Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 8:01 AM ET, 03/ 6/2011

Sunday Open Thread

By Greg Sargent

Enjoy.

By Greg Sargent  | March 6, 2011; 8:01 AM ET
Categories:  Miscellaneous  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: New ad turns up heat on Wisconsin Republicans as Walker's poll numbers sink
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

Go read the end of the Open Thread if you want to see "quarterback" sputtering generic denials after getting his ạss kicked by ceflynline.

Posted by: caothien9 | March 6, 2011 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Another poll out today of Wisconsin voters showing Walker deep in the doo. This one is from an in-state conservative think tank, and mirrors the Rassmussen and PPP polls from last week.

Among independents, Walker is tanking big time. His disapproval among indies is 57%, and 69% of them say he should compromise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/04/wpri-poll-wisconsin-wants_n_831652.html

Posted by: suekzoo1 | March 6, 2011 8:46 AM | Report abuse

And with the Iraq invasion the discussion in the open thread boils down to a single argument by the Conservative People: lots of people believed Iraq had WMDs. In the complete absence of evidence, to be are. The trolls post long lists of quotes by gullible Democrats, guilty of believing the President was an honest man, and the military history buffs strut nonsense like "even Saddam's generals weren't sure."

Bur it wasn't gullible Democrats nor was it Iraqi military leaders who threw the switch on invading Iraq, it was George Bush. It was his responsibility to decide if there was a threat to America worth the most grave decision a leader can make.

He blew it.

There was no evidence, only manufactured doubt based on fallacious thinking, but George didn't want to wait. He wanted a chance to wear that flight suit and to watch people betting blown to bits on his orders.

And even now you can find fools and nincompoops who claim the doubts justified the folly. And even here.

Posted by: caothien9 | March 6, 2011 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Among independents, Walker is tanking big time. His disapproval among indies is 57%, and 69% of them say he should compromise.

==

He won't compromise, he's more afraid of appearing weak than he is of dying.

If the quorum votes and public unions are denied collective bargaining, there will be a lot of pain in Wisconsin, and the "ideals are for chumps" crowd will be energized and emboldened, but not as much as the labor-supporting ... dare I say it? ... left.

Posted by: caothien9 | March 6, 2011 8:56 AM | Report abuse

I don't know, maybe grotesque is the right adjective for this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/business/06mers.html?pagewanted=1&hp

How can US real estate markets recover if the millions of houses already in or heading toward foreclosure are involved with this mess. Isn't privatization great? So in the time it takes for this mess to be unwound, an alternative to MERS has to be created and the market bottom won't be found until all the houses coming out of this system have reliable titles, which might take years. I can hear the Title insurance industry screaming in the distance.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 6, 2011 8:58 AM | Report abuse

OT: (deal) Polish Composer Witold Lutoslawski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witold_Lutos%C5%82awski

His "Funeral Music" is without peer.

Posted by: caothien9 | March 6, 2011 9:04 AM | Report abuse

"He won't compromise, he's more afraid of appearing weak than he is of dying."

I think you're right on this, but am not sure the same can be said of the Senate GOP.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | March 6, 2011 9:11 AM | Report abuse

"a single argument by the Conservative People: lots of people believed Iraq had WMDs."

Indeed that is their argument but as is frequently posted, that begs the question...why does N. Korea get a pass?

Seriously WHY? Their dictator is even more ruthless than Saddam and he is starving large numbers of his citizens to maintain his military posture. We do not suspect that the North Koreans MIGHT have WMD..we KNOW they have nukes. We know they have successfully tested missiles to carry them. We know they have no compunction about selling them to groups like Al Qaeda. I think the only thing that has saved us so far is that the North Koreans have too few nukes to spare or sell. Can we always count on that? Perhaps the Chinese will keep them in place.

The REAL reasons we went to war in Iraq....

1st Vengeance...didn't matter who we beat up but we were peoed after 9/11 and "somebody" had to pay. We blew it trying to capture the real perpetrators and so Saddam became an easy boogie man to distract from the Bush Admin's failure to both prevent 9/11 and to capture the perpetrators who are thumbing their noses at us to this very day.

2nd G.W.'s huge ego. He was out to accomplish what "poppy" failed to do. His Texas swagger has cost this country between 3-5 TRILLION $ and close to 5,000 American lives and who really knows how many innocent Iraqi lives. Oh but that's collateral damage and we all know we're exceptional and Iraqis are not, so we don't really give a rat's arse about them, only the 5,000 Americans count.

3.) $$$$$$$$$$ One can never discount the power of the almighty $$. Cheney and Rumsfeld and their crony capitalist buddies all made vast fortunes because of the Iraq war. Of course those on the right find this a completely acceptable conflict of interest. The M.I.C. represented by reprehensible organizations like Blackwater..as well as mainstream American Corps like Lockheed Martin all PROFITED greatly from our profligate killing and destruction.

There is NO EXCUSE for Iraq! It was worse than Vietnam! G.W. Bush is already down to the bottom quartile in Presidential rankings by historians and he is sinking not rising. History will not judge this arrogant preppy buffoon well.

Again follow the logic...attack one nation SUSPECTED of having WMD while allowing another to actually POSSESS WMD under the control of a mad dictator with missile systems that are improving. I'm waiting for the first righty to explain this one to me!

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 9:14 AM | Report abuse

I am impressed by Friedman's analogy this morning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/opinion/06friedman.html?_r=1&src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB

The concluding paragraph [but not the analogy]:

*I know we can’t just walk out of Afghanistan and Pakistan; there are good people, too, in both places. But our involvement in these two countries — 150,000 troops to confront Al Qaeda — is totally out of proportion today with our interests and out of all sync with our values.*

I am closer to both Shrink and Brigade on AFG than I have been.

Read the link and see what you think about the analogy, and about the nod to India. It tentatively rings true for me. I would welcome critical analysis that agrees or disagrees with the ideas in the column. Not interested in ad hominem attacks on Friedman and how he was wrong on blah blah blah.

I was wrong on blah blah blah too. Big deal, so what. Tends to urge me to learn more so I can get it right next time.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 6, 2011 9:26 AM | Report abuse

@Sue

How is the Kalamazoo river these days?

Has the cleanup been effective?

Living on Florida's gulf coast I feel your pain. One of the beauties of our summer cottage way up on Michigan's Keeweenaw Peninsula is that we are far from pollution.

Although the Copper Mines certainly did damage in their day, we have one Superfund site about an hour south of us which features an inland lake surrounded by a chain link fence and no longer "usable" for boating or fishing. Thank heavens the Copper mines went to South American about 50 years ago. As the sign says on one of our waterfront restaurants..."You are now breathing the freshest most revitalizing air on Earth". It's not like we're provincial in Copper Harbor. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Excellent rant, ruk.

Why stop with Nork? Why didn't Bush invade every country with a dicator? What a hypocrite.

Vengeance and ego, right, those are what you call "facts." Everybody knows GWB was animated by an unquenchble ambition to show up his old man. I guess Dark Lord Cheney was burning to show up ... himself as well? After all, he was Gulf War SecDef.

"$$$$$$$$$$ One can never discount the power of the almighty $$. Cheney and Rumsfeld and their crony capitalist buddies all made vast fortunes because of the Iraq war."

It just doesn't matter to you how many times that absurd lie is disproved, you keep spouting it. You'd think that if there were any truth to this the Dems would have been all over it. Maybe even impeached Cheney. Or that Holder would be prosecuting him.

Of course, that didn't happen, because your accusation is ludicrous. Heckuva job.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Again follow the logic...attack one nation SUSPECTED of having WMD while allowing another to actually POSSESS WMD under the control of a mad dictator with missile systems that are improving. I'm waiting for the first righty to explain this one to me!

==

Uhh, RUK, the contradiction vanishes if you presume the thinking of a bully.

Does a bully attack someone who can fig back, or someone he k ows for certain cannot?

KJI has, what, a five kiloton warhead. People a few mies from such an explosion wouldn't know about it.

Saddam had balsa wood drones.

I read somewhere that Bush was so excited by bombing Baghdad he couldn't stay in his chair. Yahoo. Yippee.

Posted by: caothien9 | March 6, 2011 9:37 AM | Report abuse

ruk: "How is the Kalamazoo river these days?"

Well, the clean up of the spill is still on-going, and will gear up again in the spring. Apparently, they were able to dig out some of the marshes over the winter, so the work didn't stop.

Some homeowners have been bought out, and there is still some concern about water wells being contaminated, and the impact on riverside farms who rely on the river for irrigation. I'm sure the total damage done won't be known for some years yet.

Truly sad, really, but it could have been worse.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | March 6, 2011 9:39 AM | Report abuse

I've given up on the Sunday news shows. All of them. They might as well call them "Morning with McCain."

And Michelle Bachman? Really?

The stupidification of America proceeds.

Posted by: Alex3 | March 6, 2011 9:39 AM | Report abuse

It just doesn't matter to you how many times that absurd lie is disproved, you keep spouting it.

==

Link to this "disproof," tyke?

And by the way, what WAS the real reason for invading Iraq? No, not the excuse, not the justification, what was the urgent national security threat that justified *starting a war*?

(crickets)

As usual.

Posted by: caothien9 | March 6, 2011 9:42 AM | Report abuse

"I was wrong on blah blah blah too. Big deal, so what. Tends to urge me to learn more so I can get it right next time.'

@Mark in austin....This is the quintessential statement of your post IMHO.
I've confessed that I made the huge mistake of voting for G.W. the first time. Perhaps that is why I am now one of the strident progressives on this blog...you know the "reformed smoker" "newly born again fundie" syndrome...that and the fact that I realized the Oligarchs were oppressing my interests far more than any lazy "welfare queen" was costing me in taxes.

Re Friedman's column...I agree with almost all of it except for the final line which you posted...WHY can't we just walk out of Afghanistan. There are "good" people around the globe who could use our help...why did we select these two countries? As Friedman suggests because of our whimpering fear of Al Qaeda and Muslim extremism. I love the U.S. I truly do...put my butt on the line for it once in another foolish war...but we walked away from a lot of "good" people in Vietnam, remember the heart breaking pics of the Vietnamese who supported us literally hanging from the skids of the Hueys as they left Saigon? So why not now? If the Taliban takes over then that's what the Afghan people have selected. Remember our fears when we left Vietnam? How did that turn out? Now we actually have American emigres who live in Vietnam. Cao is but one example.

Our hubris in foreign policy since WWII has been embarrassing for thinking Americans. We are the "exceptional" bullies on the block.
And please no BS about how "nice" we are...just look at the hit parade of those we have backed..Mubarak...the Psah of Iran...Ferdinand Marcos...the list goes on and on. We call this horrid behavior pragmatic...what's sad is that it's not only been immoral it hasn't even been pragmatically successful.

Here is the line I take from Friedman's piece Mark...

"In other words, the Arab peoples have done for free, on their own and for their own reasons, everything that we were paying their regimes to do in the “war on terrorism” but they never did."

We have no right to claim "Divine inspiration" as many on the right have done...that' just another term for hubris!
The key word in Friedman's sentence IMO is FREE. We do not have the $$ any longer for these stupid military adventures.
It's time to rebuild the U.S. infrastructure not that of Kabul or Baghdad.

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Well it isn't even 7 here so no morning talk shows for us. It is another Mt Hood ski day. Mark, the AfPak war was lost when ObL and Mullah Omar were embraced by Bush's trusted ally, Musharraf.

Later, after Obama gets re-elected so he can declare victory and leave, we will only have made the entire country newly welfare and still opium dependent, armed everyone [the US has distributed tens of thousands of Soviet surplus AKs and Czech made automatic rifles (I'll give you the cite if you like) a real upgrade to the bolt action Enfields and even muskets the Mujahideen used to depend on] and we will have set up many thousands of people who bet on the US to win for slaughter, a lot of women in particular. My my, even the Soviets weren't so stupid as to flood the country with small arms.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 6, 2011 9:53 AM | Report abuse

"And Michelle Bachman? Really?"

She was horrid. :o)

Posted by: suekzoo1 | March 6, 2011 9:54 AM | Report abuse

@Sue

"Truly sad, really, but it could have been worse."

That succinctly describes how we feel about the Deepwater Horizon spill here on the Gulf Coast of Florida.

I wish you all the best this Spring when the cleanup resumes.

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 9:56 AM | Report abuse

"I've confessed that I made the huge mistake of voting for G.W. the first time."

Oh My God

You are a brave man to own that ruk. But what were you thinking?

[No worries, that is a rhetorical flourish, I'm gone now anyway and I am sure your back is already one huge keloid from all the self-flagellation you have performed.]

Posted by: shrink2 | March 6, 2011 9:57 AM | Report abuse

ruk: "I agree with almost all of it except for the final line which you posted...WHY can't we just walk out of Afghanistan. There are "good" people around the globe who could use our help...why did we select these two countries? "

It's (mostly) unspoken, but it's the nukes in Pakistan and the overall weakness of Zardari.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | March 6, 2011 10:05 AM | Report abuse

@shrink...

In case you pick up the thread when you return...:-) Yes there has been a lot of self flagellation since that worst vote of my life. Again it's my excuse for being one of the more "strident" progressives here. I'm trying to tone it down to you, 12Bar and lmsinca's level....as you see with varying degrees of success. LMAO

And if I'm truly gut busting honest, probably the main reason for that horrid vote was sheer selfishness...along with a healthy dollop of ignorance. I bought into the R fear machine of all those "lazy" folks taking my tax dollars.

I really was never very politically active until shortly after that wasted vote. I started reading..and reading..and paying attention to statistics that show where the money is going...I came to the conclusion that if I loved the U.S. wouldn't it be more prudent to share love with 90% of the country instead of the top 10%? I've simply moved to supporting the majority of Americans rather than the wealthy minority.

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Sue

"It's (mostly) unspoken, but it's the nukes in Pakistan and the overall weakness of Zardari."

I get that..I really do..but again we've used all manner of excuses to justify our horrid behavior...including our "Divine Right" to protect our oil consumption. We'd surely go to war with anybody trying to close the Straits of Hormuz.

I realize that nukes are a horrible thought, but we've not really been able to control the World yet...I don't really believe that we can control it now.

IMHO the best way to address the nukes is exactly what Obama has been doing with START and working his butt off since his days in the Senate on nuclear non proliferation and accounting for loose nukes. Ironically how many bed wetters on the neo con side objected to START?

That is the same logic that propels the anti abortion crowd to attack Planned Parenthood when only 2% of their budget helps women needing abortion while shutting down planned parenthood would mean 40,000 more unwanted pregnancies which could lead to....wait for it...more abortions. I'm really beginning to think that logical Republican(especially the teabagger wing) is an oxymoron!

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 10:14 AM | Report abuse

mark

Thanks for the Friedman link. I am absolutely delighted to see more people with sizable name recognition coming to the realization that our involvement there is the wrong use of our formidable resources. I am hopeful that the chorus will grow and our leaders will face more pressure to find a way to back out.

One of the polls I linked to the other day asked the question in such a way that it included our propping up of corrupt leaders in the ME versus humanitarian or infrastructure type aid and Americans overwhelmingly disapproved of the former and slightly approved of the latter.

I think the economic downturn (I'm being kind here) has caused a lot of citizens to re-evaluate our priorities as a nation and for the most part it's just about the only benefit of said downturn. Unfortunately, I am convinced that a sizable portion of the conservative right wing has chosen the wrong enemy to wage their war against, but that's an entirely different discussion from the question you asked.

Posted by: lmsinca | March 6, 2011 10:23 AM | Report abuse

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1117-22.htm

Cheney has pursued a political and corporate career to make himself very rich and powerful. He is the personification of a war profiteer who slid through the revolving door connecting the public and private sectors of the defense establishment on two occasions in a career that has served his relentless quest for power and profits.

As Defense Secretary, Mr. Cheney commissioned a study for the U.S. Department of Defense by Brown and Root Services (now Kellogg, Brown and Root), a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton. The study recommended that private firms like Halliburton should take over logistical support programs for U.S. military operations around the world. Just two years after he was Secretary of Defense, Cheney stepped through the revolving door linking the Department of Defense with defense contractors and became CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton was the principal beneficiary of Cheney's privatization efforts for our military's logistical support and Cheney was paid $44 million for five year's work with them before he slipped back through the revolving door of war profiteering to become Vice-President of the United States. When asked about the money he received from Halliburton, Cheney said. "I tell you that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it."

The Bush administration has dished out lucrative reconstruction contracts in Iraq to favored U.S. based corporations including Halliburton and denied contracts to many Iraqi and foreign based companies. To the conquerors go the spoils was the message on December 11, 2003 when Bush said, "The taxpayers understand why it makes sense for countries that risk lives to participate in the contracts in Iraq, It's very simple. Our people risk their lives, friendly coalition folks risk their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that."

Bush's statement is a stunning admission of how much corrupt corporations control our foreign policy. Under Cheney's leadership Halliburton out did Enron in using offshore subsidiaries as tax shelters to hide profits to bilk U.S. taxpayers. Halliburton also utilized off-shore subsidiaries to contract for services and sell banned equipment to rogue states like Iran, Iraq and Libya. This would be illegal if done directly by Halliburton.

At last count Halliburton had 58 offshore subsidiaries in Caribbean tax havens. With Cheney at the helm Halliburton's tax payments to the U.S. went from $302 million in 1998 to zero in 1999, when they also received a refund of $85 million from the Internal Revenue Service.

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 10:26 AM | Report abuse

"I think the economic downturn (I'm being kind here) has caused a lot of citizens to re-evaluate our priorities as a nation and for the most part it's just about the only benefit of said downturn. Unfortunately, I am convinced that a sizable portion of the conservative right wing has chosen the wrong enemy to wage their war against,"

lmsinca...as Tena used to day "WORD".

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 10:28 AM | Report abuse

@mark,

Before I could buy into Friedman's conclusion that we should spend some of the $110b we are spending on U.S. education for young Egyptians/Tunisians, I would want to know the outside parameters for our involvement. If we can't walk out entirely, what is the minimum force to still be in country, and still accomplish our remaining mission (whatever that is). I personally no longer know what our mission is there.

Do we already have education programs for young Middle Easterners? I'll bet we do. That's not to say that additional funding might not be appropriate.

Friedman ties the two decisions up in a nice package. One decision is the reduce our involvement in the two countries to something less. The other decision is what to do with the money saved. The first decision is by far the more important as we can always come up with something to do with extra money, even if it is to pay back the Chinese.

