The build up to our next war has begun:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran;_ylt=Ah3QILWFkIvmKWt0wOI2iLyyFz4D
I find it amusing that Ms. Rice uses the words obfuscate & lie. Is she talking about her boss?
No, I think if you read the article a little more closely you’ll find that she’s referring to the government of Iran.
Philo - thanks for clearing that up!
[quote=Ashland]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran;_ylt=Ah3QILWFkIvmKWt0wOI2iLyyFz4D
I find it amusing that Ms. Rice uses the words obfuscate & lie. Is she talking about her boss?[/quote]
Are you that naive that you can’t consider the possibility that Condi Rice is right about the Iranian government?
You know…there really is evil in the world, junior.
You guys have been beating the "next war" drum for, what, three years now? So you've decided it will be <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iran? The toss up between Syria and Iran is over? Oh, yeah, I forgot, “Bush Lied!!!” … even though Democrats were saying the very same thing about Saddam and WMDs as far back as 1998….<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Notice how the "the next war" types never address Iran's nuclear program or mention how most of the rest of the world agree with us about what a danger to world stability a nuke-armed Iran would be? Nah, it’s not about Iran and Imaneedidinnerjacket the loon holocaust denier with nuclear bombs, it’s all about Bush.
Kind’a makes you wonder just what they’ll turn their bile and free time to when he leaves office.
In the meantime, the front runner among the Democrats for the Whitehouse said the current administration has “…chosen to “downplay” the crisis over the past several years” and says military force can’t be ruled out…
"Let's be clear about the threat we face," Ms. Clinton said. "A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond."
"We cannot and should not - must not - permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,"...
Given the logic of the "next war" types, we should be calling Hillary a warmonger. Don't point out the contradiction to them, their heads would probably explode.... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/international/middleeast/19cnd-iran.html?_r=1&oref=sloginIran or Syria, which country will be next?
Hmm? Rice's successful policy of turning Iraq into a democratic oasis to be used as a model for the rest of the torn middle east has led, as she predicted, to other countries clamoring to be the next Iraq. Iran, Syria? They both want in. You can easily translate their defiant sounding retoric to "Please pick Me!"[quote=BondGuy]
Hmm? Rice's successful policy of turning Iraq into a democratic oasis ..............
[/quote] Right, let's claim defeat now, long before the struggle is over and call Iraq a disaster. Reminds me of a Senator who will go nameless (cough, Reid, cough) saying the surge is a failure before it had even begun. Now Al Qeada in Iraq is on the run, but since there are political points to be scored, let's by all means, surrender now. Damn the interests of the nation, let's figure out how we can win the next election. While we're at it, let's look the other way about Iran and the prospect of a holocaust denier who's talked about removing Israel from the map having nukes, let's ignore that most of the world is with us on this one, instead let's suggest that Condi has evil intents.... And they wonder why no one takes them seriously.....No problem! You seemed a bit confused there, and I'm glad that I could help.Philo - thanks for clearing that up!
I’m just watching the bile & vitriol speed by. I wonder if what would happen if I stick my shoe in it. I think it might melt.
That's funny, that's just what I thought when I read your first post (and another that chimed in with a supporting message) ignoring the subject of the danger of an Iran with nukes and going off on a "Bush lied"/Condi rant.I’m just watching the bile & vitriol speed by. .
Not outside the Whitehouse there isn't. At least in the minds of a few, that is....[quote=Ashland]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran;_ylt=Ah3QILWFkIvmKWt0wOI2iLyyFz4D
I find it amusing that Ms. Rice uses the words obfuscate & lie. Is she talking about her boss?[/quote]
Are you that naive that you can’t consider the possibility that Condi Rice is right about the Iranian government?
You know…there really is evil in the world, junior.
[quote=joedabrkr]
QUOTE]Are you that naive that you can’t consider the possibility that Condi Rice is right about the Iranian government?You know…there really is evil in the world, junior.[/quote]
I am not that naive to think that is the case. Europe was VERY wrong about Hitler, and there may be people that are very wrong about Iran. All I’m saying is that this sounds very similar to the build up to our last incursion. No other President before George W Bush has had the POLICY of preemptive action.
However, if we’re into tearing down stuff today, let me do some of my own.
A quote from John Boehner:
The week of 4/29/07
"We can look it up and we can walk out. We can walk out on Iraq just like we did in Lebanon, just like we did in Vietnam, just like we did in Somalia and we will leave chaos in our wake."
John clearly didn’t feel this way why he voted on three separate occasions (House Roll Call Vote #179, 5/22/93 and House Roll Call Vote #555, 11/9/93) and against funding the war effort there. (House Roll Call Vote #188, 5/26/93) to end the mission in Somalia. Sounds like he asking for timetables for withdrawal with those three votes.
Hypocrisy is everywhere. Honest debate, no where.
We’re ALL Americans. My skin may be a bit darker than most of you, and my politics a little more liberal(although with the kind of spending done by the Republican Congress the between 2000 - 2006 I don’t think so).
I want what you want - what all Amerians want. Stability in the world & especially in the Middle East. A reduction of our dependence on oil from places in the world that don’t like us(if we had less of a dog in the fight would we go there and fight?) Prosperity, home ownership, and a growing middle class for Americans.
Oh, and let me mention again Hillary’s comment;
"We cannot and should not - must not - permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,"...I'm still waiting for a member of the enlightened to step forward to call her a liar or warmonger.....good thing Bush or Condi didn’t say that, eh? <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
You mean "let me change the subject", right?
However, if we’re into tearing down stuff today, let me do some of my own. .
The biggest threat to our country isn’t terrorism, it’s liberalism.
One of the symptoms of liberalism is inability to comprehend reason, as evidenced by mental midgets like Ashland. I'm surprised liberal democrats chose this profession as it flies in the face of their anti capitalist philosophy. Not good for their clients, not good for our industry or country. The shoe fits, so this shouldn't be considered a personal attack. StokI take it then that you're a supporter of the efforts to limit the increases of spending beyond even the drunken-sailor levels of the 2000-2006 GOP Congress being attempted by the current Democrat Congress? What do you know, we agree on something.....(although with the kind of spending done by the Republican Congress the between 2000 - 2006 I don’t think so).
.
Yes - I like the the paygo. You know, like it was under Bill Clinton.
LOL. That's what we get for electing (twice) a president born with a golden spoon in his mouth, who couldn't have possibly ever learned the value of a dollar, as evidenced by his failed businesses. He grew up surely knowing no limits to spending, the past generations of his family belonging to elite society and political power. This led him to spend our tax monies in a fashion that is sickening. And it seems to be a trend that's pervaded GOP culture in the last half-decade, from the Bridge to Nowhere to the War On Terror, we're getting fleeced.Yes - I like the the paygo. You know, like it was under Bill Clinton.
Oh, so you really didn't mean the part about being against the spending spree under the GOP Congress, as the Democrats want to spend much more, and that's dandy with you, so long as they kill the economy in the process by hiking taxes. And taxing more and spending more means you're less "liberal" than the GOP Congress was? You sound confused.Yes - I like the the paygo. You know, like it was under Bill Clinton.
LOL. That's what we get for electing (twice) a president born with a golden spoon in his mouth, who couldn't have possibly ever learned the value of a dollar, as evidenced by his failed businesses. He grew up surely knowing no limits to spending, the past generations of his family belonging to elite society and political power. This led him to spend our tax monies in a fashion that is sickening. And it seems to be a trend that's pervaded GOP culture in the last half-decade, from the Bridge to Nowhere to the War On Terror, we're getting fleeced.[/quote] You left some spittle on that monitor there...[quote=Ashland]Yes - I like the the paygo. You know, like it was under Bill Clinton.
Harry Truman once opined that the Presidency was like a white suit that a man puts on when elected. Any stains that a man puts on that suit remain when he leaves office. (He was a haberdasherer, so he would know.)
In my opinion, William Jefferson Clinton was a brown stain in the seat of the pants of that white suit.
LOL. That's what we get for electing (twice) a president born with a golden spoon in his mouth, who couldn't have possibly ever learned the value of a dollar, as evidenced by his failed businesses. He grew up surely knowing no limits to spending, the past generations of his family belonging to elite society and political power. This led him to spend our tax monies in a fashion that is sickening. And it seems to be a trend that's pervaded GOP culture in the last half-decade, from the Bridge to Nowhere to the War On Terror, we're getting fleeced.[/quote] You left some spittle on that monitor there...[/quote] Can't refute it though, can you?[quote=Big Taco][quote=Ashland]Yes - I like the the paygo. You know, like it was under Bill Clinton.
