Democrats looked to the upcoming votes after losing a bruising battle with Bush on an emergency war spending bill. Lacking the two-thirds majority needed to overcome another presidential veto, Democrats dropped from the legislation a provision ordering troops home from Iraq beginning this fall.Should I avert my eyes so that I can preserve some chance of voting for Clinton or Obama in 2008? Both candidates have calculated that this is the position they must take to go forward toward the primary. I'd like to think they both know they are wrong but are doing what they need to do as a means to an end. And I believe that at least Clinton does. Obama, I suspect, is simply weak on national security (which is why he was against the war all along).
Congress passed the revised $120 billion spending bill on Thursday, providing $95 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through September. The House voted 280-142 to pass the bill, followed by a 80-14 vote in the Senate.
Democratic leaders said they hoped to ready the bill for Bush's signature by this Memorial Day weekend.
Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama both voted against the bill.
''I fully support our troops'' but the measure ''fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq,'' said Clinton, D-N.Y.
''Enough is enough,'' Obama, an Illinois senator, declared, adding that Bush should not get ''a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path.''
Their votes continued a shift in position for the two presidential hopefuls, both of whom began the year shunning a deadline for a troop withdrawal.
May 25, 2007
Hillary Clinton and Obama on the Iraq vote.
The Democrats and the war:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
256 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 256 of 256Roger,
I don't see our "national interests" in the ME as different (except in the details) from our "national interests" elsewhere. And I would argue that it's our historical preoccupation with and clumsiness about your item (3) that indirectly feeds items (1) and (2).
Now, even without reformulating your question, the answer remains yes, but we need to consider our long term national interests when we get involved in any part of the world. Generally we pursue short term national interests, and as a result, our involvement in other parts of the world all too often comes back to haunt us.
Mark said...
Fen,
Where's the evidence that in 2002-2003 Saddam was conducting research to weaponise the WMDs?
GFL.
jim wrote:
Just like anti-Iraq Ned Lamont won the Democratic primary and lost the general election handily to Joe Lieberman, Clinton and Obama will suffer the same fate.
Huh? Clinton and Obama will both win "the Democratic primary" and then lose the general election "handily" to little Joey Lieberman? Really Jim? Have you been talking to Miss Cleo again?
Ann,
I really enjoy your blog and I think you are smart and creative. That's why I was shocked when you implied being against or for the war in Iraq has anything to do with national security. Such a position is absolutely baseless and preposterous.
When a country has WMD it does not mean we need to attack them in order to preserve our national security. Or that arguing for not attacking means you are soft on national security. (This is of course sets aside the intelligence issue. Part of protecting the country also means getting the facts straight. Bush & Co. have arguably weakened the U.S. because they were "strong" on national security but wrong on the facts. Why are we weakened? Military is stretched and credibility shot--just to name two.)
Furthermore, you can be strong on national security and not be for the war. Many people, like Brent Scowcroft and some retired military, believe our resources would be better used elsewhere.
I am so disappointed you would make what appears to be a statement I would expect from somebody who has not thought through the issues and simply buys the far right hook, line and sinker (which I know you don't, so I cannot comprehend why you said this).
Is it possible for you to explain yourself????
Lucky,
You're being evasive and insulting. Fen has asked a simple question repeatedly, but you dodged it:
What real evidence do we have that Iran has a WMD program, and how is that evidence any better than what we had on Iraq?
And your analysis about the KATHERINE SHRADER article is telling. I came away with a different opinion. You see conspiracy. I see good anticipation of the consequences of the invasion, if needed. You saw determinism where I see contigency planning and setting priorities. We can disagree about that without either of us being 'wrong'.
As for name-calling, "lefty" isn't derogatory. Look it up. It goes way back in use by the left. But your cutesy "fen fen" crap? Knock it off. It automatically marks you as an intellectual lightweight, like one is addressing a child or an imbecile.
Mark: Also, even assuming that the military response was unavoidable in 2002-2003, the way Bush went about it is so incompetent as to border on being criminal.
No, he went through the UN. How many resolutions total? Twelve? He can't be blamed that France and Russia had been bribed by Saddam.
The only thing that went well was the initial military phase, largely because even an idiot such as Bush could not mess it up.
The initial military phase was performed by the military. Bush had very little to do with it, other than to not micromanage them. And if you think the liberation of Iraq was easy, you don't understand S-3 Ops. It only looked easy. I was actually quite a military achievement. No one has ever taken so much ground in so little time.
Everything that followed Bush's infamous "Major Military Operations Are Over" speech was a disaster
More distortion. Iraq had been liberated and that op was over. Thats what he was talking about. In the same speech, he even warns that the task of rebuilding Iraq will be long and hard and dangerous. So I think you're being unfair - rebuilding a nation [esp one who's infrastructure was ignored by Saddam] is very hard work. So are MOUT operations. We made alot of mistakes, and we learned alot from them. I think Bush screwed up the rebuilding too, but I know firsthand how difficult it can be and appreciate his efforts.