As an aside, I have a friend who is Afghan. Long ago, right after Karsai was installed, I asked him whether he approved of the changes. He said that the only changes he saw were that the same warlords now had official government titles. They were now Minister of this or that.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 10:30 AM | Report abuse

I guess Dark Lord Cheney was burning to show up ... himself as well? After all, he was Gulf War SecDef.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 9:30 AM

In early January 2001, before Bush was inaugurated, Cheney passed a message to the outgoing secretary of defense, William S. Cohen, a moderate Republican who served in the Democratic Clinton administration.

"We really need to get the president-elect briefed up on some things," Cheney said, adding that he wanted a serious "discussion about Iraq and different options." The president-elect should not be given the routine, canned, round-the-world tour normally given incoming presidents. Topic A should be Iraq.

Cheney had been secretary of defense during George H.W. Bush's presidency, which included the Gulf War, and he harbored a deep sense of unfinished business about Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25550-2004Apr19?language=printer

Posted by: pragmaticagain | March 6, 2011 10:34 AM | Report abuse

For Cheney, there were two primary reasons for the Iraq War:

1) Steal the oil
2) Raid the Treasury on behalf of his old pals at Halliburton and to payoff all that campaign support from military contractors.

As was noted above and by me previously, no one can answer the question about WHY it was imperative that we invade Iraq when we did. As also previously noted, when war is the only option this is never the case - see FDR & WWII. And yet no one ever bothered to ask the very simple question, "Mr. Bush, what was the tipping point, the final straw, the one piece of evidence that convinced you that war was the only solution and we had to invade Iraq when we did?" Which is a good thing, because neither he nor anyone else could answer that.

When you find out all the reasons you were given were bullshit and you start looking for the real reasons, the best way to find them is to follow the money. The money leads to big oil, Halliburton, Blackwater (XE) etc.

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 6, 2011 10:34 AM | Report abuse

@jenn,

I think the honest answer to why the timing of the Iraq war, is that it was War by Appointment. There was not last straw provocation, since it was not a provoked war. It was a scheduled war (remember that it was defined at the time as preemptive). As is said in business, "First you make the decision, then you make the decision right."

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Sue and Ims, I think it is not just the nukes with which we struggle. I believe Gates when he says a complete and sudden abandonment of AFG would create the same vacuum for AQ again.

I think the strategy of nominally working with, but actually also around, Kabul - reaching directly to community and tribal leaders - has produced some welcome results in dislodging Taliban in parts of AFG. The Reed OpEd the other day had me thinking that continuing social and economic support for community and tribal groups in AFG would be worthwhile [in terms of helping people survive with enough of a life to make their own resistance to Taliban and eventual AQ domination plausible] and less costly by an order of magnitude than warfare.

Shrink's post that we have armed everyone in sight certainly gives pause to the notion [if ever it existed] that there will be a "peaceful" or "stable" AFG after we leave.

I think it is realistic to pull down NATO forces soon [within a year], and perhaps to a level that will support humanitarian aid for a period of time, as an alternative to pulling down as fast as is logistically possible, and to a zero level. I do not know which of these end strategies would be better because I do not know which, if either, would stifle AQ's return, or which, if either, will have a better chance of saving many AFGs from the miserable yoke of the Taliban. I consider Gates an adult in the room.

But I am coming to the view we must draw down very soon. Thanks for your comments; they were along the lines of what I was looking for and I would welcome more when I ck in later.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 6, 2011 10:41 AM | Report abuse

12Bar - of course. The last straw provocation question is helpful only in that illuminates that there was no last staw provocation, and reveals that it was a decision in search of a rationale.

But it is the only question that adequately uncovers that fact, which is why it was never asked.

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 6, 2011 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Tom Friedman was a big cheerleader for the Iraq Invasion, from the outset. He was willing to appear on National TV, on a frequent basis, to push for the Invasion.

Therefore, I have stopped giving much creedence to his global perspectives.

As for what we should we doing with all those billions we will be saving? That is just a ridiculous claim, to start with. How the hell can stopping the spending of money that we borrowed be ever considered to be money that we will be saving, so we can then spend it elsewhere.

How about we do the sane thing, and just stop borrowing those many billions to spend them in foreign lands? That would help to reduce the annual deficits.

Americans have got to grow up, and stop pretending that it is their job to fix the world. Time to start fixing America itself, and stop firing teachers, and outsourcing, instead of living in a fantasy America that thinks it can borrow trillions to spend fixing up other nations and cultures, while allowing The Oligarchs to destroy our own.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 10:44 AM | Report abuse

12BB, I missed yours - while I was writing in reply to Soo, Ims, RUK. and shrink. That was a great post.

I think our mission is to keep AFG from becoming an AQ staging ground again.

Other ideas?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 6, 2011 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Friedman touches on the change in the ME due to the widespread citizen unrest. How exactly does the unrest affect AlQ? What are the possible ways that AlQ will adjust itself to the current situation? We were afraid to leave Afpak before there was unrest, now we're afraid to leave because there is unrest. Seems that understanding the New ME would be important.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 10:48 AM | Report abuse

mark:

I don't know if this is the kind of critique you are looking for, but there is one thing which I think a lot of people, including Friedman, exhibit which I think is a problem, and that is a belief that the US is or at least can be the driver of all events in the world. There is a notion that if the US simply understood the right things, behaved in the right way, and pushed the right buttons, most of our foreign policy desires could be achieved.

You can see this in Friedman's very first sentence and the question he poses: What are we doing ineffectually spending billions of dollars in pursuit of a goal that people are willing to accomplish themselves for free? As if we are just being stupid or crazy, and had we understood the right things, and behaved the right way, "the people" would have done this job for free for us long ago at much less cost. I think that is bogus.

We are far more subject to the uncontrollable whims of other nations/people than we might care to admit. It is not clear to me that the movements to get rid of dictators now going on in the middle east, and which Friedman credits with marginalizing radical Islam, could have been accomplished any sooner had the US done things differently. Just because popular uprisings in the likes of Libya and Egypt might have beneficial effects for the US does not mean that either a) similiar uprisings will occur in the likes of Pakistand and Afghanistan if the US stops supporting those regimes nor that the effects of an absence of US support would necessarily redound to the benefit of the US.

This is not a brief for maintaining such support, BTW. I am just pointing out that whatever reasons we might have for doing so are not, to me anyway, obviated by what is going on in say Egypt and Libya and the rest of the Middle East. We supported Mubarek and we didn't support Kaddaffi, and the same things are happening in each place. Sometimes, and indeed I would argue a lot of the time, things do and will happen in the world no matter what the US does. We can wring our hands all we want about whether we should have done this or whether we should do that, but we have to face up to the fact that we do not and cannot manage everything that happens in the world. We struggle against the whims of others just like everyone else.

Posted by: ScottC3 | March 6, 2011 10:52 AM | Report abuse

This piece by David Dayen is both poignant and timely. It's something I've struggled with over the last couple of years. I cannot for the life of me understand why people have to experience first hand one of the many devastations visited upon the middle class, or just hard working Americans, before they are able to champion a solution to rectify or modify the ramifications, or even express a small amount of empathy. It happened during the health care debate, it's happening in the foreclosure fraud mess and also in the budget cutting demonization of government.

""The past week has seen a pronounced evolution in the writing of Dana Milbank. Earlier in the week he severely criticized the incestuous relationship between the political and media culture in Washington – including engaging in a healthy dose of self-criticism – revealed by the Kurt Bardella email scandal. Where did this newfound self-awareness come from? Perhaps that can be explained by his latest piece. See, Milbank discovered that, regardless of his prominence in the DC journalism community or access to power, to the banks he was still nothing but a mark.

"Last fall, my wife and I refinanced our mortgage with Citibank. Sixty days later, we received a “cancellation notice” from our homeowners insurance company “for non-payment of premium.”

Turns out Citibank, which had been collecting hundreds of dollars a month from us to pay the insurer, hadn’t made the payments. It was, I later learned, one of the usual tricks mortgage servicers use to squeeze more cash out of their customers. About a month later, I learned of another trick: Citibank informed us that it was increasing our monthly payment by nearly $300.

Along the way, a simple refi became a months-long odyssey: rates misquoted, interest charged on a phantom account, legal documents issued in wrong names, a mortgage officer who disappeared for days at a time (first it was his birthday, then his laptop was in the shop), a bounced check from Citibank’s own title company, and the freezing of our bank accounts."

Sometimes it takes only a little shared experience to recognize the major problems in our society. For Milbank to understand the mortgage crisis, he needed to experience it first-hand. And he recognizes that he’s one of the relatively luckier ones; borrowers without his income stream or resources are being forced into foreclosure when they confront these situations.""

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/03/05/a-liberal-is-a-villager-whos-been-screwed-by-a-mortgage-servicer/

Posted by: lmsinca | March 6, 2011 10:53 AM | Report abuse

@Jenn,

We continue to have the same debate over the reasons for the Iraq War. Since we were wrong on virtually every stated justification, it is more than appropriate to question why we were wrong. After all, we do spend gzillions on intelligence to ensure we're are not wrong on assessing risk. And yet, we were wrong.

To me, it comes down to three possibilities:

1. The decision makers knew it was all a lie but they had their own cynical reasons to go to War. This is the Cynical Reason.

2. The decision makers were duped by their own prejudices and advisors. This is the Innocent Dupes Reason.

3. A combination of the above. This is the Innocent Dupe, but we get something out of it Reason.

----------------------------------------------
I'm putting my money on reason 3.

Why? Because if Reason 1 were true, WMD would have been found, even if it had to be fedex'ed into the country. Reason 2 is unlikely since we do spend gzillions on intel and we know there were people who were cautioning that things didn't add up. I think we know the decision makers were not totally innocent, nor were they completely aware of their folly.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 10:57 AM | Report abuse

12BB: "I'm putting my money on reason 3."

Until a few weeks ago, I would have tended to agree with you. Now I think it's more #1. I changed my outlook when it came out that "Curveball" had intentionally lied (and is proud of it!), and that our investigators never interviewed him. We were derelict in our duty to uncover the truth, and there was a reason for that.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | March 6, 2011 11:07 AM | Report abuse

@lms,

IMO, the reason that people are often unsympathetic to the victims of the mortgage mess is a kind of magical thinking. When we are faced with something that could happen to us, our first instinct is to try to discover what it is about the victim that makes him a victim. That way, we can divide him from us. "We would never have done [such and such], so that would never happen to us."

You hear it all the time with cancer. Popular belief has it that eating the right things, exercise, thinking right, being thin and any number of other factors are the cause of cancer. For some cancers, there is some correlation, but for the most part that is magical thinking. Cancer strikes the thin, the vegetarian, runners, body builders and positive thinkers too, because I know some. It's a genetic accident and it can happen to any of us. We don't want to believe that because it's too scary.

When one of these random events does happen to us, we drop all the magical thinking and become solution focused.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Scott: "It is not clear to me that the movements to get rid of dictators now going on in the middle east, and which Friedman credits with marginalizing radical Islam, could have been accomplished any sooner had the US done things differently."

The one thing that I think would have made a huge difference, and perhaps have changed the course of history, would have been to have heeded the need to end our oil dependency after the 1973 embargo. At least we would not be mired there now, and we would not have enriched a lot of despots.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | March 6, 2011 11:17 AM | Report abuse

German Intel. told the US that Curveball was not to be trusted. They did not want to hear that, because "the intel was being sexed up", to fit the desired invasion goal.

Think about this for just a moment.

We invaded a majority Shiite country, that was being dominated by the Sunni minority, and we thought that those same Shiites, that Bush One allowed Saddam to slaughter, would fall in love with us, and help us fight Iran.

First we get the Iraqi Sunnis mad at us, once we remove them from power, and of course the Shiites were not about to trust us, since Bush One urged them to rebel, and then allowed Saddam to slaughter them.

How about a reality check. We were even going to import their new leader; Ahmed Chalabi. Remember that guy, that Bush/Cheney picked to be the next leader of Iraq, at around the same time that they picked Karzai for Afghanistan.

They picked Chalabi to be their man in Baghdad, even though they knew that he was convicted in Jordan for having committed a massive bank swindle.

The most astounding thing of all is; all those Neo-Con Chicken Hawks, thought that it was a perfect plan. Gee what could possibly go wrong!

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 11:20 AM | Report abuse

"I think our mission is to keep AFG from becoming an AQ staging ground again."

@mark...I agree with you that is the stated mission...but with Petraeus continuing his slogan about "winning the hearts and minds of the Afgans...does anybody really believe we have the time and $$ to do that? In addition as has been offered by many diplomats in the region..Al Q will just move to Somalia or wherever there is fertile ground...and there is plenty to choose from.

And OMG what a Sunday morning...I'm in complete agreement with one of Scott's posts....especially...

"Sometimes, and indeed I would argue a lot of the time, things do and will happen in the world no matter what the US does. We can wring our hands all we want about whether we should have done this or whether we should do that, but we have to face up to the fact that we do not and cannot manage everything that happens in the world. We struggle against the whims of others just like everyone else."

And so I immediately remove Scott frm the "hubris" crowd when it comes to F.P.

BTW This morning on MTP David Gregory was arguing whether or not it was in our "vital interests" to remove Qaddafi. That is precisely the problem with U.S. foreign policy...our "vital interests" do not give us some sort of "Divine right" to reign over the rest of the world. WTF ever happened to consensus and diplomacy with the rest of the World. Do we really suppose our "vital interests" give us the "right" to do anything we wish unilaterally. Oh yeah..I forgot that's the Bush Doctrine.

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 11:22 AM | Report abuse

12BB: "I'm putting my money on reason 3."

Until a few weeks ago, I would have tended to agree with you. Now I think it's more #1. I changed my outlook when it came out that "Curveball" had intentionally lied
--------------------------------------------------------
It was known at the time that Curveball was suspect. I specifically remember that in news reports. I don't think that adding Curveball essentially changes the equation.

If Reason #1 is true, why didn't they plant WMD? If they were smart enough to know everything was trumped up, wouldn't they have been smart enough to cover their tracks?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 11:25 AM | Report abuse

"The one thing that I think would have made a huge difference, and perhaps have changed the course of history, would have been to have heeded the need to end our oil dependency after the 1973 embargo. At least we would not be mired there now, and we would not have enriched a lot of despots."

Agree completely Sue. And yet what happened to Jimmy Carter when he tried to do just that. He was ridiculed for example for placing solar panels on the W.H. One of St. Ronnie's the dinosaur's first acts was to remove those solar panels. Way to send a great message.

After the Deepwater tragedy and spill I was talking to an old..mid 70's..rightie who was all for offshore drilling even though he lives in Florida. What's more amazing was his claim..predicated on stuff he claims to have read from right wing think tanks..that there is enough oil in the world to last another hundred years and this entire conversation about oil was hyperbolic panic. Needless to say I simply dropped the conversation...again how rational is it to deal with the irrational who refuse to see reality.*

*Perhaps one of the righties here would like to back this dude up by pointing out yes indeed we can use oil to drive our cars and economy for another hundred years.

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of staging grounds; they already have them in Somali, Yemen, etc, so even if we deny them Afghanistan, that will not accomplish very much in the way of eradicating Al Qaeda.

Afghanistan was not really a staging ground, in the sense that a massive military campaign was launched against us, from there. Unless you consider that paying for 20 flight tickets to the US, as a massive military staging.

Twenty addled punks, willing to die, on a suicide mission, can be dispatched from anywhere, not just from Afghanistan.

Still, I guess it was worth the massive military response, since we captured Bin Laden, right?

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 11:31 AM | Report abuse

The most astounding thing of all is; all those Neo-Con Chicken Hawks, thought that it was a perfect plan. Gee what could possibly go wrong!
-----------------------------------------------------
This to me is more proof that the Keystone Cops approach to the Iraq War was part screwup and part malevolent. Had it all been malevolent, no way would Chalabi been their man. Chalabi had been roaming around Washington for years, lying to everyone in sight and trying to feather his nest. That was well known at the time.

As Liam says, the whole premise behind the plan that Iran wouldn't win when their Sunni neighbors were taken out of the picture is the height of ignorance on our part. And that was also well known at the time.

Really smart, but malevolent, decision makers would have done far better than this.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 11:32 AM | Report abuse

12Bar - I think it's more that Cheney's motivation was #1, and Bush's motivation was #2.

To put it in the corresponsing base analogy - Bush had a "gut feeling" that was crap, and Cheney pissed all over it with misinformation and deliberately doctored intelligence. From that we got #3, the stinky latrine of the war in Iraq.

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 6, 2011 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Go read the end of the Open Thread if you want to see "quarterback" sputtering generic denials after getting his ạss kicked by ceflynline.

Posted by: caothien9 | March 6, 2011 8:34 AM
=======================================

Only to cao would the assertion of trutherism be equated with an ass-kicking.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 11:36 AM | Report abuse

"If Reason #1 is true, why didn't they plant WMD? If they were smart enough to know everything was trumped up, wouldn't they have been smart enough to cover their tracks?"

@12Bar....Indeed that is a fascinating question. But the operative word in your post is "SMART". I don't believe trumping up all the charges to get us into Iraq was smart or even took a lot of brainpower...a certain amount of cunning and deceit but given that they controlled all three branches of Gov't not really that difficult. In addition they had a nation ramped up for vengeance after 9/11...remember the reaction to "Bring it on"...largely positive back then.

I know I'm a partisan hack here but really, I think the Bushies ask that very same question amongst themselves. Why didn't they plant the evidence just like the rogue cop on the street. They certainly demonstrated no penchant for morality in their administration...I think the answer to your question is that they were largely an incompetent administration. The proof is in the pudding. Katrina..heck of a job Scottie...all those Evangel college "lawyers?" they place in our justice dept...taking a surplus and turning it into massive deficit...seriously what did the Bush administration ever do that was smart? Maybe the unfunded drug benefit for seniors? Would have been a lot better if they had paid for it. Maybe the nomination of Harriet Myers...the defense of Scooter Libby. There was nothing smart about the Bush Administration.

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 11:37 AM | Report abuse

and Tom Friedman fell for it, hook line and sinker. I remember him appearing on many TV show, almost belittling anyone who dared to debate him on the merits of Invading Iraq.

That is why, no one should pay much attention to his global perspectives.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 11:38 AM | Report abuse

""When we are faced with something that could happen to us, our first instinct is to try to discover what it is about the victim that makes him a victim.""