Back to Condi for a moment
As National Security Advisor she either ignored or missed warnings issued by the CIA and our own terrorism experts regarding the yet to be executed 9/11 attacks. She wrote an editorial or op-ed piece for the NYT regarding WMD in Iraq entitled "Why we know Iraq is lying." Turns out Iraq wasn't lying As a Vulcan she crafted the manifest destiny on steroids democracy at the end a gun policy and banged the table that now, while the U.S. has no military equal, is the time to use our military to spread democracy around the world. This woman, as smart as she is, has been wrong time after time. And look at the mess we have in Iraq. I'm not advocating that we pull out. Just look at what this woman's policy creation has done. Could anything possibly be more wrong? As I write this, the terroist god father sends us video taped greetings mocking our impotent attempts to democratize a world we do not understand. Yet there are those who defend her.Just for fun and inflamation, I’ll tell you what this Midwest Republican-leaning independent thinks. I am thoroughly disgusted by the ridiculous spending allowed under the current administration. Greenspan made a very valid point when he stated that the Repubs deserved to lose in '06 for straying too far from their fiscal roots. On the other hand, I’m not at all convinced the Dems would do a better job at fiscal restraint. Right now, it looks sadly like no one has any fiscal restraint. I like the tax cuts, but along with those, you’ve got to cut a little fat. Apparently, no one currently in office has the stomache for this side of the equation.
A Hillary Clinton presidency, my most likely scenario at the moment, would be a flaming disaster. She's not Bill, who while having the morals of a teenage jackrabbit, had a good understanding of how to run the office. Hillary is so distastful to me at the moment, I'm trying hard to imagine a candidate I would be less satisfied with. She will say and do whatever it takes to be elected, and if successful, I expect she'll govern by public opinion poll, a tactic that worked for Bill, but would likely be a disaster for her, given the crazy mood this country is in at the moment. Simply put, she's the most plastic phony I've seen in American politics, and that's saying a lot. I only hope this country wakes up before we elect her. Obama, while intelligent and articulate, is such an unknown quantity that it's hard for me to fathom how he's a serious candidate this early in his career. Obviously, he's got the youth movement behind him, but his views are probably the furthest from my own personal views, so while I don't have the strong feelings about him that I do about Hillary, he's even less likely to get my support, due to far too much uncertainty about what he'd do if elected. Edwards, with his trial lawyer wealth and $400 hair cuts, and Gore with his environmental hypocrisy and wooden personality mean that the Dems have zero candidates that hold any attraction to me as a mid-American independent/conservative. If Joe Lieberman was running, I'd have a different view. Frankly, as unpopular as the Democratic-controlled congress is, I'm surprised that the pundits expect a wider majority, along with a Democratic president in 2008. Apparently we hillbillies in the flyover states are completely out of touch with the majority view in America, but I can tell you from my perspective that moveon.org is doing nothing for the Democratic cause in my neighborhood. The Repubs have several candidates that appeal to me more than the Dem frontrunners. Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and McCain all strike me as preferable to Clinton or Obama. Maybe I'm showing my age, but I remember voting for Bill Clinton and laughing at tired-looking old men named Bush and Dole. I've come full circle on those views and it started in the last two years of the Clinton presidency...the ridiculous lack of decorum and morals, the questionable pardons, the childish pranks committed while leaving office. All of that and more combined to push my leanings the other direction. Has Bush made mistakes in his presidency? Absolutely. Have those in congress who now criticize him been guilty of massive hypocracy? No question about it in my book. Would we have been better off electing Gore or Kerry? I have serious doubts. With the mistakes seen in hindsight and my misgivings about what is happening in the middle east, I still wouldn't have voted for either of those two candidates. Knowing that I'm likely spending my vote on a losing cause, I'll tell you right now that I don't have the stomache for either Clinton or Obama. If nothing else, at least I'll be able to say I didn't vote for either of them when the inevitable missteps are made. I haven't made up my mind yet who I'm supporting, but given the cast of frontrunners, I can't see it being a Dem. If we end up spending four years under the guidance of Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid, I'll hunker down and survive...and look forward to the day this country comes to it's senses. Sometimes, leaders must change in order for people to see how good they had things. I'll close the post by apologizing in advance to my left-leaning motocycle buddy, and by saying that much of this is not necessarily fact...simply one man's opinions and views...so have at it.LOL. That's what we get for electing (twice) a president born with a golden spoon in his mouth, who couldn't have possibly ever learned the value of a dollar, as evidenced by his failed businesses. He grew up surely knowing no limits to spending, the past generations of his family belonging to elite society and political power. This led him to spend our tax monies in a fashion that is sickening. And it seems to be a trend that's pervaded GOP culture in the last half-decade, from the Bridge to Nowhere to the War On Terror, we're getting fleeced.[/quote] You left some spittle on that monitor there...[/quote] Can't refute it though, can you?[/quote][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Big Taco][quote=Ashland]Yes - I like the the paygo. You know, like it was under Bill Clinton.
Not sure I agree with your leaving that at W's feet, but OTOH when it comes to Congress....I feel the Republicans have really let us down when it comes to spending. The way they've handed out earmarks like all the others just sickens me.
[quote=BondGuy]Back to Condi for a moment
As National Security Advisor she either ignored or missed warnings issued by the CIA and our own terrorism experts regarding the yet to be executed 9/11 attacks. She wrote an editorial or op-ed piece for the NYT regarding WMD in Iraq entitled "Why we know Iraq is lying." Turns out Iraq wasn't lying As a Vulcan she crafted the manifest destiny on steroids democracy at the end a gun policy and banged the table that now, while the U.S. has no military equal, is the time to use our military to spread democracy around the world. This woman, as smart as she is, has been wrong time after time. And look at the mess we have in Iraq. I'm not advocating that we pull out. Just look at what this woman's policy creation has done. Could anything possibly be more wrong? As I write this, the terroist god father sends us video taped greetings mocking our impotent attempts to democratize a world we do not understand. Yet there are those who defend her. [/quote]You make some good points BG, but when it comes to WMD and Iraq, I might not agree. After all, we weren't the only folks(i.e. country) who thought they had them. And...many of their own weapons experts thought they had a stash. After all, they'd used mustard gas on their own countrymen at one point.
And for that matter...it's a mighty big desert out there, and unfortunately we've killed many of those who could tell any stories that we needed to hear. Not to mention the border with Syria is mighty porous. Who knows what we might have missed.
Maybe I'm just too trusting, but I don't think our government would have committed to going into Iraq(and made those assertions in front of the U.N. General Assemply) without some solid evidence.
[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=BondGuy]Back to Condi for a moment
As National Security Advisor she either ignored or missed warnings issued by the CIA and our own terrorism experts regarding the yet to be executed 9/11 attacks. She wrote an editorial or op-ed piece for the NYT regarding WMD in Iraq entitled "Why we know Iraq is lying." Turns out Iraq wasn't lying As a Vulcan she crafted the manifest destiny on steroids democracy at the end a gun policy and banged the table that now, while the U.S. has no military equal, is the time to use our military to spread democracy around the world. This woman, as smart as she is, has been wrong time after time. And look at the mess we have in Iraq. I'm not advocating that we pull out. Just look at what this woman's policy creation has done. Could anything possibly be more wrong? As I write this, the terroist god father sends us video taped greetings mocking our impotent attempts to democratize a world we do not understand. Yet there are those who defend her. [/quote]You make some good points BG, but when it comes to WMD and Iraq, I might not agree. After all, we weren't the only folks(i.e. country) who thought they had them. And...many of their own weapons experts thought they had a stash. After all, they'd used mustard gas on their own countrymen at one point.
And for that matter...it's a mighty big desert out there, and unfortunately we've killed many of those who could tell any stories that we needed to hear. Not to mention the border with Syria is mighty porous. Who knows what we might have missed.
Maybe I'm just too trusting, but I don't think our government would have committed to going into Iraq(and made those assertions in front of the U.N. General Assemply) without some solid evidence.
[/quote] Joe, there are questions regarding who knew what when. As usual, who to believe follows a political dividing line. The right buys the Bush explaination of "Who knew?" They also believe The Bush admin explanation of being misled by poor intel. The left, they believe the entire invasion was a WMD sham. They point to the fact that while finding WMDs was our most important mission, and the reason for going to war, Bush admin spent little time and effort sourcing and training any military units to do this most important job. In the end a company of mechanics got the job. ( I may have that wrong, don't remember exactly, however it was some lowly trained company or battalion, not munitions experts, or other highly trained experts who got the job of seeking out WMDs) To those on the left, not committing our best troops to the most important mission is a glaring "tell" proving in their minds that Bush knew the truth about the WMDs pre-invasion. They also point to the fact that the Bush admin ignored the fact that pre-invasion advance intel was coming up blank with regard to WMDs. On Invasion day our WMD guys were all dressed up with no place to go. That said, regardless of which side of the line you fall to, Condi Rice is the person who should have known. It was her job to know. We have people here quoting Truman. How about this Truman quote "The buck stops here." When held against the honor of Truman, Rice and the rest of the Bush admin are laughable. They are a bag of excuses. Except nobody's laughing. Instead people are dying and we've got a huge mess on our hands.