Where's the evidence that in 2002-2003 Saddam was conducting research to weaponise the WMDs
To what point? If I link to Wapo through Powerline, will you discount it all because Powerline leans right? [as you did with Iraq - Al Queda connections]. Not worth my time now, as I'm taking over for my 3 day weekend. If you're still interested, get with me on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, go back to my Yemenese freighter scenario. Pretend you're a savy clever despot trying to launch a WMD attack by proxy against the US. You can freely detonate the nuke anywhere within a mile of the US coast. Pay attention to the weather patterns next time you tune into the weather channel - where would you attack to maximize the spread of radiation fallout?
fen,
Will you please explain this comment to me?
I know you Lefties love to kill for sex...
Fen,
Brave annie said Obama was right about WMD because he's "weak" on national security, which in turn made "him wrong in her book." I'm saying that brave annie's statement doesn't make sense. If brave annie says Obama's right on WMD, well I'm just gonna take her word for it.
What is with this pretending that Obama didn't think there were WMD?
This is from his speech Delivered on 26 October 2002 in Chicago at Federal Plaza at an anti Iraq war rally organized by the ANSWER coalition.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
He was against the war and he (like just about everyone else) believed that there were WMD.
dbp
/my last then I'm off
Cyrus: Fen, Will you please explain this comment to me?
"I know you Lefties love to kill for sex"
Sure. We know that birth control is not 100% effective, but we choose to take that risk anyway, knowing that we can always "kill" any accidents. Hence the admission I need sex so bad, I'm willing to kill for it...
Homeless: Will Work for Food
Pro-Choice: Will Kill for Sex.
Have a nice weekend. Don't forget to pay your respects to our fallen. Please don't use their corpses to push some political statement.
"I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein."
Excepting that Saddam wouldn't engage in terrorism by proxy.
Lack of imagination.
Not good for a President in an age of terrorism.
Fen says: "I know you Lefties love to kill for sex... "
This has to rate as one of the more troubling and disgustings postings I've ever read.
To somehow try to twist a woman's choice into what Fen sees as "killing for sex" tells me what kind of a person Fen must really be.
And I really love the finish to Fen's posting: "Have a nice weekend. Don't forget to pay your respects to our fallen. Please don't use their corpses to push some political statement."
Oh, okay, Fen...we'll be careful not to "push some political statement."
Beyond the pale...
roger wrote:
I think your analysis overlooks the effect of tax rates on the business cycle; my argument is that the business cycle is the intervening variable that produces tax revenues.
No, my analysis is relatively independent of the effect of tax rates on the business cycle, particularly when it looks at short term relationships. Furthermore, since there's no clear evidence to suggest how (or if) economic growth responds to tax rate changes, it's not reasonable to claim that a tax rate cut itself indirectly leads to increased income tax revenue.
What we know is that generally the economy grows from year to year, whether or not there have been tax rate changes. Part of this growth, of course, reflects nothing more than population growth. If you get a chance, look at per capita GDP in constant dollars since the 1970s.
Overall, I believe we have more than sufficient data to show that income tax rate cuts have historically led to decreases in income tax revenue.
pogo wrote:
But it's always alays always the latter, not the former, once citizens get a taste of spenfing other people's money.
I going to assume it's already happy hour wherever pogo is.
Re: "What we know is that generally the economy grows from year to year, whether or not there have been tax rate changes."
Flat-out wrong.
The histories of total-tax command economies of the USSR and Maoist China conclusively proved otherwise. The high tax US from the 1930s extended and deepened the Great Depression and led to the severe stagflation and recession of the 1970s.
Not until Reagan cut the income taxes in the 1980s did we see the great economic expansion of the last 25 years. Ireland, long mired in low growth has cut taxes and is now seeing an economic boom.
Cyrus, you're wrong.
And citing spelling errors rather than addressing the argument is usually (as here) a sign of defeat.
pogo,
Regarding your comments about my tax rate and tax revenue statements...
First, I didn't provide a specific "example" as you imply. I'm referring to US historical economic data.
Second, since the US hasn't ever tried a 100% income tax rate, your example isn't relevant to the historical US economic data. Sorry.
Third, your example of a simultaneous cut in income tax rates and a rise in property tax rates isn't specifically relevant to the consideration of how income tax rate cuts relates to economic rate of growth since property tax increases are exceedingly unlike to cancel out income tax rate cuts in higher brackets.
In summary, my analysis was accurate. Thanks for playing, Pogo. Have a good weekend.
How 'bout that giant Alabama hog! Lord, 'a' mercy!
And the boy who took her down attends a Christian academy. I think that's saying something right there.
Democrats are currently trusted more than Republicans on all ten issues measured in Rasmussen Reports tracking surveys.
Democrats even have slight advantages on National Security and Taxes, two issues “owned” by Republicans during the generation since Ronald Reagan took office.