That sounds intuitively right in some instances at least. I had an interesting experience yesterday I'll share since this is an open thread, not sure how valuable it might be to the discussion. Three years ago when I lost my niece we were home from NM and the funeral etc. for two days when an extended family member on my daughter-in-laws side of the family had a big party for her 3 year old son. I was particularly close to the little guy as we had babysat him many times and the family lived in our rental house so we had constant contact, and even though she was only in her 20's we had become friends.

Unfortunately, I could not force myself to attend the party and my husband went over that morning to drop off the gift and offer our apologies. It was not well received and I was on the receiving end of a very nasty email and a prolonged cold shoulder lasting all of the three years. This young woman lost her mother on Dec. 26 of last year to colon cancer and is completely devastated. Ironically we had another party yesterday, for my grandson this time, and I went into the house to bring something out to the yard and discovered her sitting by herself in the family room.

I went over to her to express my sympathies again for the loss of her mother and she burst into tears saying she shouldn't have come, it was just too much seeing all the mothers with their daughters and her feelings were so raw still. She wasn't able to quite articulate it to me, but I think she had finally figured out what I might have been dealing with at the time. We ended up having a long talk about mothers and grief, which I know a little something about, and I am hopeful now that our friendship is repaired.

I remain stymied though at how difficult it is for us to attempt to walk a mile in someone elses shoes.

Posted by: lmsinca | March 6, 2011 11:39 AM | Report abuse

One could argue that it doesn't matter whether the decision makers about the War were inept or malevolent. I think to make them purely malevolent is to give them more power than they deserve. Malevolent clever people are truly rare. Even Hitler (and there is no comparison here) was still a screwup.

We don't want to raise the War makers to a place of omnipotence. Their ineptness is now apparent to all. They were not clever enough to pull it off.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 11:39 AM | Report abuse

@12bar

"Really smart, but malevolent, decision makers would have done far better than this."

Not to beat a dead horse..but is it possible to be ignorant as well as malevolent?

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Sorry Scott..a Freudian slip...LMAO

"Heck of a job Brownie"

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 11:42 AM | Report abuse

At the time of the build up for the Iraq Invasion, Richard Perle set up his own consulting firm, and distributed business literature outlining business investment prospects in Iraq, after the invasion had transformed the place within a few weeks time.

He also kept telling anyone that would listen; "within one year, a grateful Iraqi people will name a square in Baghdad after President George W. Bush."

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 11:45 AM | Report abuse

rukidding7, Cheney's fortune was placed in a blind trust for the eight years he was Vice President. That makes it very difficult to argue he personally gained from war.

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 6, 2011 11:45 AM | Report abuse

ruk - see my theory.

If you've got Bush believing his gut feeling that Saddam really is threat and he's going to be vindicated in that belief, he's got no reason to order that WMDs be planted. Cheney's certainly not going to suggest such an idea to him, because Cheney's whole game has been to convince Bush that his gut feeling is correct. Plus he knows that there's always the chance that it could be found out that weapons were planted - it takes a certain number of people to do such a thing, and every one of them becomes a potential liability. And of course Cheney, he doesn't care if the whole "case for war" is shown to be a towering pile of crap AFTER we invade, because he knows you can't unscrew the pooch. Once we're in, it's open season on the oil contracts and military contracting. The only things he cares about have been accomplished.

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 6, 2011 11:45 AM | Report abuse

@lmsinca

"I remain stymied though at how difficult it is for us to attempt to walk a mile in someone elses shoes."

I LOVE your posts!

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Isn't it great how McCain the warmonger wants the US to attack Egyptian planes and take out their air defenses as a first choice.

When is he gonna announce he's running again?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | March 6, 2011 11:46 AM | Report abuse

@Jenn

A very plausible theory that I can easily accept. Historians are going to have so much fun trying to uncover what really happened.

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 11:49 AM | Report abuse

And of Cheney told his Halliburton "buddies" that would mean that he violated national security not to mention insider trading rules. So, why again, has he not been prosecuted by Obama's DOJ or SEC?

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 6, 2011 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"12BB, I missed yours - while I was writing in reply to Soo, Ims, RUK. and shrink. That was a great post. I think our mission is to keep AFG from becoming an AQ staging ground again. Other ideas? Posted by: mark_in_austin"

The official rational is, of course, an Afghanistan where al Quaeda won't be welcome. The official solution is a government strong enough to prevent exactly that, but the final working solution will be a return to the balance of power situation that existed prior to the Bussians breaking up a delicate balance.

Afghanistan was a feudal democracy. War Lords governed their desmeines and warily watched each other to insure nobody got uppity and tried to take over. To keep their positions each Warlord gave some amount of democracy to his feif, because he needed the true loyalty of his people to hold his place, and the people needed him to hold his place lest some outsider decide that he was vulnerable.

Afghanistan will probably get back to that state for a while, before the forces that currently drive the fights in greater Arabia get a good toe hold.

THEN we need presence in Afghanistan to moderate the rebellion and the responses, and then Afghanistan might become a democracy, but it might also become a (somewhat) functioning feudal democracy in fact as well as in practice, where there is no king, but there are hereditary provincial Chiefs, working with elected provincial councils, so that the Afghan Senate is a real senate and its Assembly is the democratic side of the coin.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 6, 2011 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Jake...

FINALLY you have asked the prescient question...

"So, why again, has he not been prosecuted by Obama's DOJ or SEC?"

Why indeed!

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 11:51 AM | Report abuse

More gems from cao:

"And with the Iraq invasion the discussion in the open thread boils down to a single argument by the Conservative People: lots of people believed Iraq had WMDs."

You've pretty well conceded the argument. The "lots of people" who "believed Iraq had WMDs" included a large number of knowledgable and respected Democrats. That's the exact point we've been trying to make in light of all the gibberish about how it was only Bush, Rummy, Cheney, and all those evil neo-cons. Slam-Dunk Tenent was Clinton's man, and some of the quotes provided date back to the Clinton administration. Falsifying evidence were they? Trying to bamboozle people? Didn't Swr3 date the blunders to the 20th century?
LOL.
--------------

"But it wasn't gullible Democrats nor was it Iraqi military leaders who threw the switch on invading Iraq, it was George Bush. It was his responsibility to decide if there was a threat to America worth the most grave decision a leader can make."

A half-truth. Many Democrats voted to authorize the war, but no one denies the ultimate responsibility lies with the President. This is a feeble attempt to change the subject.
--------------

"There was no evidence, only manufactured doubt based on fallacious thinking, but George didn't want to wait. He wanted a chance to wear that flight suit and to watch people betting blown to bits on his orders."

So we get to the flat-out lies. Right back where we started. It was all Bush and only Bush; Bush and all his cronies knew there were no WMDs; they just wanted to go to war and see lots of people get killed. The Democrats? Give them a pass. They were just gullible and, besides, Bush isn't a Democrat.

echo...echo...echo...

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Historians are also going to have so much fun trying to uncover where Obama was born.

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 6, 2011 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Hi ruk, I'm just in a very reflective mood today and thinking in a more philosophical vein than the nitty gritty of politics and such.

Off to get some work done now though, carry on.

Posted by: lmsinca | March 6, 2011 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Isn't it great how McCain the warmonger wants the US to attack Egyptian planes and take out their air defenses as a first choice.

When is he gonna announce he's running again?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | March 6, 2011 11:46 AM


I think you mean Libyan Planes.

We should not go down that path again. We saw how it ended up, when we enforced a long term no fly zone in Iraq.

We should stay out of that internal dispute. Everytime we jump in to side with one group, over an other, it ends up with the US getting bogged down, for decades.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 11:54 AM | Report abuse

rukidding7, I am not Jake. Are you?

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 6, 2011 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Here's a question: If Cheney had been President, would the Iraq invasion been done in a smarter way? With the dupe GW out of the way?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 11:56 AM | Report abuse

No. You are talking about Torture Chamber Dick. It was Cheney and his close collaborator Rumsfeld, that called all the shots on how the invasion was to be carried out.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 11:59 AM | Report abuse

"a single argument by the Conservative People: lots of people believed Iraq had WMDs."

Indeed that is their argument but as is frequently posted, that begs the question...why does N. Korea get a pass?

Seriously WHY? Their dictator is even more ruthless than Saddam and he is starving large numbers of his citizens to maintain his military posture. We do not suspect that the North Koreans MIGHT have WMD..we KNOW they have nukes. We know they have successfully tested missiles to carry them. We know they have no compunction about selling them to groups like Al Qaeda. I think the only thing that has saved us so far is that the North Koreans have too few nukes to spare or sell.

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 9:14 AM
=======================================

So, write your Democratic Congressmen. If you can convince them North Korea is a grave and immediate threat, maybe they'll manage to get a bill passed authorizing an invasion of North Korea. Did you have a larger point to make?

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 12:01 PM | Report abuse

No. You are talking about Torture Chamber Dick. It was Cheney and his close collaborator Rumsfeld, that called all the shots on how the invasion was to be carried out.
-------------------------------------------------------
I agree. Cheney was no smarter than Bush.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 12:02 PM | Report abuse

12Bar - again, you assume that Cheney would have cared one way or the other.

Cheney cared only about getting in there where he could stick his hands into the pie. All other considerations were beside the point and I seriously doubt he gave much, if any, thought to them at all.

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 6, 2011 12:07 PM | Report abuse

"a single argument by the Conservative People: lots of people believed Iraq had WMDs."

Indeed that is their argument but as is frequently posted, that begs the question...why does N. Korea get a pass?

Seriously WHY? Their dictator is even more ruthless than Saddam and he is starving large numbers of his citizens to maintain his military posture. We do not suspect that the North Koreans MIGHT have WMD..we KNOW they have nukes. We know they have successfully tested missiles to carry them. We know they have no compunction about selling them to groups like Al Qaeda. I think the only thing that has saved us so far is that the North Koreans have too few nukes to spare or sell.

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 9:14 AM

...........................

I pre-answered that question yesterday. It is because N. Korea has no vast reserves of Oil, and also because Bush/Cheney were afraid of how China would react to an occupation at their doorstep. They did not take kindly to it, the last time we entered N. Korea, and this time China is also a nuclear power, and much better developed, and capable of routing our forces very quickly. Of course they would also stop lending to us, and slap an embargo on all exports to us. Since we do not make much in the way of consumer products, that would really put the hurt on us.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Inside story about Jerry Brown's budget proposal:

Privately, a number of Republicans are working discreetly to find common ground with Democrats. At the risk of becoming an early target of outside groups and conservative talk show hosts, Sen. Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, revealed last week he is trying to keep lines of communication open for a potential deal.

One of a dozen Republicans who refused to joint a newly formed anti-tax group, the Taxpayer Caucus, Huff said the opportunity to win significant reforms in regulations and pensions may be worth the risk of going against the GOP grain on taxes.

"I'm hoping to negotiate something," he said. "I want to get at reforms that change the way the state operates. If you're going to get at the problem, which is some of the regulations, pensions, you're taking yourself off the negotiating table if you say we won't" talk about tax extensions.

Democrats need to attract a minimum of two Republicans in the Assembly and two in the Senate for the required two-thirds vote on placing a tax issue before voters.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 12:09 PM | Report abuse

RUK makes up some more stuff:

"The REAL reasons we went to war in Iraq....

"1st Vengeance...didn't matter who we beat up but we were peoed after 9/11 and "somebody" had to pay. We blew it trying to capture the real perpetrators and so Saddam became an easy boogie man to distract from the Bush Admin's failure to both prevent 9/11 and to capture the perpetrators who are thumbing their noses at us to this very day."

Wow. Is that a fact or a wild, idiotic opinion? Is that also the reason all those Democrats voted to authorize the invasion?
--------------

"2nd G.W.'s huge ego. He was out to accomplish what "poppy" failed to do. His Texas swagger has cost this country between 3-5 TRILLION $ and close to 5,000 American lives and who really knows how many innocent Iraqi lives. Oh but that's collateral damage and we all know we're exceptional and Iraqis are not, so we don't really give a rat's arse about them, only the 5,000 Americans count."

Aside from the moronic nonsense about Bush's ego, you always know your in the presence of a true liberal when he cannot comprehend any moral or strategic difference between casualties on his own side and those of the enemy. Makes you think he doesn't really know which side he's on.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 12:11 PM | Report abuse

"a single argument by the Conservative People: lots of people believed Iraq had WMDs."

Indeed that is their argument but as is frequently posted, that begs the question...why does N. Korea get a pass?

Seriously WHY? Their dictator is even more ruthless than Saddam and he is starving large numbers of his citizens to maintain his military posture. We do not suspect that the North Koreans MIGHT have WMD..we KNOW they have nukes. We know they have successfully tested missiles to carry them. We know they have no compunction about selling them to groups like Al Qaeda. I think the only thing that has saved us so far is that the North Koreans have too few nukes to spare or sell.

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 9:14 AM

...........................

I pre-answered that question yesterday. It is because N. Korea has no vast reserves of Oil, and also because Bush/Cheney were afraid of how China would react to an occupation at their doorstep. They did not take kindly to it, the last time we entered N. Korea, and this time China is also a nuclear power, and much better developed, and capable of routing our forces very quickly. Of course they would also stop lending to us, and slap an embargo on all exports to us. Since we do not make much in the way of consumer products, that would really put the hurt on us.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 12:14 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 makes up lots of stuff.

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 6, 2011 12:16 PM | Report abuse

ruk at 12:26,

You've posted that same pipedreams garbage before, and as every time before it FAILS even taken at face value to support your assertion that Cheney made a fortune from the Gulf War or that the war was in any way a scheme to make him a dime.

Your accusation was completely false.

http://www.factcheck.org/kerry_ad_falsely_accuses_cheney_on_halliburton.html

You are just repeating Democrat lies, proven six years ago to be lies, and repeatedly proven to you to be lies on this very blog.

You can spin all the innuendo you want about the revolving door and Cheney in the 1990s, but your accusation is false. Stop trying to deflect and change the subject.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Cheney cared only about getting in there where he could stick his hands into the pie.
-----------------------------------------------
I get your point now. You are saying that Cheney's investment in Halliburton's war profits was his sole goal. Stunning if true.

Do you have an estimate of how much his net worth increased? That shouldn't be too hard to estimate. He owned x percent and Halliburton's stock increased from a to b times x%. There might have been other financial benefits, but the increase in Halliburton market cap would be the easiest to calculate.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 12:16 PM | Report abuse

The Neo-Cons were already dividing up the spoils from a quick victory in Iraq, even before the invasion had been launched.

Of course Halliburton was granted the first contract for Iraq, on a no bid basis, before the invasion was launched, and

At the time of the build up for the Iraq Invasion, Richard Perle set up his own consulting firm, and distributed business literature outlining business investment prospects in Iraq, after the invasion had transformed the place within a few weeks time.

He also kept telling anyone that would listen; "within one year, a grateful Iraqi people will name a square in Baghdad after President George W. Bush."

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 12:18 PM | Report abuse

3.) $$$$$$$$$$ One can never discount the power of the almighty $$. Cheney and Rumsfeld and their crony capitalist buddies all made vast fortunes because of the Iraq war. . .

Again follow the logic...attack one nation SUSPECTED of having WMD while allowing another to actually POSSESS WMD under the control of a mad dictator with missile systems that are improving. I'm waiting for the first righty to explain this one to me!

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 9:14 AM
========================================

More utter tosh. I'm still waiting for those Democrats who voted to authorize the Iraq invasion to give us those same explanations---and tell us when they plan to invade North Korea or Pakistan. The White House has been slow to take a position on Libya, so people like Komrad Kerry don't yet have talking points; they've joined John McCain in calling for air strikes and a no-fly zone. Have you got your talking points yet, RUK? Oh, and why are we tripled down in Afghanistan? Surely, you'd never vote for Obama again with troops still dying in the Middle East and Gitmo still open. Principles much?

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Haliburton's stock was trading below $10 in 2003 and is now trading around $50. Symbol is HAL for anyone inclined to look at the price chart.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 12:25 PM | Report abuse

France and Germany did not go along with the Invasion, so clearly they did not fall for the "sexed up intel" scare tactics.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 12:26 PM | Report abuse

No, 12Bar, I don't think Cheney's goal was personal financial gain so much as it was in seeing that the right people gain financially. Cheney's never-hidden take on things is that the US has the right to do whatever it wants; anything done in the pursuit of propping up US hegemony is the right thing to do. He wanted to secure access to the oil reserves and beyond that, pay back those who put him and Bush into office - interests that just coincidentally had provided him with great personal fortune as well, in return for carrying their water.

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 6, 2011 12:27 PM | Report abuse

"I've confessed that I made the huge mistake of voting for G.W. the first time."

Oh My God

You are a brave man to own that ruk. But what were you thinking?

Posted by: shrink2 | March 6, 2011 9:57 AM
=======================================

He was probably thinking of the alternative, like most sane people.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 12:28 PM | Report abuse

prag,

Woodward's pieces are always a dubious mix of fact and fiction. His "unfinished business" comment is Woodward spin at best.

But, taking the whole thing at face value, you've simply confirmed my point, which was to rebut the idiotic notion that Bush went into Iraq on some bizarre psychological motivation of showing up "the adults" from his poppy's administration. Cheney was Gulf War SecDef -- my point exactly. You did nothing but underscore it.

You can think what you want of Cheney's views, or spin how you want. It makes more sense to say he was trying to "learn from history" -- first-hand history -- than that he was part of a juvenile vendetta against his own role under Bush I.

Your side has so many convoluted and nonsensical conspiracy theories that it can't keep them straight, let alone reconcile them with obvious historical facts, like the fact that Cheney was Bush I's SecDef. He defended the decision not to take out Saddam in the mid-90s. Perhaps he changed his view by 2001, perhaps not. It would hardly be a surprise, since it was official policy of the US by then, signed into law by Clinton, to seek regime change in Iraq.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Some well connected American Corporations got a lot of the two trillion dollars, that was borrowed and wasted in Iraq, and it sure as hell was not the Wisconsin School Teachers, that won the Iraq Invasion Sweepstakes. Can you say Halliburton, Boys and Girls, and would you happen to know if they happened to have any special friend in the Bush/Cheney White House? Hmmmm.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 12:30 PM | Report abuse

IMHO the best way to address the nukes is exactly what Obama has been doing with START and working his butt off since his days in the Senate on nuclear non proliferation and accounting for loose nukes. Ironically how many bed wetters on the neo con side objected to START?