[quote=Indyone]Just for fun and inflamation, I’ll tell you what this Midwest Republican-leaning independent thinks. I am thoroughly disgusted by the ridiculous spending allowed under the current administration. Greenspan made a very valid point when he stated that the Repubs deserved to lose in '06 for straying too far from their fiscal roots. On the other hand, I’m not at all convinced the Dems would do a better job at fiscal restraint. Right now, it looks sadly like no one has any fiscal restraint. I like the tax cuts, but along with those, you’ve got to cut a little fat. Apparently, no one currently in office has the stomache for this side of the equation.
A Hillary Clinton presidency, my most likely scenario at the moment, would be a flaming disaster. She's not Bill, who while having the morals of a teenage jackrabbit, had a good understanding of how to run the office. Hillary is so distastful to me at the moment, I'm trying hard to imagine a candidate I would be less satisfied with. She will say and do whatever it takes to be elected, and if successful, I expect she'll govern by public opinion poll, a tactic that worked for Bill, but would likely be a disaster for her, given the crazy mood this country is in at the moment. Simply put, she's the most plastic phony I've seen in American politics, and that's saying a lot. I only hope this country wakes up before we elect her. Obama, while intelligent and articulate, is such an unknown quantity that it's hard for me to fathom how he's a serious candidate this early in his career. Obviously, he's got the youth movement behind him, but his views are probably the furthest from my own personal views, so while I don't have the strong feelings about him that I do about Hillary, he's even less likely to get my support, due to far too much uncertainty about what he'd do if elected. Edwards, with his trial lawyer wealth and $400 hair cuts, and Gore with his environmental hypocrisy and wooden personality mean that the Dems have zero candidates that hold any attraction to me as a mid-American independent/conservative. If Joe Lieberman was running, I'd have a different view. Frankly, as unpopular as the Democratic-controlled congress is, I'm surprised that the pundits expect a wider majority, along with a Democratic president in 2008. Apparently we hillbillies in the flyover states are completely out of touch with the majority view in America, but I can tell you from my perspective that moveon.org is doing nothing for the Democratic cause in my neighborhood. The Repubs have several candidates that appeal to me more than the Dem frontrunners. Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and McCain all strike me as preferable to Clinton or Obama. Maybe I'm showing my age, but I remember voting for Bill Clinton and laughing at tired-looking old men named Bush and Dole. I've come full circle on those views and it started in the last two years of the Clinton presidency...the ridiculous lack of decorum and morals, the questionable pardons, the childish pranks committed while leaving office. All of that and more combined to push my leanings the other direction. Has Bush made mistakes in his presidency? Absolutely. Have those in congress who now criticize him been guilty of massive hypocracy? No question about it in my book. Would we have been better off electing Gore or Kerry? I have serious doubts. With the mistakes seen in hindsight and my misgivings about what is happening in the middle east, I still wouldn't have voted for either of those two candidates. Knowing that I'm likely spending my vote on a losing cause, I'll tell you right now that I don't have the stomache for either Clinton or Obama. If nothing else, at least I'll be able to say I didn't vote for either of them when the inevitable missteps are made. I haven't made up my mind yet who I'm supporting, but given the cast of frontrunners, I can't see it being a Dem. If we end up spending four years under the guidance of Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid, I'll hunker down and survive...and look forward to the day this country comes to it's senses. Sometimes, leaders must change in order for people to see how good they had things. I'll close the post by apologizing in advance to my left-leaning motocycle buddy, and by saying that much of this is not necessarily fact...simply one man's opinions and views...so have at it.[/quote] Indy, very interesting post. My Saturday is starting to encroach here so I may respond more fully later. One thing though. While to this group I may seem left leaning or even very left leaning I'm actually more or less in the center. Most here assume I'm a libreral democrat, I'm not. I'm registered as an independent. I've voted on both sides of the ballot in national and local elections. Yet, when compared to the far right leanings of many here I am relatively speaking left leaning. Right now I like Giuliani, McCain or Edwards for 08. I wasn't too thrilled by the dumbass $400 haircut move. I disagree with your take on Hillary and Bill. I believe Bill was a fine president. I could give a hoot about his womanizing. Nor, after reading all I could find on the subject, do I find him in any way responsible for 9/11. The right points to Bill's failed attempts to kill Bin Laden as the reason for 9/11. The educated know that even had he suceeded in killing Osama the 9/11 plotters would have proceeded with their plan. The entire issue is highly politicized. IMO 9/11 falls between not stoppable to marginally stoppable if someone in the Bush admin had been paying attention as 9/11 approached. That's where I come down on Rice. It was her job to know. As for Hillary, I'm on the fence regarding her as of now. Too much noise surrounding her. However, I could live with her if I had to. The important thing now is to take a look at the mood of this country. People are tuned out. They've had enough of the mean spirited politics of the Bush era as well as his ineffective leadership. Many feel helpless at this point, with about 15 months before change will be affected. That attitude needs to change. Is there a candidate who is strong enough to get that change?I just can’t bring myself to give Edwards serious consideration given his background as a prominent member of the tort bar, and his histrionics in certain big cases. Excessive liability litigation is really harming the business environment in this country and leeches like Edwards are leading the charge and lining their pockets. Of course he sounds good…he does it for a living!
Hilary-well I just can’t trust her. I feel like she’ll say whatever she needs to say to get elected.
Obama shows promise, but I fear he’s just too unseasoned to sit in the big chair and control the levers of power.
Guilliani and Romney are a bit interesting to me, but other than those two I’m not feeling too excited by any of the candidates so far.
Oh, and BG you might have different views that I, but I don’t think you’re a lefty.
What are your thoughts? Why again are Democrats considered to be the spenders?
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
I agree. I don’t think that the Democratic Party under Hilary is the same Democratic Party under Bill. We’ve moved dramatically to the left. I also think Obama is not ready, and Edwards seems like he’s given up. I’m not prepared to vote for any of the Republicans because I don’t think any of them are connected to the reality of the average person in America. People don’t give a damn about corporate profits & taxation. People understand food on their table, clothes on their back, the kind of education their kids are receiving & whether or not they’re losing their kids to a war that they don’t understand. I don’t have the answers but I think that the Iraq Study Group probably did a good job at giving recommendations that have been entirely ignored.
I think I’m sitting the primary out & will likely vote for who I believe is the lesser evil in the general.
[quote=Ashland]
I think I’m sitting the primary out & will likely vote for who I believe is the lesser evil in the general.[/quote]
That’s truly a sorry-assed comment. Unfortunately, I agree wholeheartedly. Even more tragic is the fact that since Ronald Reagan (the last of the great Presidents), I’ve had to hold my nose whenever I entered the voting booth.
The sad truth is that whomever is elected next November will be even more worthless than the previous administrations.
I feel just the opposite: No matter who gets into office next will have to do a better job than the current administration, by default. FWIW, I have no idea who I'm going to vote for yet. I'd like to see a republican administration again, because I think the foundation of our goverment is checks and balances between 3 branches. I'm looking for a candidate that seems to have some semblance of fiscal conservatism, and smart foreign relations skills. I'd also like someone who feels that the government could be smaller, or at least leave less of a footprint on our lifestyles (lower taxes, less regulaton). Speaking of smart foreign relations, why is congress trying to rock the boat with Turkey? Yes, Genocide is truly evil. But why are they bringing it up? Are they trying to get Turkey pissed and not let us fly planes there anymore to hamper the war effort? What's the point?[quote=Ashland]
I think I’m sitting the primary out & will likely vote for who I believe is the lesser evil in the general.[/quote]
That’s truly a sorry-assed comment. Unfortunately, I agree wholeheartedly. Even more tragic is the fact that since Ronald Reagan (the last of the great Presidents), I’ve had to hold my nose whenever I entered the voting booth.
The sad truth is that whomever is elected next November will be even more worthless than the previous administrations.
The unfortunate truth is that government of the people, by the people and for the people no longer exists here in these United States. We have become an amalgam of special interests. Witness the fact that any topic of legislative discussion is always met with the soundbite, “How will this affect the (fill in the blank) community?” (Coincidentally, this is what led to the fall of the Roman Empire.)
[quote=Ashland]I agree. I don’t think that the Democratic Party under Hilary is the same Democratic Party under Bill. We’ve moved dramatically to the left. I also think Obama is not ready, and Edwards seems like he’s given up. I’m not prepared to vote for any of the Republicans because I don’t think any of them are connected to the reality of the average person in America. People don’t give a damn about corporate profits & taxation. People understand food on their table, clothes on their back, the kind of education their kids are receiving & whether or not they’re losing their kids to a war that they don’t understand. I don’t have the answers but I think that the Iraq Study Group probably did a good job at giving recommendations that have been entirely ignored.
I think I’m sitting the primary out & will likely vote for who I believe is the lesser evil in the general.[/quote]
This would be the crux of my frustrations with the current choices. It seems to me that all of the leading Democratic candidates are trying to appease moveon.org, and they all plan to raise my taxes and increase government interference in my life.