On National Security, 46% now trust Democrats more while 43% prefer the GOP.
On taxes, the Democrats have a five point advantage, 47% to 42%.
Democrats enjoy double digit advantages on ethics and government corruption, the War in Iraq, Immigration, Education, Social Security, and Healthcare.
The Republicans are within single digits on Abortion and the Economy.
Re: "What we know is that generally the economy grows from year to year, whether or not there have been tax rate changes."
We know that, do we?
14-year survey supports link between tax and economic success
"New research covering 86 countries, including Canada, has confirmed that low corporate tax rates can help to give a country a significant competitive advantage over economic rivals, and are connected with higher than average economic growth.
The findings point to the economic growth enjoyed over this period by countries like Ireland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, and draws a parallel between this success and a favorable corporate tax regime."
In summary, your analysis was infantile. You are trying to isolate income tax rates. It's a stupid assessment, as it ignores too much. If you are this foolish about economics, how could I ever listen to you about anything like Iraq? So obtuse.
"the US hasn't ever tried a 100% income tax rate"
Cyrus, it was an example of an Reductio ad absurdum argument. it's a thought experiment to test your hypothesis, something you have clearly avoided.
Nevertheless, the top marginal tax rate was 94% in 1944 and 91% in 1963, and stayed at 70% until Reagan came along.
P.S. I hate when people say "Thanks for playing". God it's dull and worn out. Please come up with something new.
Fen wrote:
I know you Lefties love to kill for sex...
Homeless: Will Work for Food
Pro-Choice: Will Kill for Sex
Oh, the "abortion is murder" crap, coupled with the claim that "lefties" don't just kill for sex, but they love to "murder babies." Good stuff Fen!
I am now going to add to my list of useful shit I've learned by reading the Althouse blog the following gems from Fen:
1. "righties" never have abortions
2. following fen's logic, since "we know that birth control is not 100% effective," and since Republicans have fewer children than Democrats, it follows that
"righties" have a lot less sex than "lefties"
Thanks for the info Fen.
pogo wrote:
The high tax US from the 1930s extended and deepened the Great Depression and led to the severe stagflation and recession of the 1970s. Not until Reagan cut the income taxes in the 1980s did we see the great economic expansion of the last 25 years
Pogo, no offense, but you're an idiot.
We're discussing US historical economic data. Your examples from China and Russia aren't relevant, goofy.
Also, your claim about the Reagan tax cuts proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are completely unfamiliar with the economic data we are discussing. Post WW2 expansions averaged 4.5%, far more than the 3.6% growth from 1983-1989. In addition, you are forgetting the tax hikes of Reagan, Bush and Clinton when you idiotically credit Reagan tax cuts for 25 years of economic expansion.
Pogo, now would be a good time for you to silently slip away for a long weekend. It's been a long week for me and my tolerance for gibberish right now is low. Try again next week, if you must.
Pogo,
Truly, you are an idiot. We are discussing INCOME TAX. Get it? INCOME TAX. So, your babbling about corporate taxes is totally irrelevant.
Now, because you are incredibly dim, I'll remind you why we are talking about INCOME TAXES, specifically. We are discussing the kind of personal sacrifice that would be required of Americans to fund the war. One possibility is increased INCOME TAX. Get it now?
In the context of INCOME TAX, we are talking about the historical economic data of the United States, not economic theory. Get it? Your examples of a 100% tax rate, while truly fascinating, are completely irrelevant since we aren't discussing economic theory. Get it now?
Remember, we are talking about the United States. Not Russia, not China. We are talking about the historical economic record, not economic theory. We are talking about INCOME TAXES, not corporate or property taxes. Do you get it, finally?
If so, will you please try to limit yourself to relevant comments, dear Pogo?
"...Republicans have fewer children than Democrats..."
Well, that is definitely not true.
I am sorry to see that 95% of the discussion on this thread is about long past history on "who is to blame or not" for decisions made starting in 1996 up to 2003. Clinton, Bush II, Turkish intel? The French or Israeli services? Saddam himself for hoaxing the world and defying 17 UN Security Council Resolutions. Firing on out pilots in UN-approved zones?
The debate somehow, amazingly avoids the present. We are in a war. Regardless of who said what in 1997 or 2002.
Do we stay and at least stabilize matters, accept that we will take light casualties (as REAL wars go) - or do we leave and abandon the ME and much of the global oil supply to the Jihadis?
That is the real question we should be asking, because the real debate is not on who knew what 5 or more years ago, but of defunding the troops and electing to loose the war.
All too many who advocate such a course not only - awfully - resemble the Civil War Copperheads more than the VIetnam Era protestors - they are technologically illiterate.
Few appear to have cracked a Scientific American, ever. They don't know what an energy QUAD is. They see "exciting high tech" solutions to a loss of our oil economy that any of us familiar with "exciting high tech" know don't really exist in any significant quantity.