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 10:14 AM
=========================================

Right. Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, any other rogue nations: you can certainly count on them to abide by any treaties or U.N. resolutions. No problem there. Look under your pillow, RUK; I think someone left you a quarter.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 12:32 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca writes, "I remain stymied though at how difficult it is for us to attempt to walk a mile in someone elses shoes."

I know this isn't a comment waiting for an answer, but I'll say this much. Some people have that kind of empathy and some don't. And that is one of the reasons we have politics--so the arguments of empathy can enter the wider dialogue and, over time, affect policy. We, for instance, get rid of slavery.

Madison may be an example of people not getting things until they and
their neighbors are directly affected. And this becomes another kind of situation where we need the methods of politics to orchestrate change.

Posted by: AllButCertain | March 6, 2011 12:33 PM | Report abuse

"Cheney cared only about getting in there where he could stick his hands into the pie.
-----------------------------------------------
I get your point now. You are saying that Cheney's investment in Halliburton's war profits was his sole goal. Stunning if true.

Do you have an estimate of how much his net worth increased? That shouldn't be too hard to estimate. He owned x percent and Halliburton's stock increased from a to b times x%. There might have been other financial benefits, but the increase in Halliburton market cap would be the easiest to calculate."


No need for calculations. Just read the fact check I posted above. It's complete rubbish. Cheney would have been impeached and likely in jail if this pack of lies were true.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 12:33 PM | Report abuse

The Neo-Cons were already dividing up the spoils from a quick victory in Iraq, even before the invasion had been launched.

Of course Halliburton was granted the first contract for Iraq, on a no bid basis, before the invasion was launched, and

At the time of the build up for the Iraq Invasion, Richard Perle set up his own consulting firm, and distributed business literature outlining business investment prospects in Iraq, after the invasion had transformed the place within a few weeks time.

He also kept telling anyone that would listen; "within one year, a grateful Iraqi people will name a square in Baghdad after President George W. Bush.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Since we all know the Bush Adm was wrong about virtually every reason they used to justify the War, we're only talking about why they were wrong.

1. Lying through their teeth.
2. Stupid beyond belief.
3. Combination of the two.

I support Reason #3.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Well, I had a 3k character answer to why the timing, which is currently being digested by the held for moderator, (burp) monster. luckily I kept a copy. It is at ceflynline@msn.com for the interested.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 6, 2011 12:37 PM | Report abuse

For Cheney, there were two primary reasons for the Iraq War:

1) Steal the oil
2) Raid the Treasury on behalf of his old pals at Halliburton and to payoff all that campaign support from military contractors.

. . .

When you find out all the reasons you were given were bullshit and you start looking for the real reasons, the best way to find them is to follow the money. The money leads to big oil, Halliburton, Blackwater (XE) etc.

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 6, 2011 10:34 AM
========================================

You're on a roll, Jenn, but no smarter than you were yesterday. Any, uh, facts or links to facts to back up your wild theories? No? I'll admit, I already knew that.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 12:38 PM | Report abuse

"For Cheney, there were two primary reasons for the Iraq War:

1) Steal the oil
2) Raid the Treasury on behalf of his old pals at Halliburton and to payoff all that campaign support from military contractors."

Strange that we didn't steal the oil then.

Raid the treasury for "old pals" -- ah, the suitably vague smear that is impervious to factual scrutiny. Typical.

"As was noted above and by me previously, no one can answer the question about WHY it was imperative that we invade Iraq when we did. As also previously noted, when war is the only option this is never the case - see FDR & WWII. And yet no one ever bothered to ask the very simple question, "Mr. Bush, what was the tipping point, the final straw, the one piece of evidence that convinced you that war was the only solution and we had to invade Iraq when we did?" Which is a good thing, because neither he nor anyone else could answer that."

You could just read Bush's book, or his Iraq chapter. Unless and until you've done so and can prove his explanation false, you ought to shut up.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Well, I had a 3k character answer to why the timing, which is currently being digested by the held for moderator, (burp) monster. luckily I kept a copy. It is at ceflynline@msn.com for the interested.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 6, 2011 12:37 PM

..................

Divide it into two parts. Open a second tab, and post part one, on the first tab, then immediately post part two on the second tab.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Well, I had a 3k character answer to why the timing, which is currently being digested by the held for moderator, (burp) monster. luckily I kept a copy. It is at ceflynline@msn.com for the interested.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 6, 2011 12:37 PM | Report abuse

It's okay, we all saw your birther nonsense two threads ago, from which you fled when confronted with actual facts.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 12:43 PM | Report abuse

I see some of our friends are flinging goat pellets from the gallery.

"Go read Bush's book" is not a convincing or substantive rebuttal, any more that personal insults are. Perhaps one of the two goat-pellet flinging gentlemen would care to actually provide one? No? That's what I thought.

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 6, 2011 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Just because you break into someone's home to steal their valuables, and meet with stiff resistance from the home owners, which thwarts your effort to steal their valuables, does not change the fact, that you intended to steal the stuff, when you planned and carried out the break in.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 12:45 PM | Report abuse

In addition to Cheney's blind trust, the increase in stock options were pre-donated to charity:

"That still would leave the possibility that Cheney could profit from his Halliburton stock options if the company's stock rises in value. However, Cheney and his wife Lynne have assigned any future profits from their stock options in Halliburton and several other companies to charity. And we're not just taking the Cheney's word for this -- we asked for a copy of the legal agreement they signed, which we post here publicly for the first time.

The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education, a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.

The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.

The options owned by the Cheney's have been valued at nearly $8 million, his attorney says. Such valuations are rough estimates only -- the actual value will depend on what happens to stock prices in the future, which of course can't be known beforehand. But it is clear that giving up rights to the future profits constitutes a significant financial sacrifice, and a sizable donation to the chosen charities."

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 6, 2011 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it great how McCain the warmonger wants the US to attack Egyptian planes and take out their air defenses as a first choice.

When is he gonna announce he's running again?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | March 6, 2011 11:46 AM
========================================

I don't suppose you voted for John Kerry, who is proposing the same thing. Echo...echo...echo.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 12:48 PM | Report abuse

""Go read Bush's book" is not a convincing or substantive rebuttal, any more that personal insults are. Perhaps one of the two goat-pellet flinging gentlemen would care to actually provide one? No? That's what I thought."

Actually it quite is. You said nothing factual or substantiated to be rebutted. You asserted some loony conspiracy theories and said that the question of why has never been asked or answered.

It's in Bush's book, like it or not. Not going to type it out for you, but it's Chapter 8 "Iraq."

Silly girl. Why do you keep trying?

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 12:50 PM | Report abuse

If Bush/Cheney were all about invading countries to oust brutal regimes, then why did they never invade Burma, China, N. Korea, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, etc? Hmmmmm.

Furthermore; Israel has a large stockpile of Nukes. It did invade Lebanon. Slaughered thousand in refugee camps, in Beirut, then occupied the South of The Country for decades, and is to this day talking about bombing Iran, not the other way around. Should Israel be Invaded by the US to oust the regimewhich has invaded and occupied a neighboring country, and possesses stockpiles of WMD?

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Halliburton's market cap has increased $35billion or a bit more. That is an increase of 500%, from under $10 to $50/share.

Then, I looked at MSFT as a stock which did not profit from the war as far as I know, and as a proxy. In 2003 (bottom made after the 9/11 event) their price was about $17 and now it is about $25. That is a recovery of 50%.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 12:54 PM | Report abuse

"Silly girl. Why do you keep trying?"

Good question, since there's no evidence that you're ever going to get any smarter or become honest.

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 6, 2011 12:54 PM | Report abuse

"Just because you break into someone's home to steal their valuables, and meet with stiff resistance from the home owners, which thwarts your effort to steal their valuables, does not change the fact, that you intended to steal the stuff, when you planned and carried out the break in."


Ah, so the thieves invaded Iraq to "steal the oil" but stupidly took an army 4/5ths too small. Then they stubbornly failed to send more to secure the oil. And let the Iraqis keep it.

Because they were actually arrogant ideologues out to prove that the geezers who ran the Gulf War were p***ies.

Except the head arrogant ideologue was one of those geezers. The head geezer in fact.

Funny stuff, you lefties and your incoherent conspiracy theories.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Remember that SNL Garret Morris baseball character?

Iraq invasion been berry berry good to Halliburton, but not berry good to Wisconsin School Teachers.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Well, I had a 3k character answer to why the timing, which is currently being digested by the held for moderator, (burp) monster. luckily I kept a copy. It is at ceflynline@msn.com for the interested.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 6, 2011 12:37 PM
=========================================

Nothing is held for the moderator. I don't know why they use that message. The message just disappears. Could be a naughty word or maybe you went over the character limit.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 12:59 PM | Report abuse

"Good question, since there's no evidence that you're ever going to get any smarter or become honest."

Yep, that's how it always ends with you. You issue some false assertions, and then when you are refuted with facts you drop the issue and end with meaningless snark.

Heckuva job.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone know what ownership interest Cheney had in HAL or other war-related stocks? Someone talks about options worth $8million, but what about direct or indirect ownership of stock or warrants? BTW, I don't believe for an instant that the CEO of a corporation like HAL would have options that are only worth $8m. His secretary would have had that much.

A CEO could have had at least 1% of the market cap, which would have been worth $86 million even at the 2003 low.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Furthermore; Israel has a large stockpile of Nukes. It did invade Lebanon. Slaughered thousand in refugee camps, in Beirut, then occupied the South of The Country for decades, and is to this day talking about bombing Iran, not the other way around. Should Israel be Invaded by the US to oust the regimewhich has invaded and occupied a neighboring country, and possesses stockpiles of WMD?

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 12:53 PM
========================================

I'm sure several of your liberal brethren, including cao, would answer, "yes."

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 1:05 PM | Report abuse

quarterback1, don't you know that everyone agreed ahead of time that Bush/Cheney would "steal" the oil for their buddies (but not personally profit just so as to throw off the scent ; )

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 6, 2011 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"...and then when you are refuted with facts..."

"Go read this book" is not a "factual refutation." It's a dodge for those who can't articulate a convincing argument.

Like I said, no chance you're suddenly going to become honest.

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 6, 2011 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Remember that SNL Garret Morris baseball character?

Iraq invasion been berry berry good to Halliburton, but not berry good to Wisconsin School Teachers.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 12:58 PM
========================================

And Barry isn't a berry good President. Barry berry bad. Liam berry dumb.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 1:08 PM | Report abuse

qb/claw:

There is not much sense in trying to convince these people that Cheney did not financially gain (and intentionally so, of course) from the Iraq War. All information that you present will be interpreted through the prism of faith that already holds Cheney to be a Bad Man, the only constant and relevant fact to these people. Any seemingly ameliorative facts, such as the blind trust and the agreement to give any future gains to charity, will of necessity be interpreted within some theory that reinforces the faith. They know with every fiber of their being that Cheney is a Bad Man, and nothing will ever change that. It is a religion, not an objective determination.

Posted by: ScottC3 | March 6, 2011 1:10 PM | Report abuse

clawrence,

I am just having a hard time following the conspiracy, since they apparently forgot to do the actual stealing of the oil.

It must really drive them mad the Cheney has been much more generous with his money than any of their "compassionate" rich liberal role models.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 1:11 PM | Report abuse

12BarBluesAgain, try Google: "Cheney blind trust"

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 6, 2011 1:11 PM | Report abuse

The Neo Cons revealed their intentions to plunder Iraq, even before the Invasion was launched.

The Neo-Cons were already dividing up the spoils from a quick victory in Iraq, even before the invasion had been launched.

Of course Halliburton was granted the first contract for Iraq, on a no bid basis, before the invasion was launched, and

At the time of the build up for the Iraq Invasion, Richard Perle set up his own consulting firm, and distributed business literature outlining business investment prospects in Iraq, after the invasion had transformed the place within a few weeks time.

He also kept telling anyone that would listen; "within one year, a grateful Iraqi people will name a square in Baghdad after President George W. Bush.

Of course we know that the Iraqi people did not take kindly to having the Foreign thieves breaking into their homeland, and beat on the invaders like that old English woman did to those punks trying to break into the jewelry store.

Just because you break into someone's home to steal their valuables, and meet with stiff resistance from the home owners, which thwarts your effort to steal their valuables, does not change the fact, that you intended to steal the stuff, when you planned and carried out the break in.

We wasted thousands of young American lives, and ruined the lives of millions of Iraqis, but were forced to settle for being allowed to run away, empty handed, and China and other nations, are the ones getting the Oil contracts. Of course China is also the one getting the mineral contracts in Afghanistan.

China must love loaning the US the money to get bogged down in two stupid wars. They get paid back with interest, lose none of their blood or treasure, and walk away with most of the spoils.

Bush/Cheney turned America into China's moronic servant.


Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 1:12 PM | Report abuse

If privatizing the reserves via selling them off to friendly US and UK oil companies isn't "stealing the reserves" I'd like to know what it is.

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 6, 2011 1:13 PM | Report abuse

They think that any oil company who eventually got contracts for Iraqi oil must have been in on the conspiracy, I guess.

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 6, 2011 1:15 PM | Report abuse

"As was noted above and by me previously, no one can answer the question about WHY it was imperative that we invade Iraq when we did. As also previously noted, when war is the only option this is never the case - see FDR & WWII. And yet no one ever bothered to ask the very simple question, "Mr. Bush, what was the tipping point, the final straw, the one piece of evidence that convinced you that war was the only solution and we had to invade Iraq when we did?" Which is a good thing, because neither he nor anyone else could answer that. When you find out all the reasons you were given were bullshit and you start looking for the real reasons, the best way to find them is to follow the money. The money leads to big oil, Halliburton, Blackwater (XE) etc. Posted by: JennOfArk "

When you want an answer to why, follow the dynamics.

George's Administration had busily told everyone they could, on the authority of "U.S. Intelligence" that Saddam had bad nasty weapons and was about to use them. Based on those lies he got a U.N. resolution demanding that Saddam open his country up to inspection. Saddam, recognizing an imperative he couldn't deflect, and knowing that the U.N. wouldn't find anything, BECAUSE IRAQ DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING, opened up and let them look.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 6, 2011 1:16 PM | Report abuse

George, knowing that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, (Has intelligence people who weren't working for Wolfowitcz and Feith had told him so) stalled as long as he could, but since all the places he was sending Hans Blix to look were obviously coming up empty, George realized that the U. N. would certainly remove the authority for attack when the U. S. was found to be playing fast and loose with Achmed Chalabi's truth.

At that time the build up needed for an invasion was under way, but we didn't have anywhere near the forces we really needed to invade and control Iraq. Particularly we had no reserve, to react to unforeseen circumstances, and wouldn't have for several months. George knew he didn't have months until he had no justification at all to attack. So he ordered go, warned the U.N. inspectors, who left to keep from getting caught in the crossfire, and we went in, quite unprepared for what actually happened, which was the total dissolution of the Iraqi Army.

George or somebody further down the republican Chain of command had set a timetable to Baghdad, something that would stack up to the hundred hour war, and all attacking forces had to be at their goal by three days.

Then the 101st found that Saddam's main ammo depot was mostly unlooted. Made the national Nightly News, as did the fact that the 101st didn't stick around to secure the Depot, but continued on to Baghdad so that George's ninety nine hour war would come off as planned. So the 101st rushed into Baghdad, set up a perimeter, and had to deal with a governmentless capitol and the rise of Shiite sectarian violence. The Ambush had been sprung and the Army was right in the kill zone.

Conclusions to follow, ran out of words

Posted by: ceflynline | March 6, 2011 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Funny stuff, you lefties and your incoherent conspiracy theories.
----------------------------------
The other explanation is that the Bush Adm (and its allies in this venture) were either duped by their advisors or they duped themselves.

It's either purposeful conspiracy or unintentional stupidity.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Of course the best way to get around the blind trust con, is to prepay the War Monger, before he delivers for you.

Take a look at the compensation package that Cheney received from Halliburton, before the Blind Trust rules were applied.

Hitmen usually get paid in advance,
and to no one's surprise the very first big contract for Iraq, was given to Halliburton, on a no bid basis.

Hit man prepaid; Contract Killing then carried out.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 1:20 PM | Report abuse

""Go read this book" is not a "factual refutation." It's a dodge for those who can't articulate a convincing argument.

Like I said, no chance you're suddenly going to become honest."

Yes, like you said ... blah blah blah.

You don't have to read his book if you don't want to. But it's mere existence is complete factual refutation of your assertion that he's never answered the question of why he ordered invasion.

There's nothing else for anyone to "articulate." If you want his answer, read his book. If not, don't bother. As usual, you have nothing to say but idle blather.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 1:23 PM | Report abuse

@ceflynline

Recall that they had engaged in a troop build up in Kuwait, but had assumed that Turkey would go along with letting them open up a second front, by allowing forces and supplies to come through Turkey, and set up bases in the Kurdish enclave in Northern Iraq.

They never expected to have run that long supply and invasion gauntlet from Kuwait to Baghdad, and beyond.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 1:27 PM | Report abuse

If I were a conservative, I'd rather my guys look smart and not stupid. At least conspiracy theories give the Bush Adm some veneer of intelligence.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

I know these folks are impervious to reason. It's just good clean fun watching ruk, jenn, et al twist themselves into a frenzy of convoluted accusations and faux history. Such liars.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 1:29 PM | Report abuse

What a load of crap. "His entire book is a refutation" blah blah blah.

No, it isn't. More rationalizations about why he thought he was right doesn't answer the tipping point question. That question was never asked and has never been answered. What we got in substitution was "look! He has aluminum tubes" which was refuted within 10 days. Then we moved on to "look! He has model airplanes!" on and on and on through "look! A vial of anthrax this small could kill X number of people!" and in every case, EVERY CASE, the so-called "evidence" was debunked within a week or two. NONE of them stood up as THE reason, THE final straw, because NONE OF THEM STOOD UP AT ALL.

So you were suckered by the Bushies - fell for it hook, line and sinker. Smart people would try to learn something from the experience. You, not being a smart person, instead continue to try to prove that you weren't REALLY wrong - it was the people who DIDN'T get suckered who were really wrong.

What a loser.

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 6, 2011 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Actual History:


The Neo Cons revealed their intentions to plunder Iraq, even before the Invasion was launched.

The Neo-Cons were already dividing up the spoils from a quick victory in Iraq, even before the invasion had been launched.