Hilary, in particular, troubles me. I do not understand what people see in her. To me she is a shrewd operator who is simply willing to say whatever she needs to say to get elected. With her past history, I just can’t seem to trust her.
Yet, the Republicans in Congress have really let me down the last few years. They don’t seem to have any restraint whatsoever when it comes to spending. There doesn’t seem to be any fiscal restraint amongst the bunch of them…that is except for the one fella(name escapes me) who is crusading against earmarking(i.e. pork) and focussing on how we should be spending for the good of the entire country, and he’s been ostracized by both parties.
I could support Joe Lieberman if he ran. I think he’s a good man.
I was pretty excited about Fred Thompson entering the race, but not so thrilled when I learned he didn’t even have the guts to vote ‘yes’ at Bill Clinton’s impeachment hearing.
[quote=granuja]
As National Security Advisor she either ignored or missed warnings issued by the CIA and our own terrorism experts regarding the yet to be executed 9/11 attacks. Oh for Crimenies sake.. the Bush administration hadn't been in the White House long enough to rearrange the furniture and replace all the missing Ws on the keyboards and you plan to blame Condi for something that was Decades in the making?? Get real.[/quote]Exactly. The problem that caused 9/11 was way beyond the abilities of GW and Condi to fix in the short time they were in office. The real challenge/problem was the inter-agency rivaly between the CIA and the FBI. The CIA had crucial information about members of the 9/11 conspiracy who were in the U.S., but were afraid to turn that info over to the FBI because if the FBI started a domestic criminal investigation it could imperil CIA intelligence sources.
Well I guess we know in hindsight that they made a bad decision.....and frankly I'm not even sure if the intent was good.....
You source is rather pointless as it mentions the party of the president, and doesn't mention who owns the congress. Clinton gets boatloads of credit for the deficit, but his improvement on the subject only comes when he loses the Congress to the GOP. Do you think we would have had the "shut down" of the government had Clinton had a Democratic Congress and there had been no pressure to bring down spending? What more real proof do you need than that for every government spending issue the Democrat's call to arms is that the GOP program in question "doesn't go far enough"?What are your thoughts? Why again are Democrats considered to be the spenders?
[quote=BondGuy]
Joe, there are questions regarding who knew what when. As usual, who to believe follows a political dividing line. [/quote] That only happens if you ignore the comments about how Saddam had WMDs made by Democrats going back to 1998 when Clinton said saddam had them and would use them unless he was stopped.I couldn't agree more. What's really disturbing, however, is that the new lot with Murtha acting like a crime boss handing out earmark favors is even worse.… but OTOH when it comes to Congress…I feel the Republicans have really let us down when it comes to spending. The way they’ve handed out earmarks like all the others just sickens me.
[quote=Ashland]What are your thoughts? Why again are Democrats considered to be the spenders?
You source is rather pointless as it mentions the party of the president, and doesn’t mention who owns the congress. Clinton gets boatloads of credit for the deficit, but his improvement on the subject only comes when he loses the Congress to the GOP. Do you think we would have had the “shut down” of the government had Clinton had a Democratic Congress and there had been no pressure to bring down spending?
What more real proof do you need than that for every government spending issue the Democrat’s call to arms is that the GOP program in question “doesn’t go far enough”?[/quote]
Mike - you did notice that under EVERY Republican President, the National Debt has exploded upwards???
[quote=mikebutler222] [quote=Ashland]What are your thoughts? Why again are Democrats considered to be the spenders?
You source is rather pointless as it mentions the party of the president, and doesn’t mention who owns the congress. Clinton gets boatloads of credit for the deficit, but his improvement on the subject only comes when he loses the Congress to the GOP. Do you think we would have had the “shut down” of the government had Clinton had a Democratic Congress and there had been no pressure to bring down spending?
What more real proof do you need than that for every government spending issue the Democrat’s call to arms is that the GOP program in question “doesn’t go far enough”?[/quote]
Mike - you did notice that under EVERY Republican President, the National Debt has exploded upwards???[/quote]
It can’t have escaped your notice that the same is true of Democrat administrations.
Do you honestly believe that EITHER party gives a rip about fiscal responsibility with your money within it’s respective ranks? The fact is that politicians of any persausion care for nothing save buying more and more votes, and using our money to do the buying. To think anything else is pure Pollyana.
Ashland,
I wish you liberals were right once in a while. It’s LONG past time for us to bomb Iran back into the stone age (it wouldn’t really be that far for them). The same goes for Syria, North Korea and , frankly, Saudi Arabia.
After that, I look forward to your predictions of the next and next and next wars. I bet I’ll be all for them, too.
[quote=YHWY] Ashland, I wish you liberals were right once in a while. It’s LONG past time for us to bomb Iran back into the stone age (it wouldn’t really be that far for them). The same goes for Syria, North Korea and , frankly, Saudi Arabia. After that, I look forward to your predictions of the next and next and next wars. I bet I’ll be all for them, too.
[/quote]
Wow, as a good conservative, how are you planning on paying for these little wars? Or are you just hoping for a wee bit of Rapture?
My apologies on the mis-cast...I'll re-file you somewhere in the muddled middle... [quote=BondGuy]I disagree with your take on Hillary and Bill. I believe Bill was a fine president. I could give a hoot about his womanizing.[/quote] This is non-relevant ancient history at this point, but after telling you that I agree that on balance, Bill was a pretty effective leader, I think his womanizing in office constituted an egregarious lapse of judgement. This lapse resulted in embarrassment to the office and a huge distraction in the last part of his presidency, which couldn't help but interfere with his ability to govern to the best of his ability. He surely could not have been thinking of the consequences of discovery... On a brighter note, I put a new Mustang seat on my cruiser and logged some very comfortable miles this weekend.While to this group I may seem left leaning or even very left leaning I’m actually more or less in the center. Most here assume I’m a libreral democrat, I’m not. I’m registered as an independent. I’ve voted on both sides of the ballot in national and local elections. Yet, when compared to the far right leanings of many here I am relatively speaking left leaning.
My apologies on the mis-cast...I'll re-file you somewhere in the muddled middle... [quote=BondGuy]I disagree with your take on Hillary and Bill. I believe Bill was a fine president. I could give a hoot about his womanizing.[/quote] This is non-relevant ancient history at this point, but after telling you that I agree that on balance, Bill was a pretty effective leader, I think his womanizing in office constituted an egregarious lapse of judgement. This lapse resulted in embarrassment to the office and a huge distraction in the last part of his presidency, which couldn't help but interfere with his ability to govern to the best of his ability. He surely could not have been thinking of the consequences of discovery... On a brighter note, I put a new Mustang seat on my cruiser and logged some very comfortable miles this weekend.[/quote] Just to be sure we have our priorities straight, congrats on getting the new seat. Hope you're getting some good miles in during our extended summer. I mananaged to get Zippy, the Mini down to Front Royal Va for a few days. Using Front Royal as a staging point i did several loops through uot the Shenandoah Valley, Monongahela Natl Forest and Seneca Rock. Of course i did a short stint on the Skyline Drive. It was just a bit too slow to spend any serious time there. Still, if you are looking for a great place to take the wife on the bike, the Skyline Drive and Blue Ridge Parkway would be tough to beat. I agree that Clinton's judgement was compromised by his actions. Yet, that goes for all married individuals who make that same mistake. And his ability to lead was compromised as well. However, that's not his entirely his fault. The republican led witch hunt to overthrow his presidency, better known as White Water, saw to it that he paid a price. Star had spent a lot of time and money and had come up epty. They had ot get him on something. Looking back at history at leaders who have done no more than Clinton shows that politicizing one's sex life is not the in our best interests. FDR, and Churchill both did as much as Clinton and more. Yet, no public outrage. No impeachment in FDR's case. And Kennedy's exploits are well documented, still, no Impeachment. And in these cases, lucky for the world that politicians at that time had their priorities straight. Clinton's sexapades did impede his presidency. However, his impeachment was nothing more than a political payback.[quote=BondGuy]While to this group I may seem left leaning or even very left leaning I’m actually more or less in the center. Most here assume I’m a libreral democrat, I’m not. I’m registered as an independent. I’ve voted on both sides of the ballot in national and local elections. Yet, when compared to the far right leanings of many here I am relatively speaking left leaning.
[quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]
Joe, there are questions regarding who knew what when. As usual, who to believe follows a political dividing line. [/quote] That only happens if you ignore the comments about how Saddam had WMDs made by Democrats going back to 1998 when Clinton said saddam had them and would use them unless he was stopped.[/quote] Ancient history.[quote=Ashland] [quote=mikebutler222] [quote=Ashland]What are your thoughts? Why again are Democrats considered to be the spenders? [/quote]
You source is rather pointless as it mentions the party of the president, and doesn't mention who owns the congress. Clinton gets boatloads of credit for the deficit, but his improvement on the subject only comes when he loses the Congress to the GOP. Do you think we would have had the "shut down" of the government had Clinton had a Democratic Congress and there had been no pressure to bring down spending?