They ignore that by being in Iraq, we are now best positioned to stop the Iranians from a military perspective - from getting nukes - now that all the Euro diplomacy has failed. We have the bases in Iraq to cut 500 miles off the distance to Iran's nuclear sites, if need be, and have the strength in the region to get Sunni nations like Turkey to likely go along to block their ancient rival from nukes.
If we fail to stop Iran, then we get Egypt, Syria and Turkey starting nuclear bomb programs. And radical Whabbist Saudi Arabia visiting Pakistan, laying a checkbook down and telling Pakistan's leaders to write the sum in the checkbook they want for 8-10 tritium-boosted 60KT missile-ready devices out of their arsenal of 50-70 nuclear bombs.
The issue has long gone past "aluminum tube conspiracy" to matters of the likely global military and economic risk getting dramatically elevated if the Copperheads have their way.
For all Bush, the noble purple-fingered Iraq, and the neocon's incompetence? For all the Lefty's here and in Europe cynical craveness? For all the dysfunction in the Muslim world?
My read is that if we cut and run now, America and rest of the world is at enormously higher risk of a real war. A real war. Not of a picayune 3300 KIA, which is only 6% of Vietnam War losses and only 0.8% of WWII losses, and as a function of American population being 5X greater than Civil War era, 1/3000th of the losses we had in that war.
Oil and wreckage of the global economy if such a future conflict is not won...so significant that we could not "sit it out" and see if Iran, Russia, or China ends up in control of the Gulf.
We will be on the edge of not only having to go overseas and accept mass fatal US military casualties on the 25,000 to 275,000 range, a Draft, - but also of the risk of more Americans dying in a single bad nuclear day at Islamoid hands - than Japan lost in WWII, or America lost in 4 years of civil war.
And yet so many are stuck in a 5 year old time warp and think nothing that awaits in the future matters....only endlessly debating about, and punishing "those who thought wrongly" in 2002.
Go figure!!
That said, congrats to John Stodderd and Hoosier Daddy for wrenching their eyes off the rear-view mirror that Lefties appear to be fixated on and still driving by - as we move years past 2002 and WMD beliefs at that time.
Obama wasn't "right" about WMD. He was clueless at the time as a State Senator in a safe gerrymandered district who simply joined the pack of most black leaders that wanted more social welfare programs who worried that more war meant less pork&gravy.
People make decisions without knowledge. Obama never spent anytime examining the Iraq intelligence. He was just a State Senator thinking bigger things awaited him, and casting a meaningless symbolic vote against "war" was a good move to satiate his activist base, and one that he spent all of 10 minutes "pondering".
Hillary's recent vote is more disturbing, since she was 100% behind invading, nation-building, and "Democracy for the Iraqis" beforehand. She just did a 100% cynical move with her handlers calculating it means more money from the Jewish and Gentile fatcat Elites filling her coffers...and no more Hollywood Mogul defectors to Obama like Geffen, Eisner..
Pogo,
Maybe if you could convince little ol' CP and others like him you were a jihadi, we might get a liberal excited about fighting the war on militant Islamic fascism. Imagine all their hateful passion wasted when there are real enemies against whom it should be directed instead.
Such a waste.
Anyway, far be it for me to begin to understand the Liberal, but I think one of the reasons they hate this war is because it's a huge distraction from their really important things - you know, confiscatory income taxes, trade barriers, socialized medicine, union shops, carbon caps and taxes, hybrid cars in commuter lanes, free abortions for middle-schoolers, legalized marijuana, gay marriages, transit villages, free HDTV, free prescriptions, outlawing fried chicken and cheeseburgers, open borders for illiterate peasants, and those domestic terrorists - you know - Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Banking, Big Non-Union Retail (i.e., Wal-Mart), Big Halliburton, etc., etc., etc. "New Direction" indeed.
In a world of endless need of regimentation for the common good, Bush's war against murderous militant Islamic fascist just won't do. Send the Special Forces and Valerie Plame instead. They'll protect us.
Too predictable, and too sad. But it's a good thing they're so much smarter than the rest of us. Before too many years pass, they might actually figure it out before it's too late.
But don't bet on it. There's a wetland to be saved somewhere.
Tim wrote:
Well, that is definitely not true.
I'm happy to see any data you have that shows otherwise. Please don't hesitate to actually cite a source in your defense. My source is the 2004 General Social Survey. Yours is...?
Re: "will you please try to limit yourself to relevant comments"
How is that INCOME TAX represents a personal sacrifice but other taxes, such as excise, sales, and property taxes, somehow do not? That makes no sense.
we aren't discussing economic theory
We apparently aren't discussing economics either, but some weird wholly imaginary structure of your own.
If you cannot discuss the wealth of all nations, you understand to little to discuss the rest. Just ask Adam Smith.
Tim wrote:
But it's a good thing [liberals are] so much smarter than the rest of us...
