama was a smaller problem when Clinton made his mistakes. While he received significant focus from the Clinton white house it is not reasonable to expect that he receive the same level of attention that he should have received while Bush read “My Pet Goat.” If Bush had even given him the amount of attention that Clinton did, 9/11 probably would have been prevented. And the mistakes that have been made since 9/11 are orders of magnitude worse then any that Clinton made because Osama became a “big deal” on 9/11 - 9/11 changed everything. Osama has gotten away because we have had our attention diverted to Iraq. Iraq has become the center of the “War on Terror.” Their never should have been a war on terror. Terror is tactic. You cannot defeat a tactic. You can use it - or not use it. You can punish others for using it, but you cannot defeat a tactic. Our war should have been on Osama. Our focus - especially after 9/11 - should have been on Osama. Iraq is a diversion.

I believe that Iraq is a diversion that we lost. It is no win. If we leave the terrorist - and non-terrorist radical Islamists - and global insurgents will be emboldened and encouraged. The situation will be enormously worse. If we stay the terrorists will be encouraged, live combat trained, and recruited. As bad as that is, in the short run it is probably still better than the alternative. There are consequences to losing wars - huge consequences. In the short run staying might be better - but when you have lost, you have lost. The longer we stay the worse things will get and the worse things will be when we finally do leave.

If we really intend to stay and win this thing: We (the American people) should have the willingness and resolve to exterminate from 10 to 90 percent (or more) of the worlds Muslim population. This war could still be won. To win it might require killing a large portion of one billion people. George Bush having failed to create that level of resolve and commitment from the American people by telling us that the war would be over in three weeks, has made the eventual loss of this war inevitable. Do you really want to kill that many people? I don’t, but if you want to win this war - you better be willing to kill as many as it takes to break their will - to crush their spirits under American “jack boots.” If you are going to crush people’s spirit, you have to crush people’s spirit. Don’t start a war unless you are willing to go all the way.

Iraq was a completely unnecessary war to begin with. We were never willing to go all the way. We were not even willing to put in the 250,000 troops required to stabilize the country after Saddam’s army collapsed. We damned sure are not ready to have the blood of one billion babies on our hands. So - we have lost and will eventually admit it. How many more babies will we needlessly and pointlessly kill before we do admit defeat. How many more Americans will needlessly and pointlessly die before we admit defeat. How many more hundreds of billions of dollars will we waste before we finally admit defeat? The longer we stay - the worse things will get. The longer we stay - the worse things will be when we leave. The longer we stay the less moral high ground we will control - the less influence we will have - the less allies we will have when we finally do leave. The longer we stay - the more hatred we will create - the more terrorist we will create - the more financially bankrupt we will be when we do leave. The longer we stay - the more broken our spirit will be when we do leave. The longer we stay - the more completely defeated that we will be when we do leave.

The world is a rough playground. The first lesson that you learn on a rough playground is not to start anything that you are not ready to finish. George Bush grew up as a privileged rich kid sissy. He never learned the lesson. That is why he never prepared the American people for WAR. Elections have consequences. This is where George Bush and the Republicans have led us. And you are concerned about how much damage the Democrats will do if they gain partial control over something?

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 28, 2006 4:44 PM
Comment #184823

Nuclear glassify Iraq and walk away or admit defeat. Crush them or get to HELL out.

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 28, 2006 4:50 PM
Comment #184824

Can anyone tell me where to locate the clip where GWB said the war would be over in 3 weeks? Because all I can remember him saying is the same thing over and over again. This battle will be long, hard, and difficult, but ultimately worth it and necessary to eliminate the threats to the AMERICAN way of life. Give him credit; at least GWB found a position, and has stuck with it htroughout the entire course of his administration. That’s more than can be said for Kerry, Edwards, Dean, pelosi, Rangel, Hillary and the like.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #185088

Teachers historically are democats!

Posted by: Michael C Bonacci at September 29, 2006 12:01 PM
Comment #185250

joebagodonuts

I’m sorry for taking such a long time reponding to your question. I researched Desert Fox, and you were correct. I was mixing it up with Desert Storm.

However, from what I have read, the Desert Fox bombing was done with UN support.

Not much of a defense, but that is a pretty major difference between the two events. In the first situation, we had the support of the UN.

In the second situation, we went right ahead and invaded Iraq, without UN support, as they voted against any invasion. We invaded anyway,with far too little support from the world, creating an entirely new situation.

My queation to you is “Why” didn’t most of the other countries support th USA?

I would imagine that our invasion of Iraq for no apparent reason, (now that the truth has come out) has sent chills up and down the backs of many other countries. Thus increasing the world’s anger and anxiety regarding what will we do next….?

Since invasion has not actually been a part of the USA’s policies, this change in attitude must have seemed frightening. I know it frightens me.

Thank you for your compliment re: my earlier post.

I agree :”Cool Heads” will be more likely to help solve our problems, far more so than “Hot Heads” will.

hum…..sounds like a rock band name!!!! ;->

Posted by: Linda H. at September 29, 2006 11:19 PM
Post a comment