Of course Halliburton was granted the first contract for Iraq, on a no bid basis, before the invasion was launched, and

At the time of the build up for the Iraq Invasion, Richard Perle set up his own consulting firm, and distributed business literature outlining business investment prospects in Iraq, after the invasion had transformed the place within a few weeks time.

He also kept telling anyone that would listen; "within one year, a grateful Iraqi people will name a square in Baghdad after President George W. Bush.

Of course we know that the Iraqi people did not take kindly to having the Foreign thieves breaking into their homeland, and beat on the invaders like that old English woman did to those punks trying to break into the jewelry store.

Just because you break into someone's home to steal their valuables, and meet with stiff resistance from the home owners, which thwarts your effort to steal their valuables, does not change the fact, that you intended to steal the stuff, when you planned and carried out the break in.

We wasted thousands of young American lives, and ruined the lives of millions of Iraqis, but were forced to settle for being allowed to run away, empty handed, and China and other nations, are the ones getting the Oil contracts. Of course China is also the one getting the mineral contracts in Afghanistan.

China must love loaning the US the money to get bogged down in two stupid wars. They get paid back with interest, lose none of their blood or treasure, and walk away with most of the spoils.

Bush/Cheney turned America into China's moronic servant.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 1:32 PM | Report abuse

According to a June 2008 article in Kiplinger Magazine, the United States has enough oil reserves to power the nation for upwards of three centuries.

"Following a tour of the Gulf Coast area, the President of the United States addressed the nation regarding the state of the BP oil spill. In his speech from the Oval Office, President Obama spoke regarding our nation's dependence upon oil and how we need to break that dependence.

"During his speech, the president made a statement that was blatantly false. The president noted, 'We consume more than 20% of the world's oil, but have less than 2% of the world's oil reserve. And that's part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean -- because we're running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.'

"We are not running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water. In fact, it is due to the president's party of extreme environmentalists that BP had to drill some forty miles from the coastline in deep waters to extract oil. Imagine if this oil leak had happened in the shallow waters off of the East Coast or even, dare we say it, in the pristine ANWR region. How much easier it would have been to cap the leak and clean up the oil?

"Consider our nation's vast oil reserve resources that are currently unavailable for use due to government ownership of the land or outright bans on drilling in certain areas."---AmericanThinker.com

--------------

What do you suppose would happen to these Middle Eastern countries if the world became green and/or energy independent and didn't need their oil anymore? Would they be content to return to the 12th century? Or would they, like North Korea, develop WMDs with which to extort financial support from the rest of the world in exchange for not using them? What other cards would they have to play?

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Of course the best way to get around the blind trust con, is to prepay the War Monger, before he delivers for you.

Take a look at the compensation package that Cheney received from Halliburton, before the Blind Trust rules were applied.

Hitmen usually get paid in advance,
and to no one's surprise the very first big contract for Iraq, was given to Halliburton, on a no bid basis.

Hit man prepaid; Contract Killing then carried out.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Conclusions to follow, ran out of words

Posted by: ceflynline | March 6, 2011 1:18 PM
=======================================

Save it. I'm more interested in the rules of engagement which require troops in the field to sit idly by and watch the Taliban surround their position because they are forbidden to fire the first shot.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 1:42 PM | Report abuse

It would take some tracking of SEC documents to sort this out. Dick Cheney had stock, restricted stock and options, some vested and some not, in August 2000, which were estimated at that time to be worth in the aggregate $30 million. At that time, Haliburton accelerated some vesting provisions so that Mr. Cheney was vested in more options than he would otherwise in anticipation of his vice presidential run. I knew there was no way **in hell** that a CEO would have an equity interest worth only $8m. No way. He'd be ashamed to show his head in public.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

"What a load of crap. "His entire book is a refutation" blah blah blah."

Where did you learn to argue by making up words and putting them, in quotation marks, in your opponent's mouth? Or is it that you are just an unsophisticated liar?

I said the existence of his book refutes your assertion that Bush has never answered or even been asked why he ordered invasion. He explains it there.

"More rationalizations about why he thought he was right doesn't answer the tipping point question."

It makes no difference whether you accept his reasoning or not. His reasoning has been stated, and you are once again wrong.

"So you were suckered by the Bushies - fell for it hook, line and sinker. Smart people would try to learn something from the experience. You, not being a smart person, instead continue to try to prove that you weren't REALLY wrong - it was the people who DIDN'T get suckered who were really wrong."

No, actually I didn't make the decision to invade and have nothing to defend. I'm not invested in the issue at all. My attitude at the time was that it's hard for anyone on the outside to evaluate the merits of the issue, but I was willing to go with the admin's judgment. You by contrast are invested in nothing more than hating Republicans and defending lies.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 1:45 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""It's either purposeful conspiracy or unintentional stupidity.""

So any time someone is wrong about something, they are either evil or stupid. (And yet it is conservatives who supposedly think in simple-minded terms. Go figure.)

Posted by: ScottC3 | March 6, 2011 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Of course the best way to get around the blind trust con, is to prepay the War Monger, before he delivers for you.

Take a look at the compensation package that Cheney received from Halliburton, before the Blind Trust rules were applied.

Hitmen usually get paid in advance,
and to no one's surprise the very first big contract for Iraq, was given to Halliburton, on a no bid basis.

Hit man prepaid; Contract Killing then carried out.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 1:46 PM | Report abuse

If I were a conservative, I'd rather my guys look smart and not stupid. At least conspiracy theories give the Bush Adm some veneer of intelligence.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 1:27 PM
=========================================

And perpetuates the myth that Democrats were merely unwitting dupes. The grander the conspiracy, the less stupid and gullible they need be portrayed.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Now some conclusions:

Fact: NO WMDs have been found anywhere in Iraq after the inspectors finished their work after the 100 Hour War.

Subordinate fact: The REAL intelligence people did not find any WMDS or evidence of WMDs, else the first fact would not be true.

Fact, from personal experience: The Intelligence community told George that they couldn't find any evidence of Iraqi WMD's. (It is how Intelligence people do their jobs.)

Conclusion: George did not tell any of the many briefed persons that his REAL Intelligence reports said no WMDs.

Fact,: George had Congress, our allies, and the U.N. briefed on Iraqi WMDs that George knew did not exist.

Conclusion: George and his administration willingly lied to all those folks to get a war he knew had no justification.

Query: WHY did George lie?

Conclusion: He had decided to attack Saddam before he ever got the authority to do it.

Fact: Amy radio amateur who has had to deal with power line interference has all the unclassified knowledge he needs to map an entire country's power grid if he ever had the need.

Fact from personal experience: Tracking a country's power grid is easy if you have absolute control of the air space overhead.

Fact: After the Hundred Hour War the U.S. and its allies had absolute control of Iraqi Air Space.

Conclusion: Provided the U.S. wanted to map Iraq's power grid, it mapped Iraq's power grid.

Fact: NO FACTORY making anything more complicated that kids clothes in quantities of more than a couple a day makes anything without electric power.

Fact: If you map a countries power grid, you know where ALL his factories are.

Fact: Proper use of very ordinary physical properties of power lines permit you to know quite accurately how much current is flowing in any current carrying conductor.

Subordinate fact: If you know how much current a building draws, you can characterize its likely function.

Fact: For George to have WMDs, we would HAVE to have known where they were made.

Conclusion: We knew that Saddam hadn't made any WMDs since the Hundred Hour War.

Fact: George said Saddam had WMDs

Conclusion: George Lied.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 6, 2011 1:48 PM | Report abuse

So you were suckered by the Bushies - fell for it hook, line and sinker. Smart people would try to learn something from the experience. You, not being a smart person, instead continue to try to prove that you weren't REALLY wrong - it was the people who DIDN'T get suckered who were really wrong.

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 6, 2011 1:31 PM
========================================

Tell us again how Tenent, Cheney, Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, Graham, Gore, et al., misinterpreted all the intelligence while you had it figured out from the very beginning.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 1:49 PM | Report abuse

So any time someone is wrong about something, they are either evil or stupid.
-------------------------------------
We're not talking about anyone, at any time, about anything. We're talking about the Bush Adm invading Iraq. What is your theory that doesn't involve stupidity or conspiracy? We all await your answer...

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 1:50 PM | Report abuse

I'm not going to bother with most of ceflynline's truther harangue, but consider this key assertion:

"Saddam, recognizing an imperative he couldn't deflect, and knowing that the U.N. wouldn't find anything, BECAUSE IRAQ DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING, opened up and let them look."

That's simply untrue. Read Hans Blix's March 7 statement. Hans Blix, who was very personally invested in heading off war. Even then he admitted that Saddam still was not complying with 1441 and providing the open inspection cooperation it required.

You can save the "conclusions," since you don't even tell the truth about the facts.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 1:52 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""It would take some tracking of SEC documents to sort this out.""

Which, of course, no one has ever thought to do in the last 10 years. Surely if Cheney had some enemies, they would have spent the time to do the tracking and would have uncovered the inevitable evidence of his ill-gotten gains. Happily for Cheney, he is so loved that no one has ever thought to do this before you came along.

Posted by: ScottC3 | March 6, 2011 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Conclusion: We knew that Saddam hadn't made any WMDs since the Hundred Hour War.

Fact: George said Saddam had WMDs

Conclusion: George Lied.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 6, 2011 1:48 PM
==================================

Read the posts of the last few days. Your theory has already been falsified. Come out of the echo chamber and get some fresh air. Talk about someone inventing a scenario to support a preconceived notion---you're a textbook example.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 1:56 PM | Report abuse

@ceflynline,

Good post and hard to refute. Most of the time, I'm on the side of the explanation of the Iraq invasion as plain hubris and stupidity, but posters here today make some pretty compelling arguments that there **had** to be more intentionality to this.

Conservatives also make some compelling arguments to support the stupid premise by pointing out that conspirators would have been smarter.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Brigade - I'm really not at all impressed with what any muckety-muck with a political neck to protect believed at the time. Unlike you guys, we liberals don't just accept whatever we're told by authority figures in either party, particularly when it doesn't seem to comport with reality. So some prominent Democrats kept you company in being wrong - at least according to their public remarks. So what? Just because some people on the other side of the fence were just as dumbly trusting and gullible as you were doesn't excuse you from failing to use your brain.

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 6, 2011 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Germany and France saw the same Intel, and were not convinced to join the Invasion.

They lost no blood or treasure in Iraq. Remember when the French Ambassador to the UN tried to persuade Colin Powell that there was no sound reason to invade Iraq, and Powell got all pissed off at the guy, who turned out to be completely right, and was actually trying to help the USA not to commit such a costly blunder, but they would not listen.

They were determined to Invade Iraq. Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc, had the plans drawn up, years before Bush came to power.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Wow, that was a hilarious rant, Trutheryline.

I especially like that bit about the power grid:

"Fact: For George to have WMDs, we would HAVE to have known where they were made."

Apparently, the real Keystone Cops show was Hans Blix and the entire UN inspection apparatus, since all they ever had to do was look at the power grid and they'd have known everything.

LOLOLOL You are a loon.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 1:58 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""We're not talking about anyone, at any time, about anything.""

Bah. Semantics.

""What is your theory that doesn't involve stupidity or conspiracy?""

They believed the intelligence. And not just ours, but that of many countries. And not just Bush and his admin, but Dems, foreign leaders...lots of people. The fact that so many varied people with varied interests all thought the same thing militates against either conspiracy or stupidity.

Posted by: ScottC3 | March 6, 2011 2:03 PM | Report abuse

We're talking about the Bush Adm invading Iraq. What is your theory that doesn't involve stupidity or conspiracy? We all await your answer...

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 1:50 PM
=========================================

How about reports from George Tenent and the intelligence community? Being mistaken does not always involve being stupid, although people who are stupid may be mistaken more often than people who are not stupid---I give you Liam-still.

Many prominent Democrats were briefed on the same intelligence reports and reached the same conclusions. Just so we don't think you're being unfair, sort out Pelosi, Harmon, Kennedy, Kerry, Gore, Graham, Albright, Clinton, Byrd, among others, and tell us which ones you think are evil and which are merely stupid. I'm curious.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Inordinate Greed and Stupidity are not mutually exclusive. Bernie Madoff counted on that being the case, and he fooled a lot of greedy rich stupid people.

Bush/Cheney borrowed two trillion dollars to squander in Iraq, and all I got out of it was a Tee Shirt that reads: Bin Laden still not captured or killed.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"@ceflynline,

Good post and hard to refute."
====================================

Yeh, if you just fell off a turnip truck.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Just because some people on the other side of the fence were just as dumbly trusting and gullible as you were doesn't excuse you from failing to use your brain.
-----------------------------------------------
Jenn, to the degree you saw through all the lies (or stupidoes we'll call them for those who resent the idea of lies), good for you. There were not enough skeptics to slow down the juggernaut toward war. Speaking for myself, my realization that this whole venture was a cockup was more gradual than yours.

For nonskeptics to now claim the high ground, despite the clear evidence that none of the justifications were true, is the last act of denial. For those of us who supported the invasion, WE WERE WRONG. Simple.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 2:08 PM | Report abuse

I still have to go back to this one thing - because in my mind, no one of any political persuasion can defend why this did not end their suspension of belief in the level of "threat" Iraq actually posed to the US:

How could you listen to members of the administration float the theory - with a straight face - that Saddam could use remote-controlled model airplanes to spray us with anthrax - and NOT have concluded that they were just making crap up? Was it because you have become inured to reality thanks to a steady diet of Austin Powers and 007 movies? Seriously, you were asked to believe that this was an example of the grave threat Saddam posed to the US - and instead of thinking about it for even a minute or two and concluding that it was absurd, ridiculous...insulting, even, that you would be asked to believe such a thing, you just continued on in blind support of the project?

Really?

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 6, 2011 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I hope that when 12bb figures out how much money Cheney made from Halliburton stock in the Iraq War she will get to work figuring out whether whether VHS or Betamax is better, and how long the Beatles will stay together.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 2:09 PM | Report abuse

How about reports from George Tenent and the intelligence community?
---------------------------------------------
Ok, if the Bush Adm was mislead by its advisors, then back up a step.

Was the intelligence community lying or stupid?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 2:11 PM | Report abuse

They also saw the same Intel and were not convinced to join the invasion. They kept their heads, and did not allow the imbecile from Texas to bully them, like Bush's English Toy Poodle did:

Germany and France saw the same Intel, and were not convinced to join the Invasion.

They lost no blood or treasure in Iraq. Remember when the French Ambassador to the UN tried to persuade Colin Powell that there was no sound reason to invade Iraq, and Powell got all pissed off at the guy, who turned out to be completely right, and was actually trying to help the USA not to commit such a costly blunder, but they would not listen.

They were determined to Invade Iraq. Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc, had the plans drawn up, years before Bush came to power.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Jenn:

"Brigade - I'm really not at all impressed with what any muckety-muck with a political neck to protect believed at the time."

Or, evidently, what anyone briefed on the intelligence believed at the time.
--------------

"Unlike you guys, we liberals don't just accept whatever we're told by authority figures in either party, particularly when it doesn't seem to comport with reality."

Since when? Hurricane Katrina was just the beginning---remember?

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 2:14 PM | Report abuse

I seem to recall George Tenet departing after getting into some hot water about overstating certainties with regards to Iraq...overstatements that we know from accounts at the time that others at CIA and other intelligence agencies were being leaned on by Cheney to supply.

There's no mystery here - Cheney had set up a positive-feedback loop both at CIA and in Rummy's special parallel intel agency he had set up at the Pentagon. When your hand-picked people come back with the conclusions you've leaned on them to come up with, it's kind of disingeneous to suggest that having been told what you told them to tell you is what convinced you that you were right.

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 6, 2011 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Was the intelligence community lying or stupid?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 2:11 PM
=======================================

You evidently didn't read my response to your other post.

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Were people like Carl Sagan, who evidently subscribed to the hypothesis, lying or stupid?

Were the paleontolgists/evolutionists who subscribed to the notion that Ramapithecus was one of our ancestors lying or stupid?

Here's an easier one. Is someone who references our 57 states lying or stupid?
Evidently those are the only two possibilities.

And I thought you were the one who didn't enjoy playing semantic games.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 2:25 PM | Report abuse

It is fun watching the poor regular right wing wretches still defending the Iraq Invasion, even though the guy who Bush called in to clean up the Rumsfeld mess, Robert Gates, recently said that anyone who tried to persuade any future President to do the same thing, should have his head examined.

Bush's hand picked defense secretary just stated that The Iraq Invasion should not have ever have been launched, and yet we have the usual collection of Right Wing morons, on here defending it still.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 2:25 PM | Report abuse

This is all crazy. If someone ran a business like the Bush Adm ran the War, no one would be arguing whether they were simply stupid or purposely ran the Company off a cliff. Well, maybe the fired CEO would lay awake at night arguing with himself. No one else **in the world** gives a shite whether you are stupid or crooked. You'd be gone, either to spend time with your family or to spend time in prison.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone here join me in this:

WE WERE WRONG to invade Iraq.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"Fact, from personal experience: The Intelligence community told George that they couldn't find any evidence of Iraqi WMD's. (It is how Intelligence people do their jobs.)"

Nope.

Attempted epistemological stolen base. (Albeit your experience you cannot, by definition, know this.)

Out, next batter.

Posted by: tao9 | March 6, 2011 2:29 PM | Report abuse

12 Bar, this is way off topic, but since you're here and somebody who knows about finance, do you have any idea why the tax brackets for 2010 mean that the marginal rate for EE bond interest doesn't hit 35% for single people or married people filing jointly until they have taxable income of $373,650, but kicks in at $11,200 for estates and trusts?

Posted by: AllButCertain | March 6, 2011 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"How could you listen to members of the administration float the theory - with a straight face - that Saddam could use remote-controlled model airplanes to spray us with anthrax - and NOT have concluded that they were just making crap up?"

Iraq had large stocks of weaponized anthrax, aflotoxin and other bioweapons at the time of the Gulf War. They were never accounted for. They had tested drone-based delivery systems. (Of course, if you were a serious person, you wouldn't be calling them model airplanes.)

The ISG concluded Saddam had deliberately maintained the belief that he still had them up to the Iraq War. Not only the US but other intelligence agencies believed it. Indeed, it was verified fact that Iraq had these weapons in the 90s.

Perhaps that's why people could believe it was not a wild fantasy of "model airplanes" dousing the US in anthrax.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Bush's hand picked defense secretary just stated that The Iraq Invasion should not have ever have been launched, and yet we have the usual collection of Right Wing morons, on here defending it still.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 2:25 PM
=======================================

You guys are priceless. Listen carefully now, NO ONE'S HERE DEFENDING IT!!!