Well, I don't know if you're authorized to speak on behalf of the conservatives Timmy, but it certainly is a good thing that the liberals here are smarter than you. I imagine it would be very frightening for anyone who wasn't.
Same source. Here's a news report:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/17/INGEJL45D11.DTL
(snip)"...Over the past three decades, conservatives have been procreating more than liberals -- continuing to seed the future with their genes by filling bassinets coast to coast with tiny Future Republicans of America.
Take a randomly selected sample of 100 liberal adults and 100 conservative adults. According to an analysis of the 2004 General Social Survey -- a bible of data for social scientists -- the liberals would have had 147 kids, while the conservatives would have had 208. That's a fertility gap of 41 percent. Even adjusting for other variables like age and income, there is a gap of 19 percent.
Now superimpose this on a map of the United States. The highest fertility rate is found in the most Republican state, Utah, home to the Mormon Church. The lowest fertility belongs to Vermont, a state liberal enough to be the first to sanction gay unions.
The states with the next highest fertility rates, according to the latest National Center for Health Statistics survey, are Arizona, Alaska and Texas, otherwise known as "red states." States with the next lowest fertility rates are Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, all "blue states."
So what does it mean that the birth rate in Salt Lake City far outstrips that of liberal San Francisco (where dogs supposedly outnumber children)?"...(snip)
Tough luck, that.
It's not your best day analytically, Cyrus.
Obama speech delivered on 26 October 2002 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances...
I don’t oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.....
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
See also:
Saturday, August 27, 2005
http://obama.senate.gov/news/050827-us_focuses_on_russian_wmd/print.php
MOSCOW -- The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar of Indiana, and its newest member, Barack Obama of Illinois, began a weeklong tour of former Cold War weapons sites Friday to inspect the progress of dismantlement and highlight what they fear is a growing global threat from stolen nuclear material.
Obama, making his first foreign trip as a senator, said until the weapons were destroyed or properly safeguarded, the U.S and other nations were vulnerable to a nuclear attack. Neither the government nor the public, he said, views the threat with sufficient urgency.
On Friday, May 25, 2007, the President signed into law H.R. 2206, the "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007," which provides $120 billion -- in FY 2007 supplemental appropriations for the Global War on Terror (GWOT), hurricane disaster relief and recovery, and for other purposes.
It's the "other purposes" part that's really shameful. Dems needing pork to support the troops. Hogzilla indeed. What a bunch of panty-waist losers.
Otherwise, lock and load.
"A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."
Passion? Eighteen months had passed. Reason? It's been discussed until desiccated, although I'm betting you don't accept the reasons. Principle(s)? They go to the reasons, but if you don't accept the reasons, then of course you reject there being principle involved, which leads one to believe it was only politics.
Which, undoubtedly, explains those Dems who voted for the war and now vote to desert our troops, surrender and give the enemy the one thing he cannot win on his own - victory on the battlefield.
Politics, indeed.
pogo wrote:
How is that INCOME TAX represents a personal sacrifice but other taxes, such as excise, sales, and property taxes, somehow do not?
Pogo, how do you propose that property taxes be used to pay for the invasion and occupation of Iraq? How do you propose that state sales taxes be used to pay for the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Do you think before you post this shit?
Pogo, if you are suggesting that Bush should propose a federal property tax or VAT, I'll happily read your ideas. If not, will you please try to limit yourself to relevant comments and observations?
Thanks a bunch, pumpkin.
seven machos wrote:
It's not your best day analytically, Cyrus.
Unfortunately for you, you're not smart enough to judge that.
I think we can all rest easily on the fact that you will not avert your eyes and vote for Obama or Hilary.
This was isn't going anywhere until after Bush leaves office. Whomever is the next president will be responsbile for trying to clean up this mess whether they be republican or democrat.
The republicans running for president say stay in Iraq until we can claim victory whatever the hell that means.
The fact is that we will not be in Iraq indefinitely because the American public won't support it and eventually republicans in congress are going to start voting against funding it.
So we wait until September when we will likely here there is some progress but some setbacks. That "some progress" will be the sign to continue to stay in Iraq. By then Bush will only have about 1 year left in office (thank God) and he is certainly not going to change course within a year from leaving office.
Regardless of when we leave the place is going to fall apart. Not that it is exactly stable now.
Leave it to our independent moderate blogger though as usual go off on the democrats and say boo about the repulicans. Similar, our independent moderate blogger only points to Maureen Dowd columns when they go off on Democrats (Obami, Gores weight). Again, all of the scathing columns Dowd has written about Chimpy and Cheney are never highlighted here.
Your "independent moderate" thang is tired and you should retire it.
Don't tease your readers in mentioning you are actualling thinking of voting for Hilary or Obama. Ain't going to happen.
"thang" is tired and you should retire it.