What more real proof do you need than that for every government spending issue the Democrat's call to arms is that the GOP program in question "doesn't go far enough"?[/quote]
Mike - you did notice that under EVERY Republican President, the National Debt has exploded upwards???[/quote]
I noticed who wrote your website source and I noticed that they attempt to paint the president as the sole arbiter of spending, as if there's no Congress and the party of the Congress didn't matter. They also ignore exigent issues, like war and the spending associated. They ignore the fact, for example, taxing and spending were going nuclear until <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Clinton lost his like-minded Democratic controlled Congress and had to contend with a GOP Congress bent of reeling in his excesses. All they do instead is point at spending from 1994 on and say “Wasn’t he great?”.<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Rather than trying to create one dimensional “proof” about parties and spending, how about explain why, on issue after issue, the Democratic impulse is to spend more, tax more and grow government more? It’s not very instructive to point to spending of a GOP Congress, bad as it was, and claim “ah-ha!!!” when the fact is on most every issue from a Medicare prescription drug plan to the current SCHIP fight, the Democrats want to spend more and impose more government centered solutions.
[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]
Joe, there are questions regarding who knew what when. As usual, who to believe follows a political dividing line. [/quote] That only happens if you ignore the comments about how Saddam had WMDs made by Democrats going back to 1998 when Clinton said saddam had them and would use them unless he was stopped.[/quote] Ancient history. [/quote] Huh? You create this fantasy that hangs on Bush making up the WMDs threat, and to support it you have to ignore everything said by every Democrat who saw the same intelligence information from 1998 (when Clinton made regime change in Iraq official US policy) until 2003, and when forced to look at those comments (all made before public opinion, and thus Democrat positions) your only response is "ancient history"? Really? Look, I can take the "they were wrong" line of reasoning, but the "they made it up stuff" is just beyond the pale.[quote=YHWY] Ashland, I wish you liberals were right once in a while. It’s LONG past time for us to bomb Iran back into the stone age (it wouldn’t really be that far for them). The same goes for Syria, North Korea and , frankly, Saudi Arabia. After that, I look forward to your predictions of the next and next and next wars. I bet I’ll be all for them, too.
[/quote]
Wow, as a good conservative, how are you planning on paying for these little wars? Or are you just hoping for a wee bit of Rapture?
People in this business should know at least a little something about economics and at a minimum should be conversant with the recent numbers. The fact is tax rates were reduced, the economy was spurred from the deep recession it was headed for in 2000, thus tax revenues are at record highs, and the debt as a percentage of GDP is low. Deficits continue to come in below expectations, tax revenues continue to accelerate. It really is all about growing the size of the pie, not just government’s slice of it.<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
The Democrat prescription to the economy is tax more, spend more (extend benefits designed for the working poor to solidly middle class people) and even though tax receipts decline, and thus deficits widen, at least we can say we’re taxing those evil rich bastards (who Democrats will never credit with creating jobs). The GOP spends like drunken sailors of “buy vote projects”, Democrats, left to their own devices, would spend enough to sober up those drunken sailors and make their faces glow red with embarrassment. Think Murtha and his earmark factory.
Hearing a Democrat wail about the deficit is like listening to a hooker complain about moral decline.
[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=granuja]
As National Security Advisor she either ignored or missed warnings issued by the CIA and our own terrorism experts regarding the yet to be executed 9/11 attacks. Oh for Crimenies sake.. the Bush administration hadn't been in the White House long enough to rearrange the furniture and replace all the missing Ws on the keyboards and you plan to blame Condi for something that was Decades in the making?? Get real.[/quote]Exactly. The problem that caused 9/11 was way beyond the abilities of GW and Condi to fix in the short time they were in office. The real challenge/problem was the inter-agency rivaly between the CIA and the FBI. The CIA had crucial information about members of the 9/11 conspiracy who were in the U.S., but were afraid to turn that info over to the FBI because if the FBI started a domestic criminal investigation it could imperil CIA intelligence sources.
Well I guess we know in hindsight that they made a bad decision.....and frankly I'm not even sure if the intent was good.....
[/quote] There was nothing to fix. The intell was there and either missed or ignored by Rice. Both Tenant and Clarke confirm that the intell was given to Rice. Rice denies this and to protect her from her own gaff the Bush slime machine was put into high gear to discredit both men. And it worked, many here who refuse to think for themselves will attack me for even mentioning either man. But look beyond the slime machine. Clarke worked worked for the state dept for 30 years. He came to Washington during the Reagan years and was known for working well with both Republicans and Dems. He had become our top counter terrorism expert. He was one smart and well respected guy. Bush experts saw that he was good and recco'd that he be hired to the same job for for the Bush admin. Bush hired him. Yet, as Bush's top counter terrorism expert he couldn't get a meeting with Bush. It took seven months for him to get a meeting even though he'd been banging the drum that someone needed to listen. Yet, he got one meeting in the 8 months preceeding 9/11. Clarke had Tenant's attention. Still, even Tenant couldn't get past the puffery that the NSA's office had become. Rice, at the time, was more interested in protocol and control of information flow than the content of the information. She then filtered what got through to Bush. Compare this to the WEEKLY meetings Clarke had with Clinton and who do you think was better informed? Clinton got first hand unfiltered information. Unfortunately for us the guy who needed to get his info first hand and unfiltered didn't. Would it have made a difference? Interestingly, protocol was dropped post 9/11. Clarke was the man. Sadly at this point his encyclopedia of knowledge could only provide a post game recap of who and why. When you don't listen to your own experts, what do you call that? When you don't listen to your own experts and then hell rains down, what do you call that? I call it not doing your job. As for rearranging the furniture in the White House, said in jest, yet, that's exactly what was going on. These people, at the time, were more caught up in the trappings of power than running the country.
To be more clear about Clarke:
Under Clinton he held a specially created NSC position in which he reported directly to the president. In this position, in addition to producing daily briefing papers, he attended the weekly princpals meetings. These were meetings held directly with the president, FBI , CIA Sec of Def., NSC chief, and the NSA. When hired by the Bush admin, Rice demoted him. Understand he was our top counter terrorism guy. Under Rice he produced daily breifing papers but was cut out all principals meetings. Rice later defended this move by saying Clarke wasn't needed at those meetings because Tenet was at the meetings. This is a bit of slight of hand on Rice's part, giving the appearance that Bush was getting his info first hand, rather than from an "Underling." Yet, as our go to terrorism expert, it was Clarke who had the first hand info. He supplied it to Tenet for the daily meetings. Clarke took the demotion to mean that the Bush admin was less focused on terrorism than had been Clinton. In July/aug of 01 as reports of an impending attack were raised at a meeting Bush asked Rice why we couldn't attack Al Qaida instead of "Just swatting at flies." Rice told Bush something was in the works and that the principals would meet in two days and and that she would then get back to him. Then Rice did nothing. Contrast that to the 2000 terrorist threat against LAX, which was no more certain. Clinton called an emergency NSC meeting. The principals then met every day to discuss only the threat. They were asked in person every morning, and again in a phone call every evening by Clinton what they had done that day to subvert the threat. This forced the FBI and the CIA to shake the branches of their organizations to get information. Regarding 9/11, the FBI had the info that the terrorist were in the country. Yet, no one was shaking the branches looking for info. No one was doing anything. The promised principals meeting never took place. Again, the tragedy being that we never took advantage of our one best chance to stop 9/11.[quote=mikebutler222]
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt”>Hearing a Democrat wail about the deficit is like listening to a hooker complain about moral decline.<o:p></o:p>
http://www.factcheck.org/article148.html
These are numbers through 2004. Looks to me like the Clinton years had the debt heading in the right direction - that includes when there was both a Democratic President & Democratic Congress. 2003 & 2004 during the Bush years were higher as a % of GDP than ANY of the Clinton years including when we were in Somalia. You hear me complaining about spending. My question is WHY AREN’T YOU?
Here’s an interesting story about how supply side economics doesn’t work. Note the conservative publication.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1001/p15s01-wmgn.html
Mike - why don’t you order the article mentioned in this story & let us know what you find out.
[quote=BondGuy]
There was nothing to fix. The intell was there and either missed or ignored by Rice. Both Tenant and Clarke confirm that the intell was given to Rice. [/quote]This is nonsense. Clarke was a disgruntled NSC advisor who had a hissy-fit when his daily face time with the throne ended, when Bush decided to met directly daily with the heads of Intelligence agencies (something <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Clinton didn’t do) and not him. The “warnings” you claim were ignored were of a level of generality (no who, what, where when, and how) as to be useless. For all the self aggrandizing Clarke does, Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA’s bin Laden task force, and a major league Bush critic, says Clarke was an abject failure. <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Matthew Continetti writes: "Scheuer believes that Clarke’s risk aversion and politicking negatively impacted the hunt for Bin Laden prior to September 11, 2001. Scheuer stated that his unit, codename 'Alec,' had provided information that could have led to the capture and or killing of Osama bin Laden on ten different occasions, only to have his recommendations for action turned down by senior intelligence officials, including Clarke."