Stop changing the subject. The debate, which you've already lost, is whether or not it was a BIPARTISAN mistake, not whether or not Saddam had WMD.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone here join me in this:

WE WERE WRONG to invade Iraq.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 2:28 PM |

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has joined you. He said that if anyone tried to persuade a future President to do anything similar they should have their heads examined.

I think that was his way of saying that Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc are crazy.

Here's a tip for people to watch for, in case something like this ever crops up again:

If they have to fluff up their "coalition of the willing" with a couple of non combat hotel doormen, in their uniforms, from some small pacific island nation, they are trying to pull the wool over your eyes, in order to get you to go along with their stupid invasion plan.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 2:35 PM | Report abuse

@ABC,

Sorry, I never practiced tax. I helped start companies mostly. Is your question something that affects you personally? I might be able to get an answer from someone who knows if it is for your personal situation.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 2:36 PM | Report abuse

quarterback - so, you had no problem believing that a country 5 or 6,000 miles away that had been repeatedly militarily pounded for a decade, was going to mount a successful attack using remote-controlled model planes against the mightiest military empire in world history? Launching them, I suppose, from their powerful naval fleet lying just off our shores?

There's this saying about how it's better to keep your mouth shut and appear to be a fool than to open it and remove all doubt...

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 6, 2011 2:37 PM | Report abuse

And, yes. I can join on this: WE WERE WRONG to invade Iraq.

I thought that before I saw it was going to happen.

Posted by: AllButCertain | March 6, 2011 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Apparently George Tenet was not part of the intelligence community.

I learn so much here. Just like ruk says I should.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone here join me in this:

WE WERE WRONG to invade Iraq.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 2:28 PM
=========================================

See my response to Liam. We were for it before we were against it. That is not the point liberals have been arguing. The issue is, and always has been, whether Democratic hands are clean. It was a BIPARTISAN screw-up; it it hadn't been, an old isolationist like me would never have gotten on board in the first place. You should start a draft-Buchanan movement.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 2:39 PM | Report abuse

When asked what he thought of the French Revolution of 1789, Chinese leader Zhou Enlai answered, "It is too soon to say."
[Simon Schama; Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution (1989)]

"WE WERE WRONG to invade Iraq."

I'm gonna go with Zhou.

{{{btw: the hip prog (marxie) conceit of being "on the right (or wrong) side of history" is te stoopid}}}

Posted by: tao9 | March 6, 2011 2:40 PM | Report abuse

And, yes. I can join on this: WE WERE WRONG to invade Iraq.
----------------------------------------------
Come on everyone. This should be easy.

Can you join in: WE WERE WRONG to invade Iraq.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 2:41 PM | Report abuse

12Bar-Still working on my dad's (modest) estate, and this just came up. I thought you might know. Very nice of you to offer help, but I can certainly find a tax adviser. On the face of it, this looks pretty wacky. Of course, as a Democrat I love to pay taxes!

Posted by: AllButCertain | March 6, 2011 2:42 PM | Report abuse

"Attempted epistemological stolen base. (Albeit your experience you cannot, by definition, know this.) Out, next batter. Posted by: tao9 |"

????

Note the tag I use. Google it. When you discover what Ceflynline was, perhaps you might suspect that I was part of the operation.

In the Intelligence field, Negative reports are ALWAYS required.

If you look on the table for your car keys, and don't find them, you report that your keys AREN'T on the table.

Tasked with finding evidence of WMDs in Iraq, the real Intelligence community didn't find any. They so reported.

Note that we didn't find and chemical, biological, or nuclear material waste dumps. Not only can you not make weapons without electricity, you most cretainly can't make them without waste. No waste, no weapons.

Where's the waste?

AND, you can't enrich uranium without making LOTS of Fluorine. That, of course, takes lots of electricity, calcite (usually) and tanks to store the fluorine in.

And tanks to store the UF6 in. No such tanks, no such weapons program.

Where are the tanks.

When Intelligence types looking for Nuclear Weapons factories can't find wastes, or tanks, or precursor materials, they so report. No Precursors, no tanks, no wastes, negative report generated and transmitted. NO-ONE in the reporting chain of command would refuse to forward the report, ergo George knew, George lied.

Quid potest simplicior?

Posted by: ceflynline | March 6, 2011 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Richard Perle set up a consulting business to offer his services on business opportunities that would soon become available in Iraq, and he did so, before the invasion took place.

He was doing that because he was sure that WMD was going to be used against the American Invaders or Not?

Perle let the the cat out of the bag. It was a venture capital invasion, where the young troops put up all the blood, and the Chicken Hawk Oligarchs would reap all the rewards. It did not work out like they planned, but of course none of those bastards' progeny returned home in un-photographed coffins, in the middle of the night.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 2:46 PM | Report abuse

"quarterback - so, you had no problem believing that a country 5 or 6,000 miles away that had been repeatedly militarily pounded for a decade, was going to mount a successful attack using remote-controlled model planes against the mightiest military empire in world history? Launching them, I suppose, from their powerful naval fleet lying just off our shores?"

You have a real problem with truthful argument. The risk that was described was either transport of a small drone with the ability to spray anthrax or other toxins (ricin, aflatoxin) to the US, or the use of small manned aircraft by terrorists who infiltrated the US. These aren't very sophisticated technologies. Ever hear of crop dusters? Ever hear of terrorist pilots infiltrating the US and getting access to aircraft? It's a fact that Iraq had these materials and capabilities in the 1990s, and their whereabouts or destruction was never accounted for. Indeed, Iraq admitted having drones before the war.

Colin Powell must have been a real idiot to believe the Iraqi drones of which he showed pictures could ever work. Huh.

"There's this saying about how it's better to keep your mouth shut and appear to be a fool than to open it and remove all doubt..."

Indeed.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 2:51 PM | Report abuse

The White House used to plant claims about WMD in the NY Times, and then Dick Cheney would appear on the Sunday TV shows, and point to those reports in the NY Times, as being independent reports confirming the presence of WMD in Iraq.

That Boys and Girls is what Dr. Kelly referred to as "sexing up the intel."

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 2:54 PM | Report abuse

[12BarBluesAgain sneered: "WE WERE WRONG to invade Iraq."]

Remember Kosovo? Me neither. But it was big at the time, launched by Bill Clinton in the wake of his Monica difficulties: Make war, not love, as the boomers advise. So Clinton did — and without any pesky U.N. resolutions, or even the pretense of seeking them. Instead, he and Tony Blair and even Jacques Chirac just cried “Bombs away!” and got on with it. And the Left didn’t mind at all — because, for a modern Western nation, war is only legitimate if you have no conceivable national interest in whatever war you’re waging. Unlike Iraq and all its supposed “blood for oil,” in Kosovo no one remembers why we went in, what the hell the point of it was, or which side were the good guys. (Answer: Neither.) The principal rationale advanced by Clinton and Blair was that there was no rationale. This was what they called “liberal interventionism,” which boils down to: The fact that we have no reason to get into it justifies our getting into it.

A decade on, Kosovo is a sorta sovereign state, and in Frankfurt a young airport employee is so grateful for what America did for his people that he guns down U.S. servicemen while yelling “Allahu akbar!” The strange shrunken spectator who serves as president of the United States, offering what he called “a few words about the tragic event that took place,” announced that he was “saddened,” and expressed his “gratitude for the service of those who were lost” and would “spare no effort” to “work with the German authorities” but it was a “stark reminder” of the “extraordinary sacrifices that our men and women in uniform are making . . . ”

The passivity of these remarks is very telling. Men and women “in uniform” (which it’s not clear these airmen were even wearing) understand they may be called upon to make “extraordinary sacrifices” in battle. They do not expect to be “lost” on the shuttle bus at the hands of a civilian employee at a passenger air terminal in an allied nation. But then I don’t suppose their comrades expected to be “lost” at the hands of an army major at Fort Hood, to cite the last “tragic event” that “took place” — which seems to be the president’s preferred euphemism for a guy opening fire while screaming “Allahu akbar!” But relax, this fellow in Frankfurt was most likely a “lone wolf” (as Sen. Chuck Schumer described the Times Square bomber) or an “isolated extremist” (as the president described the Christmas Day Pantybomber). There are so many of these “lone wolves” and “isolated extremists” you may occasionally wonder whether they’ve all gotten together and joined Local 473 of the Amalgamated Union of Lone Wolves and Isolated Extremists, but don’t worry about it: As any Homeland Security official can tell you, “Allahu akbar” is Arabic for “Nothing to see here.”
http://articles.ocregister.com/2011-03-04/news/28656601_1_lone-wolf-kosovo-frankfurt

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | March 6, 2011 2:54 PM | Report abuse

It was an overwhelmingly republican mistake.

They ran the show. They are responsible. That's how it works losers.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | March 6, 2011 2:54 PM | Report abuse

[12BarBluesAgain sneered: "WE WERE WRONG to invade Iraq."]
---------------------------------------------
Come on folks, it's easy.

Long paragraphs are not necessary. Yes or No.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Nazi hell monsters might drill their way out of the earth's core to bring death and devastation to us all, too. That doesn't mean it's likely or believable.

Because of course a hobbyist right here in this country could build a flying remote-control apparatus and use it spray some nasty stuff. Possibilities of how bad actors can do bad things abound, but they're not really excuses for launching full-scale wars against other countries, unless we're now pretending that Minority Report described a real, rather than fictional, world.

When a highly implausible scenario is proferred as a primary cassus belli, you have to figure it's because they are having a hard time coming up with more plausible scenarios. At least you do if you're not in the habit of just blindly accepting as truth whatever you are told.

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 6, 2011 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"Note the tag I use. Google it. When you discover what Ceflynline was, perhaps you might suspect that I was part of the operation."

I for one give up. I googled and found five pages of posts by you, then quit. But I'm sure you are important.

"In the Intelligence field, Negative reports are ALWAYS required."

The base you tried to steal wasn't second but first -- you premised "there was nothing" and assumed this "must have been" reported. What was reported was what was reported. Your little bootstrapping thought experiment notwithstanding.

But then, as I keep noting, you're a troofer, so who cares what you think you know.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 3:01 PM | Report abuse

The American people lost two trillion dollars, and even worse than that, thousands of families lost members of their families for ever, and many more of them have to look after badly damaged returning troops, for the rest of their lives.

And all those people got out of it was a Tee Shirt that states:

Bin Laden Still At Large.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 3:01 PM | Report abuse

[12BarBluesAgain sneered: "WE WERE WRONG to invade Iraq."]

*RUBBISH* The Iraq War Resolution provided the President with bi-partisan Congression authorization to use military force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate."

Congress clearly cited 22 legitimate casus belli. Saddam did try to kill a former American president; the U.N. embargo was violated (as were its inspection protocols); the 1991 accords were ignored; the genocide of brave Kurds did happen; suicide bombers were being given bounties; terrorists (including those involved into the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) were given sanctuary by Saddam; and on and on.
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Try harder to show some gratitude for the liberation of newly democratic allies in Iraq by our brave American military and Coalition allies.

You're welcome.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | March 6, 2011 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Bush's admin controlled the intellegence being presented. They controlled the focus of the intel departments.

They called the shots and called them wrong. Seeing paranoid schitzos like Gaffney, who someone in that admin thought was a good choice for the position he held makes it obvious those jokers should be nowhere near positions of importance ever again.

They can't clearly deal with making rational decisions.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | March 6, 2011 3:05 PM | Report abuse

I prefer when ceflynline emails instead of posts.

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 6, 2011 3:08 PM | Report abuse

And, being on the losing end of talking about Nukes, the right trots out anthrax.

We got a great hose job, back then, when we got all those articles about "Poor Man's Nukes" and biological warfare, because, while the fundamentals being reported weren't wrong, they were totally misleading.

Biologicals are in fact easy to make. You can accidently kill yourself with Botulism Toxin by not cooking canned soup.

The problem with that theory is that, to reaponize botulism, you either have to innoculate lots of cans of soup and hope people don't cook it, OR you need to make the tozin, get it into an inhaleable form that is the right size and quantity per droplet to be inhalable and lethal, and then you have to get the inhalable, lethal, stuff in its dispenser.

Now if you just put a bunch of workers in a roon with agent and containers, the people in the room inhale the stuff they are putting in cans and die. Now you have lots of dead bodies, lots of dying bodies, and lots of leftover stuff.

SO, you have to build special facilities where the stuff and the people never come into contact. Part of the solution is to put big fans on the room where the stuff is and exhaust the air in the room so that the air flows into the room from the room where the people are. Of course if you just blow the stuff outside it goes where it goes, and lots of people die. So you blow the air through special filters that make sure that no stuff escapes.

More factories, processes, and results that are damn hard to hide.

And if you are searching for bioweapons production,you look for those processes, facilities, and wastes. When you don't find them, you report that you didn't find them.

George knew, George said Saddam had WMDs, George lied.

And I was saying this in 2002.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 6, 2011 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Genocide happen by u under Reagans watch with weapons no doubtebly provided to him by Reagan.

That would make Reagan partially responsible.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | March 6, 2011 3:10 PM | Report abuse

"Nazi hell monsters might drill their way out of the earth's core to bring death and devastation to us all, too. That doesn't mean it's likely or believable."

Likely or believable. Not exactly the same, huh?

A bunch of terrorists could also highjack commercial airliners and crash them into the WTC and Pentagaon. But that was totally not likely.

You were apparently the only person who didn't realize how crazy Colin Powell was to think there could be a biological weapon attack on a US city.

"Because of course a hobbyist right here in this country could build a flying remote-control apparatus and use it spray some nasty stuff."

Nice comparison. Did this hobbyist use chemical weapons to kill thousands of people before, have thousands of liters of bioweapons, and a large fleet of drones? Did he start two major wars in the Mideast? Was he a brutal dictator who murdered thousands of people in gruesome ways? Was he subject to multiple US disarmament resolutions and sanctions requiring him to allow immediate and complete access for inspections?

"When a highly implausible scenario is proferred as a primary cassus belli, you have to figure it's because they are having a hard time coming up with more plausible scenarios."

So now you are claiming anthrax drones were the primary reason given for going to war? Really, are you that pathetic and desperate?

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 3:11 PM | Report abuse

When Kathleen Madigan recently entertained the Troops in Afghanistan, a PR officer informed her about the many roads that they are constructing and the many hundreds of schools that they have been building and opening across Afghanistan. To which Ms. Madigan replied; how soon can we get you to invade Detroit?

That riposte is even more fitting now, since Republicans are trying their best to destroy the American Public Schools.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 3:12 PM | Report abuse

ceflynline - um, think you're wrong re: botulism. Botulism is anaerobic - hence only a problem in anaerobic environments, such as vacuum-sealed cans. The problem is the toxin it produces, and cooking doesn't destroy it.

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 6, 2011 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Quarterback: Since you aren't smart enough to find Ceflynline on Google, try its successor Ceflynlancer. Or try our unit name, "Crazy Cats" 1st RR (Avn) Company, 509th RR GP.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 6, 2011 3:14 PM | Report abuse

[mikefromArlington slurred: "Genocide happen by u under Reagans watch with weapons no doubtebly provided to him by Reagan."]

Is mike just coming off his Haldol again?

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | March 6, 2011 3:16 PM | Report abuse

"Note the tag I use. Google it. When you discover what Ceflynline was, perhaps you might suspect that I was part of the operation."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1st result on Bing:

ceflynline
Recipes, cooking ideas, baking tips, and more from Betty Crocker.com
www.bettycrocker.com/profile/ceflynline

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I googled it too, lots of your posts at various blogs (11 pages!!!). I'm not doubting you, but apparently not googleastute enough. Perhaps you can tell us.

Posted by: tao9 | March 6, 2011 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Powell's COS says he was manipulated and used because he was one of the few in the admin that had a lick of credibility.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | March 6, 2011 3:17 PM | Report abuse

"And if you are searching for bioweapons production,you look for those processes, facilities, and wastes. When you don't find them, you report that you didn't find them.

George knew, George said Saddam had WMDs, George lied."

There goes the runner and she is . . . . OUT!

Hans Blix himself said Saddam could still have tons of anthrax in MARCH FREAKING 2003, you moron.

Apparently the war was your fault, since you were the only person who KNEW it was impossible for Iraq to have any bioweapons, even though it had them just several years earlier and no one could account for them.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Recall that climactic scene from “LOTR: Return of the King” when Sauron’s Ring melts in the crack of Mount Doom; the Dark Tower crashes; and Mordor itself swallows up the enemies of Middle Earth?

That’s what we’re witnessing in the Middle East today as Islamo-autocratic power melts in the fires of Iraqi democratization. Saruman Soros can only watch now in slow motion as Bush and Cheney are born triumpantly on eagles’ wings into history… The End

It’s astonishing to find history vindicating the Bush doctrine– even as The Obamateur submits to the logic of democratization in Iraq.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | March 6, 2011 3:22 PM | Report abuse

So why isn’t billionaire progressive Saruman Soros financing any unhinged Leftist rent-a-mob rallies against Obama’s summary execution of (un-Mirandized!) civilians by Reaper drone airstrikes in Pakistan?

Afterall, Obama’s targeting tactics are clearly more Miranda-despising than Bush’s post-9/11 moistening of KSM, et.al.

Obama’s policy to use Reaper drones to target (un-Mirandized!) civilians has increased markedly without a peep. Get busy, Leftists.

Saruman Soros should pay Rev. Wormtongue Wright to burn a Koran every day until The Obamateur regime flees the country.

*Rage against the machine, progressives!*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | March 6, 2011 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Kaddafi the Bush apologist will die knowing his hero Bush headed what will go down in history as the admin that went to war on wrongly a a analyzed intel and cost this country it's trust of the world.

Own it.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | March 6, 2011 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Yes, the drones story was one in a series of casus belli rolled out in the new product intro. First we got a handful of degraded aluminum tubes that we were told were used for uranium enrichment. About every two weeks we'd get a new one, with all arrayed against a continuing backdrop of claims that all the WMD programs dismantled after the Gulf War were now up and running full-bore, even as the country continued under the burden of sanctions and continued bombing. Other greatest hits in the rollout: mobile bio-weapons labs, concrete factories able to morph into high-tech WMD production facilities as soon as inspectors' backs are turned, doctored audiotapes, dire inventories of doom and destruction culled from a UK grad student thesis written 9 years previously, and who can forget the biggest hit of all, "yellowcake."