It looks like this has been going on for a long time, but going back to the first two comments (which sort of sum things up), I'd argue that
1. There were plenty of people who questioned the U.S. intel and WMD stuff before the war (most notably Jacques Chirac, whose own intelligence service said otherwise and he publically said so), and
2. Even if you figured he had them, that still begs the question of whether that was a reason to invade. North Korea has nukes, and Iran will have them, and we now have lost the ability to threaten either exactly because our army is tied down in Iraq.
The issue ultimately boils down to not whether the intel was right or not, but whether the best way to deal with a situation like that is through invasion (as opposed to a combination of diplomacy and support for domestic opposition-- and arguably Saddam was the least dangerous of the 'axis of evil' because we already had sanctions, 'no fly zones,' an effectively independent Kurdish northeast and other means of keeping him in a 'box' that we didn't/don't have for Iran or North Korea.
Let's not forget that 23 members of the U.S. Senate voted against the AUMF (though unfortunately none of Clinton, Edwards, Biden or Dodd) precisely because they questioned whether invading another country (and incidentally taking the focus off of Afghanistan where the people who had actually attacked us were) was the best strategy to proceed with.
Sorry I missed this debate.
Of course Althouse is right. So what if Obama was against the war in 2002. He lost that vote. In fact the Senate Democratic caucus supported the war in 2002.
Now what. Obama wants to defund the troops before the war is over? ...to what.. to prove that he was right in 2002. Is Obama afraid that we will win if we keep funding the troops?
What else is that but weakness.
Al Qaeda is mostly today in Iraq. Why would we retreat from fighting Al Qaeda? The only discerable reason I can get from the lefties on this board is because Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq in 2002. What kind of reason is that? So what if they were not there in 2002, they are there today. And the fact that they are there today is the best reason for us to be there.
Voting for retreat from Al Qaeda is nothing more than weakness.
Further, we haven't been attacked in 5 1/2 years in America. The current policy is working. Obama's retreat would only put us more at risk for attack. That is weakness.
What Obama could have said was this:
I opposed going into Iraq because Al Qaeda was not in Iraq, they were in Afghanistan. However, today Al Qaeda is in Iraq, and we need to defeat them where ever they are.
Anything less than this is weakness.
Tim: the only people who use the term surrender are the neo-con fruitloops. hey jerk, we already declared victory 4 years ago. remember? we won. we are just mopping up now. right?
ya' know, people like you really piss me off. i get up to let the cat out, read the latest blog entries while waiting for him to come back to the door and up pops your swill - just that same old, tired, rancid swill - so moronic...so, shall we say, sloganistic. can't you express yourself outside a neo-con talking point fax?
and it is insulting to boot. ohhhh demon-democrats: satan, cowards, commies, traitors, surrender, cut and run....that is such bullshit and so beneath the discourse....God no wonder you neo-con swine are in the 20%s...no wonder. you are baking shit in the oven not a cake.
get with the program.
oh and Sloan...i haven't forgotten you...so Mr. Bush laid a clever trap right? he painted signs saying "shoot me here" and gave them to 160,000 soldiers and plunked them down in the desert so that Al Qaeda would be lured to Iraq for easy targets? Is that your argument?
So now that Mr. Bush has lured them there how come they all didn't show up? What about the ones in Indonesia? Pakistan? the Phillipines? and half the rest of the world? Our little fly paper trap not strong enough?
Your argument is so boring. it makes no sense. and that 5 1/2 years crap so the "policy must be working"...well asshole, i insituted a "no elephants in my backyard" policy 15 years ago when i bought my house. my policy must be working too.
Cyrus wrote
"However, cutting income tax rates does not create more income tax revenue in the short term (on the order of five years), and there is no good evidence to suggest that it generates more income tax revenue in the long term.
The whole point about tax cuts is to create deficits or reduce surpluses to encourage the government to spend less in the long term. When the government spends less, the private sector spends more. Because the private sector earns a larger return on assets than the government, the economy grows faster and everyone gets richer including the government.
Currently, the government is spending about 20.5% GDP, which has crept up from 19.5% in 1999, but far lower than the 22% during the 1980s and 1990s. Note, that this 20.5% includes interest expense on the new debt. If it wasn't for the deficit created by the tax cuts, there is no doubt we would be spending more than 20.5%.
Many Democrats want to institute a national health plan that would raise spending to 30% or higher on a permanent basis.
Eli Blake - North Korea has nukes, and Iran will have them, and we now have lost the ability to threaten either exactly because our army is tied down in Iraq.
Only liberals ignorant of the US Order of Battle maintain that at some hopefully never seen crunch time, the US is currently "helpless" to stop Iran, N Korea. Or China.
All while Iraq has been going on, hundreds of billions have gone into the AF and Navy to make them even more lethal. Though Bush has neglected submarines. The Army is the quickest fix. 70% of the jobs in the Army can be done by a soldier with 6 months of training.
Where Bush has really failed is in neglecting to replace burned out Army, Marines, and Reserves equipment, and repair the repairable armor and other equipment now lying broke in vast Iraqi Base depots.