Clarke claims that Condi had never “heard” of bin Laden until he mentioned him to her, a claim that was undermined when a tape of Condi on a pre-2000 election surfaced where she discussed at length the terrorist threat the nation faced, bin Laden in particular.
BTW, Clarke was such a “success” that Sandy Berger, attempting to keep critical reviews of Clarke’s work (like the claim that sharp intel and not blind luck thwarted the “millennium bomber” at the Canadian border) away from the 9/11 Commission, stole and destroyed classified documents.
More on Clarke; http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014732.php
[quote=<?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Ashland]
http://www.factcheck.org/article148.html
These are numbers through 2004. Looks to me like the Clinton years had the debt heading in the right direction - that includes when there was both a Democratic President & Democratic Congress. [/quote] <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I have no idea where you're getting that, the table has no dates identified. Perhaps you've already forgotten WHY the GOP won the Congress in 1994, it was because of run away tax and spending. You don’t recall Clinton saying he thought he’d raised taxes too much? You don’t recall the gov’t shutdown over GOP attempts at spending cuts? That’s why this sort of framing of the argument with no context as to who ran the Congress at the time or what else was going on (recession, expansion in the economy) in the world is such a joke.
[quote=Ashland]
Here's an interesting story about how supply side economics doesn't work. Note the conservative publication.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1001/p15s01-wmgn.html [/quote]
Now that's interesting, you figure CSM is a "conservative publication"? I suppose you also think the columnist is "conservative" too?
So the economics “don’t work” even though tax cuts have demonstrably spurred economic growth, diminishing the effects of a recession, resulting in record tax revenues and historically low deficits as a percentage of GNP? Really? Next you’ll prove to me the sky isn’t blue.
Rather than tap dancing about spending in the past, how about trying to make a coherent argument that Democrats aren’t attempting at every turn to expand government programs, making them less market oriented in the process? How about explaining how Murtha hasn’t turned the nasty business of earmarks into an art form?
How about starting with Democratic versus GOP solutions to Medicare coverage for prescription drugs and SCHIP?
[quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]
Joe, there are questions regarding who knew what when. As usual, who to believe follows a political dividing line. [/quote] That only happens if you ignore the comments about how Saddam had WMDs made by Democrats going back to 1998 when Clinton said saddam had them and would use them unless he was stopped.[/quote] Ancient history. [/quote] Huh? You create this fantasy that hangs on Bush making up the WMDs threat, and to support it you have to ignore everything said by every Democrat who saw the same intelligence information from 1998 (when Clinton made regime change in Iraq official US policy) until 2003, and when forced to look at those comments (all made before public opinion, and thus Democrat positions) your only response is "ancient history"? Really? Look, I can take the "they were wrong" line of reasoning, but the "they made it up stuff" is just beyond the pale. [/quote] What fantasy? Why beyond the pale? Bush, by his own admission was extremely weak on foreign policy and world affairs. Wisely, he surrounded himself with foreign affairs experts. Unwisely, most of this group were also member of the Vulcans. A group who made no secret, long before 9/11 and 2003, of their wish to invade Iraq. So, it was no surprise that deposing Saddam became one of the Bush admin's first term goals. That the Bush war cabinet was focused soley on Iraq post 9/11, even after it became clear that iraq did not attack us is troubling to those who search for truth. Were there wmds or were we had by the Vulcans? I don't have that answer, however, there is at least a plausible possibility that we were had. Bolstered by the fact that the pre-invasion "there making it up" crowd turned out to be right. It is not beyond the pale for those of us in the center to at least consider evidence of contreivance. Lastly, i'm not ignoring anything. Just putting it in its proper context. What anyone said, did, thought, or believed in 1998 was not relavent to 2003.[quote=mikebutler222]
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0in 1.5pt 0.75pt”>[quote=<?: prefix = st1 ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags” /><st1:City w:st=“on”><st1:place w:st=“on”>Ashland</st1:place></st1:City>] http://www.factcheck.org/article148.html These are numbers through 2004. Looks to me like the <st1:City w:st=“on”><st1:place w:st=“on”>Clinton</st1:place></st1:City> years had the debt heading in the right direction - that includes when there was both a Democratic President & Democratic Congress. [/quote] <?: prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” /><o:p></o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt”> <o:p></o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt”>I have no idea where you’re getting that, the table has no dates identified. Perhaps you’ve already forgotten WHY the GOP won the Congress in 1994, it was because of run away tax and spending. You don’t recall <st1:City w:st=“on”><st1:place w:st=“on”>Clinton</st1:place></st1:City> saying he thought he’d raised taxes too much? You don’t recall the gov’t shutdown over GOP attempts at spending cuts? That’s why this sort of framing of the argument with no context as to who ran the Congress at the time or what else was going on (recession, expansion in the economy) in the world is such a joke.<o:p></o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt”> <o:p></o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt”>[quote=<st1:City w:st=“on”><st1:place w:st=“on”>Ashland</st1:place></st1:City>] Here’s an interesting story about how supply side economics doesn’t work. Note the conservative publication. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1001/p15s01-wmgn.html [/quote]<o:p></o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt”> <o:p></o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt 0pt”>Now that’s interesting, you figure CSM is a “conservative publication”? I suppose you also think the columnist is “conservative” too?<o:p></o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt 0pt”><o:p> </o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt 0pt”>So the economics “don’t work” even though tax cuts have demonstrably spurred economic growth, diminishing the effects of a recession, resulting in record tax revenues and historically low deficits as a percentage of GNP? Really? Next you’ll prove to me the sky isn’t blue.<o:p></o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt 0pt”><o:p> </o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt 0pt”>Rather than tap dancing about spending in the past, how about trying to make a coherent argument that Democrats aren’t attempting at every turn to expand government programs, making them less market oriented in the process? How about explaining how Murtha hasn’t turned the nasty business of earmarks into an art form?<o:p></o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt 0pt”><o:p> </o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt 0pt”>How about starting with Democratic versus GOP solutions to Medicare coverage for prescription drugs and SCHIP? <o:p></o:p> [/quote]
OK… I’m going to stop feeding the blind troll.
[quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]
There was nothing to fix. The intell was there and either missed or ignored by Rice. Both Tenant and Clarke confirm that the intell was given to Rice. [/quote]This is nonsense. Clarke was a disgruntled NSC advisor who had a hissy-fit when his daily face time with the throne ended, when Bush decided to met directly daily with the heads of Intelligence agencies (something <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Clinton didn’t do) and not him. The “warnings” you claim were ignored were of a level of generality (no who, what, where when, and how) as to be useless. For all the self aggrandizing Clarke does, Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA’s bin Laden task force, and a major league Bush critic, says Clarke was an abject failure. <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Matthew Continetti writes: "Scheuer believes that Clarke’s risk aversion and politicking negatively impacted the hunt for Bin Laden prior to September 11, 2001. Scheuer stated that his unit, codename 'Alec,' had provided information that could have led to the capture and or killing of Osama bin Laden on ten different occasions, only to have his recommendations for action turned down by senior intelligence officials, including Clarke."
Clarke claims that Condi had never “heard” of bin Laden until he mentioned him to her, a claim that was undermined when a tape of Condi on a pre-2000 election surfaced where she discussed at length the terrorist threat the nation faced, bin Laden in particular.
BTW, Clarke was such a “success” that Sandy Berger, attempting to keep critical reviews of Clarke’s work (like the claim that sharp intel and not blind luck thwarted the “millennium bomber” at the Canadian border) away from the 9/11 Commission, stole and destroyed classified documents.
More on Clarke; http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014732.php
[/quote] Mike, you help make my case. You conveniently buy into the Bush slime machine's view painting Clarke as a disgruntled low level DC operative who couldn't handle a demotion. You left out Dick Cheney's assertion that Clarke was out of the loop. To the non-partisan, not only was Clarke not out of the loop, he was the loop. That the Bush admin was so half-assed in trying to discredit Clarke was a glaring tell that they were afraid of him. They couldn't get their stories straight. The fact is, like it or not, that the Bush admin put Clarke on point to lead the response to 9/11. He was the man, the decision maker after 9/11. Are we to beleive that when we experience the deadliest attack on American soil in our history Bush put a disgruntled "Hissy-fit" demoted NSC guy in charge of the response to 9/11? Yeah that makes sense. Mike are you even capable of independent thought? Bush and company didn't atttempt to discredit Clarke until he blew the whistle. Why is that? What amazes me is that in a corporate whistle blowing case the defendant's attempts to discredit those blowing the whistle is met with skepticism. Yet, when a highly placed insider blows the whistle on the prez, you buy the slime job hook,line and sinker. Amazing! Figure it out mike or are you just another sheep?Title of this article: Political Cycles and the Stock Market
http://www.personal.anderson.ucla.edu/rossen.valkanov/politics53_complete.pdf
Conclusions start on Page 23.