When every reason proferred ends up being not just wrong but massively wrong, you can choose between believing that both US and British intelligence - as well as segments of many other countries' intel agencies - are just completely and grossly inept, or that someone and maybe a whole group of someones are gaming the intel.

Still, you accepted that it was plausible that the Bad Man was going to pilot a model airplane via remote control to spray your house with anthrax, which no matter how much you try to spin it paints you as an irredeemable Nancy Boy.

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 6, 2011 3:26 PM | Report abuse

"Ceflynlancer"

Why dinna you say so the foist toime!

Sheesh, Abbott!

Posted by: tao9 | March 6, 2011 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Powell's COS says he was manipulated and used because he was one of the few in the admin that had a lick of credibility.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | March 6, 2011 3:17 PM

...............
Remember when Powell presented his WMD case to the UN, and a part of the evidence that he claimed to have was an audio capture of allegedly Iraqi Military, communications, where two people were talking about moving something from one place to another.

Clearly a bogus tape. Probably one that was created by having Chalabi and Curveball record a prepared script, because there never was any traces or records of WMD at the locations that Powell told the UN the two Iraqi Military guys were talking from.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"And perpetuates the myth that Democrats were merely unwitting dupes"

But not all Dems ehhh? Our current President did not fall for the stupidity did he? A major reason btw he was able to upset Hillary for the nomination.

12Bar and Jenn..you are truly wasting your time on the Bobbsey twins..they are rigid ideologues...some of their posts today take the cake even for them. History will judge who is correct. They are defending George the Stoopid whose rankings among historians is sinking faster than the Titanic. And Darth Cheney...the torturer..well let them have their fantasies.

As for how this was pulled off I believe everybody is overlooking something. 12Bar touched on it when she said she was slower to come to the realization we had been duped than perhaps others...no slower than me 12Bar! LOL And what is not being mentioned is the absolute blood lust in our country after 9/11. I know because I was part of that "Let's get even". We were all easily duped because we wanted to be...the same reason Scott and Q.B. are coming off looking like buffoons today because they WANT to believe that BS. The truth is the majority of the country and Congress thought George the Stoopid was dead on with his swaggering "Bring it on"...yeah Georgie..5,000 deaths..just Americans of course because only the death of "exceptional" people count in this equation..eff the deaths of the tens of thousands innocent Iraqis..and a horrible economic collapse with so much money WASTED on the idiotic neo cons wars we are left fighting over the crumbs that remain.
These stupid military adventures are at the heart of our current economic arguments..if we hadn't wasted 3 TRILLION and counting we'd obviously be in far better shape..and that doesn't even count Afghanistan.

Like you 12Bar or maybe even worse than you I was sucked into the vengeance after 9/11. If you figured it out early Jenn..like OBAMA DID...congrats to you.

The really sad thing about all of this is not learning from our horrible mistake. We have morons on this site still defending the indefensible! I admit my mistakes and try to learn from them...a concept totally alien to ANY freaking conservative. Admitting error to them is not the adult sign of learning but rather a weakness. And so instead of learning we would have been far better served to have an even tempered rational man in the W.H. much as we currently enjoy...having a hot headed, pseudo macho boy cheerleader trying to show his Texas bravado was a bad thing...we still have mental midgets who can envision another macho hot tempered idiot like Sarah Palin in the W.H.

It's simply amazing!

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 3:33 PM | Report abuse

"or that someone and maybe a whole group of someones are gaming the intel."

Amazing how Bush and Cheney gamed all that intel about bioweapons and drones in the 1990s. And gamed the Brit intelligence, since the Brits had seen the drones. And somehow made the Iraqis themselves admit to Blix that they had a drone fleet.

The rest of your rehash isn't worth more time. You let go of the end of your rope a while ago.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Lol. Maybe Krauthammer can write a few more OpEds to obfuscate the Bush admins incompetence more to give you apologists more cover long enough for people to forget the admins huge intelligence failure.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | March 6, 2011 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Jenn,

Your posts make me apoplectically howl with rage toward Boosh and his RingWraith SecDef and VP.

And, and, and, and all of the Neo-Koch-Cons.

They should be frog-marched to Tripoli and fed naked to the Gaddafi VictoriasSecret Bodyguards, after being gagged with uncooked soup vapor.

Posted by: tao9 | March 6, 2011 3:40 PM | Report abuse

@ruk,

It's one thing to deny that your guys made errors back in the day. It's quite another to keep defending wrong decisions for a decade. Even if it was bipartisan, even if we were stupid, even if Chalabi played us for fools, even if...even if...

WE WERE WRONG. It's simple. If we can't take the blinders off and say a very simple truth, how can we ever trust our judgment again?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Ted Kennedy voted against the Iraq Authorization, but that does not stop one of the Right Wing nut jobs from claiming that Kennedy supported the Invasion. He did not.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 3:40 PM | Report abuse

The Bush admin controlled the intel during the lead up to the invasion.

They owned the intel and own the outcome which proved to be wrong. I'm not surprised though the Bush apologists on here endlessly defend the decission knowing how badly it reflects on Republican competence.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | March 6, 2011 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Tao and Scott Walker are FOB pros.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 3:45 PM | Report abuse

"Quarterback: Since you aren't smart enough to find Ceflynline on Google, try its successor Ceflynlancer. Or try our unit name, "Crazy Cats" 1st RR (Avn) Company, 509th RR GP."


Golly gee, I searched "Ceflynline" and got pages of your posts.

So, 509th radio research. That means you know all the inside info on Iraq.

Sorry, but your more than stealing bases. I think you just confirmed yourself a genuine crackpot. But then you are a troofer. So we knew that.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 3:46 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar

I'll take the plunge..lol

WE WERE WRONG TO INVADE IRAQ!

Good luck with the others. In the year or more I've been on this site..before it even moved to the WaPo...I have NEVER seen either of the Bobbsey Twins..Scott or Q.B. admit a mistake. That is why DDAWD refers to Scott mockingly as the "smartest conservative" in the world. These two are perfect...just ask them.

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 3:49 PM | Report abuse

@Mike

I love your posts but I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you out for an oxymoron...

"Republican competence."

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 3:50 PM | Report abuse

WE WERE WRONG TO INVADE IRAQ!
------------------------------------------------------
It is so simple and so obvious, isn't it.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 3:50 PM | Report abuse

No WMD was found. Hell ,can't the Toon Town Lawyer even remember that Bush finally resorted to looking for it, under the sofa cushions in the White House.

Getting thousands of young American troops slaughtered for A Big Lie, is apparently grist for George W. Bush's sense of humor.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 3:52 PM | Report abuse

What's an "FOB pro[s]?"

Posted by: tao9 | March 6, 2011 3:56 PM | Report abuse

You are.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Well, I couldn't say it reflects badly on their incompetence for that would be a double negative.

:)

But yeah, I had to reread what I wrote to make sure I wasn't complimenting that admin in any way.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | March 6, 2011 3:59 PM | Report abuse

OK.

Is it good or bad?

Posted by: tao9 | March 6, 2011 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"These two are perfect...just ask them."

We don't even have to be close to perfect to expose your foolishness over and over and over.

What you haven't noticed because you are such a sputtering, raving loon is that no one here has yet "defended" the decision. All we've done is refute your hare-brained attacks on the decision-making as being either corrupt or monumentally stupid, etc.

You're a real serious guy with your habitual retreat to insults about "hot headed cheerleader" and all that dopey fulminating you do. I really enjoy helping you show everyone what you have going for you.

Btw here is a mistake: I slipped above and called cef a birther when he/she/it is a troofer. You've got great company.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Arguing about the merits of invading Iraq is like arguing the merits of Troy pulling the horse into their city. The Trojans can argue "no one told us there would be Greeks inside" or "our intel said it was safe". Or they could argue that it was bipartisan. Even our mayor thought it was a good idea to pull that horse in and everyone go to sleep.

But, it was DUMB. Does anyone remember anything else?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 4:04 PM | Report abuse

""Ceflynlancer" Why dinna you say so the foist toime! Sheesh, Abbott! Posted by: tao9"

Actually, sorry about that. Ceflynline USED to bring up the 1st RR Company (AVN) along with all the quotes I seem to get in Russian. Proper coverword was Cefleinlion, broken down various ways.

Cefly Lancer was the successor program for the P2Vs the Army flew out of Cam Rahn Bay.

You get better results checking Army Security Agency, by the way. I was with the 330th, the 175th, Ramasun Station, Vint Hill Farms, and Torii Station over eight years. Flew with the 156th at Can Tho and the 1st RR at Cam Ranh Bay.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 6, 2011 4:04 PM | Report abuse

One of the claims that Right Wingers often make in defense of The Iraq invasion is; The WMD was not found, because Iraq is a big place, and Saddam hid them well.

Let us think about that for a moment. When he was at war with Iran, and with the Kurds, he used them, but when he is faced with an American Invasion, Saddam decides that the best thing to do would be to not use them?

Why would he do that? Did he say to his henchmen. Let us not waste our WMD on those Americans, but set it all aside for a real emergency. What we must do is hide the stuff, and after the Americans have gone home, after they have rounded us all up, and tried and executed us, we can then take all our WMD out, and get it ready for the next foreign invasion.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 4:05 PM | Report abuse

cef,

Thanks.

& Thanks for your service!

Posted by: tao9 | March 6, 2011 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Fresh Off the Boat???? I'm also confused, Liam!

Posted by: Michigoose | March 6, 2011 4:07 PM | Report abuse

"Does anyone remember anything else?"

Long journey home to Ithaca.

Posted by: tao9 | March 6, 2011 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Let a Spiddal man at least know how he's been cuffed!

I thank ye.

Posted by: tao9 | March 6, 2011 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"Does anyone remember anything else?"

I'll be sure to start telling my kids that any time one of their decisions doesn't pan out it was dumb, and they are dumb. So sad I'm just now learning this.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 4:24 PM | Report abuse

So what? JakeD said that he served with Army's 60th Signal Service during the Korean war, and you guys didn't believe him. Is that you, rukidding7, or not?

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 6, 2011 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Yeah claw everybody here thinks I'm Jake.

BTW if you pick another sock puppet jake try to get the correct spelling Clarence.

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 4:38 PM | Report abuse

[F]orsaken [O]mniscient [B]obcat ???

Posted by: tao9 | March 6, 2011 4:41 PM | Report abuse

I'll be sure to start telling my kids that any time one of their decisions doesn't pan out it was dumb, and they are dumb. So sad I'm just now learning this.
--------------------------------------
We are not kids, qb. We are adults who should be able to say to ourselves WE WERE WRONG. We were dumb. We were gullible. What pansy term would you prefer? A for Effort?

I thought conservatives believed in personal responsibility.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 6, 2011 4:53 PM | Report abuse

FOB. Fluffer Of Billionaires.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Thanks!

I was gonna go with Friend Of Blutocrats.

{{{also thought you missed the S key...and was going to have to demand satisfaction, throw down the gauntlet, knock the chip off, draw a line in the sand, pistolas at 40 paces, cock yer cap, bang on yer ear, lather ye with me shillelagh, trod on the tail of yer coat. But now its cool}}}

Posted by: tao9 | March 6, 2011 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Forgot step on your blue suede shoes.

Posted by: tao9 | March 6, 2011 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Strange, I can't recall jake claiming ASA service. Would have remembered, as the 60th was redesignated the 330th during the Korean war, and I would certainly have remembered one of my Viet Nam units being mentioned by someone else.

Still, that makes him at least 80 years old. doesn't SOUND that old.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 6, 2011 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Found On Bluetooth.

Yuppie!

Posted by: ceflynline | March 6, 2011 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Tao and Scott Walker; bother are FOB. Fond Of Billionaires.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 5:24 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""For those of us who supported the invasion, WE WERE WRONG. Simple.""

But were you evil or stupid?

""No one else in the world gives a shite whether you are stupid or crooked. You'd be gone.""

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but Bush is gone.

""Long paragraphs are not necessary. Yes or No.""

Again, more evidence that even liberals sometimes fail to appreciate nuance and complexity.

Posted by: ScottC3 | March 6, 2011 5:24 PM | Report abuse

edit; both are.....

Damn hand me down fingers have failed me again!

That is what happens when you are born the youngest of eleven, into a poor Irish family. I wish I had been raised in the same lap of luxury that Frank McCourt was.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Of course, as a Democrat I love to pay taxes!

Posted by: AllButCertain | March 6, 2011 2:42 PM
========================================

Please be sure you pay your fair share.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 5:30 PM | Report abuse

It's no bother, Liamaleen. ;>)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Found On Bluetooth.

Yuppie!

{{{snort...lol}}}

Posted by: tao9 | March 6, 2011 5:36 PM | Report abuse

And all those people got out of it was a Tee Shirt that states:

Barry Berry Bad.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 3:01 PM
========================================

Fixed it for you. All the best.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Tao, here is a gift for you, since St. Patrick's day is around the corner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIy2ba4qiO4

The late Ronnie Drew's version. I much prefer the Danny Doyle recording of the O'Casey ballad of lost love, but I can not find it online. You might want to check out some other youtube songs by Danny.


Since Maggie Went Away
(Sean O'Casey)

No more I stroll, no more I stroll
Along the boreen,
I see the scarlet poppies play
Amid the corn green.
No more beneath the hedge I watch
The butterflies at play,
For my heart is filled with woe, with woe
Since Maggie went away.

The sweet wild rose, the sweet wild rose,
That lov'd to see us there,
And seem'd to bid us hope, now droops,
And tells me to despair;
The linnet sings his song unheard,
Perched on a leafy spray;
Ah, my heart is filled with woe, with woe,
Since Maggie went away.

The gentle flowers, the gentle flowers,
Their happy charm is fled,
And how they seem like blossoms strewn,
Above the silent dead,
They're symbols now of sorrow deep
And life's swift, sure decay;
Ah, my heart is filled with woe, with woe,
Since Maggie went away.

The heartless sun, the heatless sun.
With splendour gilds the skies.
And mocks with smiling beams a heart
That now can only sigh.
Shine on, bright sun, shine on, while I
Could curse thy proud display,
For, my heart is filled with woe, with woe,
Since Maggie went away.

Then welcome grief, then welcome grief
Man's warm true-hearted friend,
For tho' all things be false, thou still art
Faithful to the end.
And now I walk alone with thee,
Till life turns into clay
Ah, my heart is filled with woe, with woe,
Since Maggie went away.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 5:40 PM | Report abuse

George knew, George said Saddam had WMDs, George lied.

And I was saying this in 2002.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 6, 2011 3:09 PM
=================================

George Tenet?

You and Jenn take another bow. If only we'd elected one of you instead of Barry, all would be right with the world by now.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Seems brother Obama is catching tons o' grief from the African-American community because he, Obama, has decided to ignore the DOMA law.

Good!

Latinos/hispanics also frown on the homosexual "lifestyle" and agenda, very much. Let's analyze this.

Blacks and hispanics are America's two largest minorities. Those two groups are also the Democrat party's favorite minorities. Those groups are growing in influence, in the Democrat party, every year and they will eventually take over the reigns of power within the Democrat party.

I see a big rift coming.

Republicans can sit back and enjoy.

Posted by: battleground51 | March 6, 2011 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Powell's COS says he was manipulated and used because he was one of the few in the admin that had a lick of credibility.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | March 6, 2011 3:17 PM
=======================================

Also, he endorsed Obama for President, so it's important we now give him a pass.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Tao.

Here is a good sample of Danny Doyle's voice when he was in his prime as a ballad singer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkcZMMgDc_w&playnext=1&list=PLFB1B3744570F9C75

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Will the homophillic, liberal Democrats risk driving some of their favorite, minority members into the arms of waiting Republicans to satisfy the strange urges of the homosexual lobby??

You betcha!

It's a wonder to behold.

It could be the multi-cultural version of "the southern strategy".

Who knows??

Posted by: battleground51 | March 6, 2011 5:52 PM | Report abuse

RUK:
"But not all Dems ehhh? Our current President did not fall for the stupidity did he? A major reason btw he was able to upset Hillary for the nomination."
======================================

Neither did his constituents at the time Wright and Farrakhan. Recall that he had not yet been elected to national office. Now, if you want to see a political opportunist in action, check out his tripling down in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda? No; WMD? No, just poppies; Bin Laden? No. But it's all good with libs. Just keep licking those boots.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Ted Kennedy voted against the Iraq Authorization, but that does not stop one of the Right Wing nut jobs from claiming that Kennedy BELIEVED THAT SADDAM HAD WMD. He clearly did.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 3:40 PM
=====================================

Had to fix another one for you. Try to keep up with the actual topic. He didn't authorize; he justified.

--------------

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Liam.

Posted by: tao9 | March 6, 2011 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Tao, so who are you heading home to, Penelope, or Molly Bloom?

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Hi everybody! Wow! It's been eye opening and very educational today. And, needless to say, very entertaining! I thank you.

Just out of curiosity, while on the subject of conspiracy theories, we should find out who believes in what. No wrong answers, just interested in "how deep the rabbit hole goes."

JFK assassination
Gulf of Tonkin
MLK assassination
RFK assassination
USS Liberty
Bush flys to France on SR-71 Blackbird to keep Iran hostages until after election
2000 election
9/11
Anthrax attack
Iraq invasion
2004 Election
Birtherism
Barry's a secret Muslim

That's all I can think of off hand. And for the record, I don't believe any of them.

Weigh in! Let's find out!

Thanks in advance!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | March 6, 2011 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Getting thousands of young American troops slaughtered for A Big Lie, is apparently grist for George W. Bush's sense of humor.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 3:52 PM
=======================================

But any deaths anywhere since Barry was sworn in don't count. And wars stopped costing money in January, 2009. Then deaths of innocents and collateral damage ceased to be part of warfare. Grist for Liam's sense of humor: dead American troops and smoldering Pakistani corpses.
And a healthy dose of hypocrisy.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 6:08 PM | Report abuse

"I thought conservatives believed in personal responsibility."

Yes, but we don't reduce the evaluation of decisions to stick-figure cartoons.

I don't take all the left-wing hyperventilating too seriously. Somehow, what was a complete failure in 2007 and 08 became one of Barry and Joe's greatest successes a year lat er. Bush has said future history will have to judge his decision. I think that's a fairly mature attitude about it.