That means the next war, if it must be fought, would be missiles and bombs, not troops used, to defeat or cripple a foe.
What about the ones in Indonesia? Pakistan? the Phillipines? and half the rest of the world? Our little fly paper trap not strong enough?
Yeah, what about those ones? Al Qaeda trained more than 10,000 in their camps. Where is the world revolution....
Your argument is so boring. it makes no sense. and that 5 1/2 years crap so the "policy must be working"...well asshole, i insituted a "no elephants in my backyard" policy 15 years ago when i bought my house. my policy must be working too.
Heh, it's an unfortunate fact for you. It's the truth. Al Qaeda is in Iraq big time. They are killing us there and we are killing them there. Why doesn't this make sense to you?
and it is insulting to boot. ohhhh demon-democrats: satan, cowards, commies, traitors, surrender, cut and run....that is such bullshit and so beneath the discourse....God no wonder you neo-con swine are in the 20%s...no wonder. you are baking shit in the oven not a cake
You are accusing us of "beneath the discourse?" You are the delusional one. Most of your posts are just rants interlaced with talking points.
Bush is in the 30% range because of immigration not because of Iraq. I assume you oppose Bush on immigration as well.
That means the next war, if it must be fought, would be missiles and bombs, not troops used, to defeat or cripple a foe.
Don't forget that Iraq has made veterans out of our career officers and non-coms. That gives us some guarantee that our military will maintain an edge for at least a generation - even if the Dems try to dismantle it.
Jesus Sloan..don't write when you drink ok?
sloan wrote:
The whole point about tax cuts is to create deficits or reduce surpluses to encourage the government to spend less in the long term. When the government spends less, the private sector spends more. Because the private sector earns a larger return on assets than the government, the economy grows faster and everyone gets richer including the government.
This nonsensical "theoretical" argument is clearly wrong as stated. If it were true, as you claim, that under all conditions the government can reduce taxes and thereby generate more revenue (as a result of the economy "growing faster"), then according to this theory, the tax rate that would maximize economic growth and government revenue is 0%. This is obviously wrong.
Nice try, sloan, but your "theory" is logically inconsistent and isn't supported by economic data. Also, considering that we are discussing ways to fund deficit spending on the war (which you support), it's odd that you've decided to float the suggestion that we cut taxes in order to curb spending in order to generate the additional revenue to fund the spending we've just cut.
Very strange.
cyrus...
sloan "talks to much" and "drinks to much". a lethal combination for someone with no brain.
the tax rate that would maximize economic growth and government revenue is 0%. This is obviously wrong.
I am not arguing for zero spending. Obviously there are some assets that only the government can create. However, 20% of GDP is way too much. We should be at 15%.
Also, considering that we are discussing ways to fund deficit spending on the war
I think the war is too small a part of the budget to require a special tax increase or borrowing to fund it. It should be included with the rest of the budget. We are spending less on defense including the war today as a % of GDP then we were in 1993.
Eli Blake: There were plenty of people who questioned the U.S. intel and WMD stuff before the war (most notably Jacques Chirac, whose own intelligence service said otherwise and he publically said so),
Chirac? Chirac was bribed by Saddam. He's a corrupt crook, we just found his secret multi-million dollar bank account in Japan. What would you expect him to say? He was cheating us at the UN, telling us one thing and then turning around to leak info to Saddam. He even promised Saddam that he would block US efforts to use military force. Find a WMD critic with a bit more credibility please. Chirac is too conflicted.
Even if you figured he had them, that still begs the question of whether that was a reason to invade. North Korea has nukes, and Iran will have them, and we now have lost the ability to threaten either exactly because our army is tied down in Iraq.
No. We lost the ability to threaten N Korea because they have nukes [and also because China protects them and will never allow us to invade N Korea].
We still gave the ability to threaten Iran militarily. We will lose that once they get nukes.
Cyrus: Oh, the "abortion is murder" crap, coupled with the claim that "lefties" don't just kill for sex, but they love to "murder babies." Good stuff Fen!
I am now going to add to my list of useful shit I've learned by reading the Althouse blog the following gems from Fen:
1. "righties" never have abortions
2. following fen's logic, since "we know that birth control is not 100% effective," and since Republicans have fewer children than Democrats, it follows that "righties" have a lot less sex than "lefties"
You're off your game Cyrus. I never said such a thing. Obviously my point hit home and disturbed you so much that your logic centers were overloaded by your commitment & consistency. Here it is again, play close attention to the emphasis:
Sure. We know that birth control is not 100% effective, but we choose to take that risk anyway, knowing that we can always "kill" any accidents. Hence the admission I need sex so bad, I'm willing to kill for it...
Obviously, there's a wing of the Republican party that opposses abortion. No such group exists on the Left. Despite that, I used we to qualify all adults [regardless of party affiliation] who choose to risk pregnancy to satisfy their appetites.
Just when you think Sloan has hit a new low ebb in the old thought process, up he pops with this corker:
Sloanasaurus said..."Bush is in the 30% range because of immigration not because of Iraq."