Conclusion 1 - The excess return… over one month Treasury bill is, on average, 9 percent higher under Democrat than Republican administrations…
2 - The presidential cycle variables capture information about expected returns that is orthogonal(mutually independent or irrelevant) to business cycle variables…
3 - There is no evidence that pre- or post-election excess returns are higher than average… The difference in excess returns builds up homogeneously throughout the presidential term – it is not due to any particular period during the presidency…
4 - Volatility is somewhat higher in Republican presidencies…
5 - The difference in returns decreases monotonically with the market capitalization of firms. The difference varies from 7 percent for the largest firms to about 22 percent for the smallest firms(smaller company stocks do better under Democratic presidential terms. Oh yeah - so do larger companies!)
6 - The impact of presidential cycle variables varies across industries…
7 - Congressional mandates DO NOT have a statistically significant effect on excess stock returns(it doesn’t matter who’s holds Congress!)…
Sounds to me like the Democrats are better for the stock market. Higher returns for large companies & much higher returns for small companies. Less volatility during a Democratic presidency. Hmm - blows your argument right out of the water, doesn’t it Mike? Before you respond and look blind & dumb - read the conclusions & the tables yourself.
[quote=BondGuy]
What fantasy? Why beyond the pale?[/quote] Because there are simply too many comments from Democrats who saw the same raw intel and came to the same conclusions. [quote=BondGuy] Bush, by his own admission was extremely weak on foreign policy ...............[/quote] Blah, blah, blah, blah... You still haven't gotten around to explaining why/how every intel agency on the planet came to the same conclusion about Saddam and WMDs, how so many Democrats said the same thing after seeing the same intel, yet "Bush made it up". It's just pathetic... [quote=BondGuy] I don't have that answer, however, there is at least a plausible possibility that we were had. Bolstered by the fact that the pre-invasion "there making it up" crowd turned out to be right. It is not beyond the pale for those of us in the center to at least consider evidence of contreivance. [/quote] Pardon me while I put on my hip waders here. There's an obvious answer, it dates back to observations made by Clinton in 1998 (and of course it is relevent what he and our intel agencies said then, Saddam didn't have some sort of conversion on the subject and he never did document what he'd done with WMDs he admitted that he had had). There were very, very few "making it up" people before the war. There were plenty of "we can contain him" and "we can't invade, he'll use those WMDs" types, but the "making it up" types could have met in a phone booth and even the Democrats who voted against the war didn't take them seriously. Funniest of all "us in the center"????? ROFLMAO.... [/quote][quote=BondGuy]Mike, you help make my case. You conveniently buy into the Bush slime machine's… [/quote]<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Oh, so it’s the “slime machine” that accurately points out how Clarke lost his access to the presdient, became a disgruntled employee, was removed from the loop and exaggerated his “success” prior to 2000. Well, it’s a good thing they got Scheuer onboard with the “slime machine”, isn’t it?
Talk about sheep, how many times does Clarke have to be exposed before people give up Carville’s talking points? I guess Sandy Berger stole and destroyed those classified documents because they reflected so well on his adminstration’s efforts?
Title of this article: Political Cycles and the Stock Market
What a wonderful demonstration of how some people don't know the difference between correlation and causation.<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Will you stop dancing any time soon and address issues like Democratic positions on Medicare prescription drugs and SCHIP? I mean, it’s obvious why you want to ring the “fiscial responsibility” bell and then run from reality, but I hope you’ll get around to the issue ……
Ashland,
I plan to pay for these HUGE, not little, wars by lowering taxes across the board, igniting a wave of economic growth the likes of which the world has never seen, flooding the treasury with all the dough they’ll need. As further improvements, I would completely privatize social security over the next 15 years, privatize Medicare in the next 10 and eliminate the Federal Dept. of Education, effective immediately. Additionally, I would close the borders and deny all illegal immigrant ALL federal benefits, just for the mean time, until they can all be deported.
Any other questions I can help you with?
[quote=BondGuy]To be more clear about Clarke:
Under Clinton he held a specially created NSC position in which he reported directly to the president. In this position, in addition to producing daily briefing papers, he attended the weekly princpals meetings. These were meetings held directly with the president, FBI , CIA Sec of Def., NSC chief, and the NSA. When hired by the Bush admin, Rice demoted him. Understand he was our top counter terrorism guy. Under Rice he produced daily breifing papers but was cut out all principals meetings. Rice later defended this move by saying Clarke wasn't needed at those meetings because Tenet was at the meetings. This is a bit of slight of hand on Rice's part, giving the appearance that Bush was getting his info first hand, rather than from an "Underling." Yet, as our go to terrorism expert, it was Clarke who had the first hand info. He supplied it to Tenet for the daily meetings. Clarke took the demotion to mean that the Bush admin was less focused on terrorism than had been Clinton. In July/aug of 01 as reports of an impending attack were raised at a meeting Bush asked Rice why we couldn't attack Al Qaida instead of "Just swatting at flies." Rice told Bush something was in the works and that the principals would meet in two days and and that she would then get back to him. Then Rice did nothing. Contrast that to the 2000 terrorist threat against LAX, which was no more certain. Clinton called an emergency NSC meeting. The principals then met every day to discuss only the threat. They were asked in person every morning, and again in a phone call every evening by Clinton what they had done that day to subvert the threat. This forced the FBI and the CIA to shake the branches of their organizations to get information. Regarding 9/11, the FBI had the info that the terrorist were in the country. Yet, no one was shaking the branches looking for info. No one was doing anything. The promised principals meeting never took place. Again, the tragedy being that we never took advantage of our one best chance to stop 9/11. [/quote]Well BG I'll give you props...you are seriously plugged in and right about many of your points...
The one issue on which I will argue with you is the whole CIA/FIB issue. According to my research(not that I'm a scholar) the CIA had all the intel and failed to share it with the FBI for fear that they'd start a criminal(domestic) investigation that would compromise their intel sources.
Clinton may have been more aware, and had more info, but his implementation sucked. Perhaps Monica distracted him.....
[quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]
What fantasy? Why beyond the pale?[/quote] Because there are simply too many comments from Democrats who saw the same raw intel and came to the same conclusions. [quote=BondGuy] Bush, by his own admission was extremely weak on foreign policy ...............[/quote] Blah, blah, blah, blah... Mike don't you mean Bah, bah, bahhhh? Speech impediment? Apparently while reading Bush's bio you missed the use of a Bush friend, a Saudi Prince, as his first foreign policy mentor. Bush admits he was just about clueless on foreign policy prior to his bid for the oval office. This is fact, not partisan. And it's nothing to get your short and curlys all tied up in knots over. many Prez hopefulls come from the ranks of being state governors, as did Bush, without foreign policy experience. That Bush recognised this as a weakness and put a first class team together to fill this gap is commedable. That much of this team had a hidden agenda was tragic. Who knew they were all hell bent on invading iraq. Again, this is well documented fact that the players involved do not deny. You still haven't gotten around to explaining why/how every intel agency on the planet came to the same conclusion about Saddam and WMDs, how so many Democrats said the same thing after seeing the same intel, yet "Bush made it up". It's just pathetic... There you go again...(who said that one mike?) putting words in my mouth. Mike you are so far right you refuse to consider the possibility that anyone Bush could do anything wrong. It is in your words "beyond the pale" that Bush admin did anything wrong. Afterall, republican leaders would never do anything wrong, right mike? It's all the democrats fault. Just like when Nixon covered up a burglary. And for the record, i don't think Bush made anything up. Now Cheney, that's a different story. I especially love the way the 07 Cheney says we had no idea that Iraq would destabilize along tribal lines, when played against the 92 Cheney who said we didn't go after Saddam in the Gulf War because doing so would have destabilized Iraq along tribal lines. That's classic! But it's also typical of the information flow from the admin. How do you reconcile being lied to? A liar is a liar. it's not someone I can trust. And that's where i part ways with the Bush admin. I believe Bush received poor advice. [quote=BondGuy] I don't have that answer, however, there is at least a plausible possibility that we were had. Bolstered by the fact that the pre-invasion "there making it up" crowd turned out to be right. It is not beyond the pale for those of us in the center to at least consider evidence of contreivance. [/quote] Pardon me while I put on my hip waders here. There's an obvious answer, it dates back to observations made by Clinton in 1998 (and of course it is relevent what he and our intel agencies said then, Saddam didn't have some sort of conversion on the subject and he never did document what he'd done with WMDs he admitted that he had had). There were very, very few "making it up" people before the war. There were plenty of "we can contain him" and "we can't invade, he'll use those WMDs" types, but the "making it up" types could have met in a phone booth and even the Democrats who voted against the war didn't take them seriously. Funniest of all "us in the center"????? ROFLMAO.... Actually, the funniest is that you are a sheep and don't realize it. When it comes to Bush, "drank the cool aid" doesn't quite cover your fanatical zeal to defend him. Nor does it explain why you take the most mundane of facts regarding Bush and politicize it. [/quote] [/quote][quote=BondGuy] <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Apparently while reading Bush's bio you missed the use of a Bush friend, a Saudi Prince, as his first foreign policy mentor. [/quote]
That’s sounds like “those guys made the NY Times apologize”…. IOW an big steamy pile of nonsense….