OMG. yes he really said that....hahahahahahahahha....
Fen said..."Sure. We know that birth control is not 100% effective, but we choose to take that risk anyway, knowing that we can always "kill" any accidents. Hence the admission I need sex so bad, I'm willing to kill for it...
Obviously, there's a wing of the Republican party that opposses abortion. No such group exists on the Left. Despite that, I used we to qualify all adults [regardless of party affiliation] who choose to risk pregnancy to satisfy their appetites."
Soooo Fen...sex and abortion are cut along party lines? Democrats are sex-starved sociopaths but the right wing isn't?
You hitleryouth (meaning you Fen) have been taking it up the ass for so long you forget that you don't get pregnant that way.
Having spent a good part of my adult life deeply involved in Democratic politics I feel a duty here to speak up about yesterdays debate between Hillary Clinton whom I support and Barack Hussein Obama. From the moment I first heard him speak there has been
a deep fear in my soul that there is something fundamentally wrong about this man, Barack Hussein Obama. Why is it I wonder that the media is so hell bent on making him the candidate for the Democratic parry? Why is it that when I search the internet trying to vet this guy who came out of nowhere into the 2008 Presidential race that what I am able to investigate always leads to the same dead end road? Why is it that his vet papers look fake to me? First thing I did was try to see if there was normal record of his birth, but to no avail, supposedly he was born in KaPi'oloni Medical Center in Hawaii but when attempting to certify this is simply put impossible. Then there are those first 8 years of so of his life spent in Jakarta, and the fact that he went to an Islamic Midrasa in Jakarta, which for me runs up another red flag on the guy. I spent most of my life as a social worker, and I am usually a very good investigator when it comes to people so I find it extremely odd that Barack Hussein Obama didn't attend a regular English speaking school for the beginning of his education. Why would that bother me? Well let me explain something that most people do not know, a child's personality, the grounding of who a child becomes as an adult is formulated by years 0-8, what we refer to as the "formative" years. It is during this time that a child learns who to like, or not like,what to believe in, or not to believe in as well as who is the enemy and who is not the enemy. Having lived in the far east I can tell you that people who send their children to Midrasa are teaching them to be tolerant, loving, inclusive or caring of all people. No indeed, they are teaching them exactly the opposite, they are teaching them to hate Jews and westerners, and they also teach them to wear an impenetrable mask that makes them appear innocent of this hatred. Is this a man that I would want to see become the President of the United States? I will answer that with a resounding NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT! This country does not need a President who can not speak forthrightly of their upbringing, we do not need a President who has a questionable past at best, and one that is not forthright and honest in their personal life! Would I vote for Barack Hussein Obama if I were African American instead of Russian Jew American? NO AGAIN! Would you trust this guy with your bank account? Would you trust him with your child's education? Would you trust him to watch over your affairs if you couldn't get a straight answer as to where he came from, and who had the most influence on him in his childhood? NO AND NO AGAIN!
Hillary Clinton may not have Barack Husein Obama's supposed "charisma" but she certainly can be vetted all the way back to her first breathe in life, and that America is the most important issue in this entire campaign, we watched as she was humiliated by her husbands behavior but still brave and true enough to hold her head high and go on with her life! We can look at her records both as a public person and as a political person and see that what she stands for is what serves the people of this country best! She is forthright and honest, true to her words and honest about her faults! Wake up America, Barack Husein Obama is NOT a Kennedy, he is not even a Martin Luther King, he has appeared out of nowhere and become a media ICON, yes the media and their hype is what has raised him to the position he is now in. In character he is weak, he is unabashedly the most media promoted presidential candidate that I have known in 62 years of life, Nixon's failures didn't even get the kind of courting and attention that Barack Hussein OBama has, the war in Iraq pales in comparison to his coverage! This morning I listened as Kinky Friedman mused "Is he the Anti Christ", and I ask that same question of myself, is Barack Huesein Obama the Anti Christ? I can't say for certain but he certainly has a strange and undisclosed childhood, and all my years of working with at risk youth has taught me that until you get to the bottom of who this man was as a child, and where he was schooled, and what his true belief system is, you really don't know the man!
I implore you American Democrats PLEASE TAKE A CLOSER LOOK, remember that politics are cloaked in smoke and mirrors, this Barack Hussein Obama could be a snake in the grass who has worked his magic so well that he becomes the next President of this country. Please believe me when I say, I want to know much more about this man, and I believe that as American Citizens we have the right to some very pertinent answers before we wake up on November 3rd, 2008 to find that we have been duped into believing that Barack Hussein Obama is a saint come to rescue us from our many grief's!
There are far too many questions left unanswered for this person to be who he claims to be, I urge every Democrat who is contemplating voting for Barack Hussein Obama to vet him on your own, and perhaps then you will see that a tried and known commodity is worth much more than an unknown knock off!
Post a Comment