[quote=BondGuy]
There you go again...(who said that one mike?) putting words in my mouth. Mike you are so far right you refuse to consider the possibility that anyone Bush could do anything wrong. It is in your words "beyond the pale" that Bush admin did anything wrong. [/quote]
Talk about putting words in someone’s mouth. Perhaps you forgot that I said that I could go along with “they were wrong” it’s the “they made it up” stuff that’s beyond the pale.
I know you want to ignore it, but the fact is that most every intel agency on the planet believed Saddam had WMDs, that Clinton believed it enough (and so did Clarke) to make it official US policy and to attack the aspirin factory and that every Democrat who saw the same raw intel reports came to the same conclusion that Saddam had WMDs.
[quote=BondGuy]
Funniest of all "us in the center"????? ROFLMAO....
Actually, the funniest is that you are a sheep and don't realize it. When it comes to Bush, "drank the cool aid" doesn't quite cover your fanatical zeal to defend him. Nor does it explain why you take the most mundane of facts regarding Bush and politicize it. [/quote]
Seriously, your sheep costume is slipping. Your recitation of the fringe talking points is so spot on that I’m sure you’re reading them as you type.. It’s just one distortion half-truth and outright fiction after another with you on this subject. “Us in the center” lol……
[quote=joedabrkr]
[/quote]Well BG I'll give you props...you are seriously plugged in and right about many of your points...
The one issue on which I will argue with you is the whole CIA/FIB issue. According to my research(not that I'm a scholar) the CIA had all the intel and failed to share it with the FBI for fear that they'd start a criminal(domestic) investigation that would compromise their intel sources.
Clinton may have been more aware, and had more info, but his implementation sucked. Perhaps Monica distracted him.....
[/quote] Thanks for the props Joe. Agree that the non sharing of info between agencies was a factor in 9/11. As much for turf protection as for the reasons you state. I disagree on Clinton. All my reading shows that Clinton got the most out of a calcified bureaucracy. The big knock on Clinton is that he didn't respond to a series of terrorist attacks during his admin. And that, that non response is responsible for 9/11. Also, that he dealt with the original WTC bombers as criminal case and not as matter of Natl security. The criticism holds some water in that perhaps had Clinton chosen a different course 9/11 could have been averted. Yet, to believe,wholesale , as many Clinton detractors do, that Clinton was a total failure on terrorism is simply not looking at the world and political climate for what it was during those times. The choice of responses open to Clinton was limited. He could lob in a few cruise missles aimed at Afghanistan or the Sudan. In fact this was done on at least one or two occasions. Or he could go with a full scale military invasion. Lastly he could go with a special ops mission into afghanistan to find and take out bin Laden. Clinton's top military advisors recommended against all three options. Taking cruise missle pot shots was nixed because every miss gave bin Laden more star power in the middle east. And gave us a bad guy rep if we killed innocents. The top brass refused to forward a special ops mission because of the lack of actionable intel. We had no one on the ground in this area. It was thought that a special ops mission would in fact become a suicide mission. The full scale invasion was off the table for many reasons. First, the political climate in our country for a preemptive invasion did not exist. It is without doubt that neither congress or the public would have stood for such a course of action. Remember, Iraq is the first time in our history that we have ever invaded a country preemptively. The political will to mount such an invasion didn't exist in the late nineties. Next, there was the politcal climate of Pakistan. Pakistan wanted to keep Afghanistan in its back pocket politically speaking, and was against an invasion. Pakistan was face to face against India in a Nuclear standoff. And at the time that was the big issue of the day. To Clinton's credit he talked Pakistan down from a Nuclear war with India. Critics refuse to give him props for that acoomplishment. We had little leverage with Pakistan to get their cooperation. What we did have was spent averting nuclear war. Next, there was the logistics. An invasion was to be a big move. Lots of troops and equipment. We have no friends in the region. This meant no staging area, and long supply lines. Putting an invasion together would have been, as Bush later found out, no easy task. Within the Pentagon the One Stars wanted to move forward with an invasion, however their bosses, the top brass, after looking at the entire picture, refused and said no. Lastly, as Rumsfeld has said time after time, Afghanistan is a target poor environment. We could bomb them back to the seventh century, except they were already there. Judging from our performance in Afghanistan it appears Clinton's advisers had it right. IMO measuring Clinton by today's events and its easy, if uninformed to criticize him. Measured by the political will of the day, during his time, as well as the constraints he was up against, he is not an ineffective figure. He is today painted as a guy who did nothing. Yet, he is, in fact, a person who saw the problem but was ham strung on what to do about it. He took the advice of his top commanders. Against the history of our last 6 years in Afghanistan it looks to me that he made the right decisions. And remember, the goal had we invaded ten years ago would have been to rid the country of al Qaida and to kill or capture bin Laden. Isn't that the same goal our military has had in that country since 2001? Yet, we have not succeeded. Does anyone think Clinton could have prosecuted this war, for this long, without success, without a 9/11 as a backdrop galvanizing our political will? I for one don't. As for Monica? Not a factor.
Anyone who doubts my my statementsa about Bush’s Saudi mentor, read Bob Woodward’s book “Plan of Attack” Of interest, the book is based upon taped interviews with the key planners of the iraq war. It’s all on tape including Bush. All one has to do is read. Of course its easier to spew baseless venom.
Again, from my centered position I see nothing wrong in Bush's inexperience. As for Clinton's bombing of an aspirn factory: Again a derisive comment. Yes, Clinton did mount a cruise missle attack against a pharmacutical plant in the Sudan because intel had it that the plant was being used by bin Laden to manufacture weapons. It had nothing to do with Saddam and WMDs. Because bin laden was not killed in the attack, nor was he the target, middle east extremist painted the U. S. as impotent. lastly, in the world of wmd intel 1998 has nothing to do with 2003. Can one imagine our leaders mounting an attack on such out dated data?[quote=BondGuy]Anyone who doubts my my statementsa about Bush's Saudi mentor… [/quote]<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Rather than take your word, how about a quote, a link?
[quote=BondGuy]Again, from my centered position I see nothing wrong in Bush's inexperience. [/quote]
“Centered” LOL…..
[quote=BondGuy]As for Clinton's bombing of an aspirn factory: Again a derisive comment. [/quote]
Actually, it’s accurate. It turned out to be a pharmaceutical plant. They made, among other things, aspirin.
[quote=BondGuy]Yes, Clinton did mount a cruise missle attack against a pharmacutical plant in the Sudan because intel had it that the plant was being used by bin Laden to manufacture weapons.[/quote]
Notice how you don’t claim Clinton “made up” the intel (and neither do I), which turned out to be wrong. Would that you give Bush the same benefit of the doubt.
[quote=BondGuy] It had nothing to do with Saddam and WMDs. [/quote]
Oh, did you bother to tell Richard Clarke that? That’s not what he was saying at the time….
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9910,vest,4380,1.html
No matter. On January 22, as demonstrated in The Washington Post, the government's story underwent yet another permutation. Currently, according to White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke, the U.S. is "sure" that the Iraqis were the sinister force behind Al Shifa, producing what the Post characterized as "powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active nerve gas."
[quote=BondGuy]lastly, in the world of wmd intel 1998 has nothing to do with 2003. Can one imagine our leaders mounting an attack on such out dated data? [/quote]
Nice try, but it was anything but dated. The situation hadn’t changed, Saddam was still interfering with inspections, he still hadn’t accounted for WMDs that Clinton was talking About in 1998. Moreover, you ignore the fact that most Democrats, even in 2002, after reading the same raw intel, said Saddam had WMDs….
As usual, BG you make some good points.
One thing for which I do hold Mr. Clinton fully responsible and that is his evisceration of our human intelligence capabilities.
THAT could have helped to protect us from attacks. You said yourself that we didn’t have enough resources in Afghanistan.
Mike, rather than a link, how about this: Go and buy the book. Woodward does a good job of presenting a centered view.
If there is one book I would recommend everyone read, it's that book. AS well as Mann's Rise of the Vulcans. Two great books that give a lot the Iraq War's back story.Joe , you may be right. I haven't gotten that far as to know why our intel was spread so thin. I do know there is a connection to the fact that within iran/afghanistan we have no friends in that neighborhood and nothing to trade with. As for pakistan, not really a willing player. This is not an excuse to exonerate clinton. You are dead on target that this was his failure.As usual, BG you make some good points.
One thing for which I do hold Mr. Clinton fully responsible and that is his evisceration of our human intelligence capabilities.
THAT could have helped to protect us from attacks. You said yourself that we didn’t have enough resources in Afghanistan.
Source URL:https://www.wealthmanagement.com/forums/general/build-our-next-war-has-begun