Democrats, on the other hand, have been craven opportunists, claiming responsibility for the success of what they condemned, after running from it when they thought it was a failure.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Here is a good sample of Danny Doyle's voice when he was in his prime as a ballad singer.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 6, 2011 5:49 PM
=========================================

Didn't he play secondbase for the Phillies and Red Sox?

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 6:16 PM | Report abuse

"Neither did his constituents at the time Wright and Farrakhan. Recall that he had not yet been elected to national office."

Interestingly, he was openly for ssm and rabidly for single payer, too.

The guy's as dishonest as they come.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 6:18 PM | Report abuse

ceflynline - um, think you're wrong re: botulism. Botulism is anaerobic - hence only a problem in anaerobic environments, such as vacuum-sealed cans. The problem is the toxin it produces, and cooking doesn't destroy it.

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 6, 2011 3:13 PM
========================================

Careful, Jenn. Liberals aren't allowed to call out their soulmates on this blog. They'll excommunicate you from the club.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 6:21 PM | Report abuse

The botulin toxin is destroyed by heat, but not the spore that produces it. I'm pretty sure it is the toxin that was primarily prepared as a bioweapon. Botulin is one of the most potent toxins known (according to a toxicologist who once told me).

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Just posted at FOKNews:
"When the country has rejected, one-by-one, the antiquated principles of the Republican party; when two cops at the ballgame in Clearwater today come up to me and say “we’re Conservatives but this crap with our unions here and in Wisconsin has gotta stop”; when enough Republicans have already rejected Scott Walker that if another election were held today he’d be voted out of office two months after he assumed it – how does the Right Wing/Media/Industrial Complex continue to throw around so much weight?"

http://foknewschannel.com/racketeer-rabbit-republicans/

Posted by: Andy94 | March 6, 2011 6:45 PM | Report abuse

"That's all I can think of off hand. And for the record, I don't believe any of them."

Semper Fi Troll!

Neither do I. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Here are the highlights from Simon Johnson's testimony re TARP if anyone's interested.

http://baselinescenario.com/2011/03/05/a-healthy-financial-system-cannot-be-built-on-the-expectation-of-bailouts/#more-8743

McWing, I have to say none of those conspiracies appeal to me, although I'm pretty confident we're almost never given the entire truth of some situations, I prefer not to just make shite up to satisfy my curiosity. Now, if you want to talk UFO's that's a different story, LOL.

Posted by: lmsinca | March 6, 2011 7:01 PM | Report abuse

60-Minutes is doing an amazing story, right now, about the huge increase in homeless children in our country. Our daughter told us about a month ago that the number of kids in her high school that were homeless had significantly increased. We didn't realize how big this problem really is!

It's really frustrating to watch our Governor put the screws to our school systems and all the communities large and small of our state.

Maybe more national media outlets will tell the stories of those being added to the poverty rolls and how the efforts of the likes of Scott Walker are putting them there!

Posted by: Andy94 | March 6, 2011 7:27 PM | Report abuse

ceflyinline, I hate to treat your posts as if they had any validity, but stupidity like this is too good to waste. Just because YOU never noticed it, doesn't mean it never happened. JakeD posted about his Army service several times:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/12/cheney-rove-take-lead-in-prebu.html

Maybe you should at least search Google before posting your ridiculous claims.

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 6, 2011 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Scott, thanks for your 10:52 AM and it too was what I was looking for.

TMW, noticed your conspiracy list and I agree with you. Zero.

I leave with something I learned from a private investigator I worked for in law school, 45 years ago, and it is an appropriate viewpoint for those of us who question political decision making.

"Where there's smoke, there's fire - problem is it may not be the fire you are looking for."

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 6, 2011 7:46 PM | Report abuse

@Andy

I just finished watching the 60 Minutes story and it broke my heart. Alas it took place in my home state Florida. Our U.E. still tops 12% in most parts of the state.
Only in America can we kill 9 innocent teens in Afghanistan, spend trillions on a stupid war...and let our poverty rate among children escalate to heartbreaking levels. WTF is wrong with you heartless righties...have you no shame. You come on this site to take potshots at all the progressive suggestions without offering the first REALISTIC solution. But then name one freaking problem the r's ever solved...taking care of our elderly with SS NO..Medicare..NO...Medicaid NO...talk about the IGMGFY party!

Our Governor is a lying cheat, whose Corp was so heinously guilty of cheating the taxpayers in Medicare/Medicaid fraud that his board kicked him out..FIRED HIM!! and chose instead to pay 1.7 BILLION dollar fine. Yeah a board of professional businessmen on the board decided paying close to 2 BILLION was better than keeping Tricky Ricky Scott. Yet those moronic, heartless teabaggers like claw put this loser, crook into our Governors mansion.

HEARTLESS is the word for the teabaggers.
All this suffering and they elect a man who stole from Medicaid and is now getting ready to cut programs across the state. He's lowering the Corporate tax rate from 5% to 0 over the next few years. As if our already LOW tax rate has kept any business out of Florida. Meanwhile we've slashed our budget for higher ed by more than 25% and next year the public schools will lose 10% of their funding.

And there's no money right. Tricky Ricky the true epitome of a heartless scumbag made 10 million that last three years and paid a whopping 15%. Ohhh the humanity...these greedy robber barons want more more more. The class warfare is going to get ugly...especially with mental midgets like the selfish Jake cheering all of this on...too bad he never lost a job while he had four kids and had to split up his family...it would have served him right! Talk about ignorance when it comes to walking a mile in someone else's shoes.

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 7:50 PM | Report abuse

One more thank you before I say g'night - tao, thanks for the education link yesterday. What was fascinating was that TX whites, blacks, hispanics, and Asians all scored better than WI but WI somehow scored better over all. How that was statistically possible was beyond my ken.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 6, 2011 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Until I realized that TX schools are half chicano, and WI's are not.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 6, 2011 7:55 PM | Report abuse

"KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Afghanistan's president on Sunday rejected a U.S. apology for the mistaken killing of nine Afghan boys in a NATO air attack and said civilian casualties are no longer acceptable.

"According to a statement from his office, Hamid Karzai told Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, that expressing regret was not sufficient in last week's killing of the boys, ages 12 and under, by coalition helicopters.

"NATO has also apologized for the mistaken killings. Civilian casualties from coalition operations are a major source of strain in the already difficult relationship between Karzai's government and the United States, and they generate widespread outrage among the population.

. . .

"Hundreds of people from a left-wing political party marched through Kabul to protest U.S. military operations and demanded the withdrawal of foreign troops.

"They chanted "death to America, death to the American government" and carried pictures of Afghans killed or wounded in recent airstrikes. They burned an effigy of Obama."---Patrick Quinn, AP, 03/06/11

========================================

"expressing regret was not sufficient." No doubt a bit more hard cash in Karzai's pocket would ease the pain. Maybe the unions will kick in some.

"they burned an effigy of Obama." Well, now they've gone too far.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 7:59 PM | Report abuse

One more thank you before I say g'night - tao, thanks for the education link yesterday. What was fascinating was that TX whites, blacks, hispanics, and Asians all scored better than WI but WI somehow scored better over all. How that was statistically possible was beyond my ken.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 6, 2011 7:53 PM
=======================================

It's DeVry math. Liberals learn it at the University.

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Harvard is letting ROTC back on campus. The Weekly Standard thinks the mainstream media are making too little of this. (I’m not so sure: gay rights was important, but outside the Burkean confines of the Standard, many of us suspect that nothing Harvard does affects society much one way or the other. I wish it did.)

But the Standard’s blog post buries the lede just a little bit. Nowhere does it mention the reason ROTC wasn’t allowed at Harvard up to now, and the reason that’s changed: don’t ask, don’t tell. That reason is hardly a secret. The phrase appears three times in the twelve-’graph Times story, and the fact that repeal of the policy led to repeal of the ban is the whole point of the story. But someone who read only the Standard’s version would get the idea that an effete Ivy League university, having dissed the military for no particular reason, has now climbed down. (A later post on how Columbia may invite ROTC back too also fails to mention DADT.) We apparently are supposed to see this as a triumph for conservatism.

In some ways, this makes me glad. Conservatives are well along in the process of treating gay rights as they have treated civil rights. First conservatives defended Jim Crow and talked as if the most interesting thing about the Civil Rights movement was that some of Dr. King’s friends had once been communists. Then they stopped defending segregation but fervently opposed, on ever more desperate procedural grounds, measures to end it. After that, they ignored the whole issue but took umbrage at any suggestion that the U.S. had ever had a race problem or that race was a significant part of our history. (Don’t believe me? Look up “political correctness” articles from anywhere in the country in the late 80s, or in much of the South or the hard-core Right blogosphere to this day). Now, they quote Martin Luther King whenever they want to propose something really radical that King would have hated.

In thirty years, expect the Standard to write that the Democratic party is perverting the true ideals of the Gay Rights movement, and that the Left should learn to take patriotic gay soldiers as its role models, as conservatives “always have.”

http://www.samefacts.com/2011/03/conservatism/slight-omission/

Posted by: pragmaticagain | March 6, 2011 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Jake: I suspected you would have an easy time finding one of your posts.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 6, 2011 8:24 PM | Report abuse

In some ways, this makes me glad. Conservatives are well along in the process of treating gay rights as they have treated civil rights. First conservatives defended Jim Crow and talked as if the most interesting thing about the Civil Rights movement was that some of Dr. King’s friends had once been communists.

. . .

In thirty years, expect the Standard to write that the Democratic party is perverting the true ideals of the Gay Rights movement, and that the Left should learn to take patriotic gay soldiers as its role models, as conservatives “always have.”

Posted by: pragmaticagain | March 6, 2011 8:23 PM
========================================

I love the way liberals flip back and forth between parties and ideologies depending on the misconceptions they're trying to sell. Since the Jim Crow racists to whom prag alludes were all Democrats, it's important that he call them "Conservatives". Once we get to the current hubbub over gay rights, it's okay for Democrats to just be Democrats. I knew old Robert Byrd was a racist, but I guess I never knew he was really a "Conservative".

Posted by: Brigade | March 6, 2011 8:39 PM | Report abuse

It's called GOOGLE. Like I said, you should try it someday.

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 6, 2011 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Just curious, Jake, what was your MOS?

I was an 05H, which you would have known as 058

Posted by: ceflynline | March 6, 2011 9:09 PM | Report abuse

As Defense Secretary, Mr. Cheney commissioned a study for the U.S. Department of Defense by Brown and Root Services (now Kellogg, Brown and Root), a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton. The study recommended that private firms like Halliburton should take over logistical support programs for U.S. military operations around the world.

Just two years after he was Secretary of Defense, Cheney stepped through the revolving door linking the Department of Defense with defense contractors and became CEO of Halliburton.

Halliburton was the principal beneficiary of Cheney's privatization efforts for our military's logistical support and Cheney was paid $44 million for five year's work with them, before he slipped back through the revolving door to become Vice-President of the United States. When asked about the money he received from Halliburton, Cheney said. "I tell you that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it."

Posted by: fiona5 | March 6, 2011 9:11 PM | Report abuse

"The blueprint,for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney , Donald Rumsfeld , Paul Wolfowitz , George Jeb Bush and Lewis Libby The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

Posted by: fiona5 | March 6, 2011 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Ruk
Thanks for the response.
As we continue to learn elections matter. Scott Walker's disapproval rating is above 60 percent. He won his election by just over 50 percent. Maybe if my fellow citizens and voters had paid more attention to what he was saying, they would have gotten out to vote like they did in '08. Well the citizens of this great states will get another chance next November with the kick off to collect 500k signatures to recall Mr. Walker.

Posted by: Andy94 | March 6, 2011 9:17 PM | Report abuse

PNAC also:

•Spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

•Calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;

•it suggests that the US should consider developing biological weapons in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a "politically useful tool"

•Pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.

ambitious little armchair cowboys, weren't they? wonder if they wrote this while wearing their batman jammies?

Posted by: fiona5 | March 6, 2011 9:22 PM | Report abuse

prag:

""But the Standard’s blog post buries the lede just a little bit. Nowhere does it mention the reason ROTC wasn’t allowed at Harvard up to now, and the reason that’s changed: don’t ask, don’t tell.""

I'm not sure what blog post you are referring to, but this particular one - http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/reaction-harvard-rotc_552922.html - obviously assumes that its readers already know that repeal of DADT was responsible for the decision.

And, BTW, when ROTC was kicked out of Harvard 40 years ago it had nothing to do with DADT. That was just the latest, and happily last, excuse for Harvard liberal's disdain for the military.

Posted by: ScottC3 | March 6, 2011 9:32 PM | Report abuse

@andy

Good luck on the recall...perhaps we'll get inspired here in Florida and recall the bald dictator.

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Hi Fiona!

I take it your a yes to the Iraq was conspiracy. Anything else on the list I posted above that you agree with?

Thanks in advance! Hope you're having a great night!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | March 6, 2011 9:38 PM | Report abuse

@claw...

Well Jake you might as well give up and come back with another sock puppet. Perhaps the next time you'll be able to spell it correctly. LMAO

It looks as if our intelligence officer cefy was able to smoke you out...funny how you claw were so very familiar with everything Jake posted from months ago..again LMAO

Pick another sock puppet...make sure you spell the name right...and then you can return in anonymity to spout your hateful, selfish, heartless crqp.

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 6, 2011 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Brilliant liberal logic. Rick Scott just took office, so homeless children are his fault. Never mind Obama.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 6, 2011 9:42 PM | Report abuse

"That was just the latest, and happily last, excuse for Harvard liberal's disdain for the military."

Scott, IIRC, the Crimson cadets will be enjoined to take their training/classes at MIT.

Never underestimate the power of the prog caste system on the Charles. They have deep disdain on top of their disdain.

Posted by: tao9 | March 6, 2011 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Andy,

What's the going hourly rate to collect signatures in Kenosha these days?

$7.75/hour? Maybe $8.15?

Posted by: tao9 | March 6, 2011 9:45 PM | Report abuse

ceflynline and rukidding7, since ScottC3 and Brigade showed that they can use Google to look up JakeD and caothien9 posts, why aren't they ALL my sockpuppets?

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 6, 2011 9:52 PM | Report abuse

For all you two know, I post as "Greg Sargent" and EVERYONE else on this site.

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 6, 2011 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Hi all! Hope everything is well. It looks like the Wisconsin Democratic (that's for you soappam) are going to return soon and put the Republicans on record by having a vote of Walker's budget bill. Is this the outcome, should it come to pass, that you were looking for? If not, what was the endgame for the Democratic Senators?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704041504576185010446940614.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLETopStories

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | March 6, 2011 10:16 PM | Report abuse

"I take it your a yes to the Iraq was conspiracy."

A "conspiracy'? -- No. It was part of a global agenda laid out by a well-connected group with deep roots in Washington, and a great deal of power and influence, including a former Secretary of Defense and protege of Nixon.

It wasn't a secret -- it was posted online. I read it years before Iraq. The goals were strategic, to gain control over Iraq and Iran's oil and the Straits of Hormuz, and use that to finance further wars to topple regimes that didn't cooperate.

Back in the 90's, Cheney used to talk about this quite openly --especially to petroleum industry gatherings-- about how we had already gotten all the oil we could get out easily from the fields we had control over, and 'every barrel now would cost more to extract,' and therefore we needed to set our sights on gaining control of the vast reserves in the oilfields of the ME.

Transcripts of his speeches are readily available online. So see -- no conspiracy, but a business plan.

It's all out there if you want to see it.

Posted by: fiona5 | March 6, 2011 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Fiona! I appreciate the information. ;-)

Any of the conspiracies on my list seem likely? For example, did Cheney and PNAC set up 9/11 to get the ball rolling?

Thanks in advance! Hope your night is great!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | March 6, 2011 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Great Michael Moore speech in WI.

I think WI is the start of something bigger. Time to take this country back and get our middle class back on track.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgNuSEZ8CDw

Send this to your Congressmen. Hopefully they hear the message and wake up.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | March 6, 2011 10:39 PM | Report abuse

"WI is the start of something bigger."

Except that the pregnant Dem Senator has to come back sooner rather than later. It's over, man.

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 6, 2011 10:50 PM | Report abuse

"Any of the conspiracies on my list seem likely? For example, did Cheney and PNAC set up 9/11 to get the ball rolling?"

Nope. It was just the catalyst they had been waiting for.

In their document, they stated they couldn't begin to implement their strategy because the public wouldn't go unlike with it, unless there were another event 'like Pearl Harbor.'

As I said, the entire 'manifesto' is still on line. Very interesting reading -- you should check it out. A lot of names you'll recognize, many of whom became contractors in Iraq.

Posted by: fiona5 | March 6, 2011 10:57 PM | Report abuse

clawrence, defender of the upper class.

claw, Koch called, he wants he knee pads back brother.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | March 6, 2011 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Fiona, thanks again for answering. Just to dot every I and cross every T, 9/11 while catalyst, was also coincidental?

Thanks for your input!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | March 6, 2011 11:13 PM | Report abuse

What a great day.

Let's see...WelI I can't read all that, what's the bottom line? Did you folks agree? Bipartisan agreement on crony capitalism as the problem and socialism, the answer?

American socialism will have nothing to do with the proletariat, or parsing relations to the means of production, nor nationalizing this or that resource or industry.

Force feeding rich people is not capitalism. Making everyone get some money no matter what, that isn't socialism. Earlier Troll said, in response to my remark about the US military being a model of socialism, he said it was a meritocracy. I say yes, a socialist meritocracy. In the military, merit is not individualism, though individual merit is the only thing any one soldier can achieve and that is very important. But the meritocracy is about taking care of each other in the accomplishment of the mission, together.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 6, 2011 11:30 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington, you sure it was Koch or just another imposter?

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 6, 2011 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Well, the housing disaster is still getting started.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/03/rulings_put_brakes_on_hundreds.html

MERS. Who knew? If no one knows who owns it, I mean if no one is willing to say they will pay the price if they are wrong...

"If you can't get title insurance, that almost stops the process,"

I remember agreeing on that (because it is obvious) in a conversation here with 12BB some months ago.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 6, 2011 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Hey! Sarge Greg!! Wake up!!

The union thugs, Obama, outlaw "immigrants", Islamic wackos, and homosexuals need more supportive editorialization.

It's Monday!

Hello!

Posted by: battleground51 | March 7, 2011 6:05 AM | Report abuse

Ultra-liberal E.J. Dionne has a good piece on the Republican strategy. It agrees with what I have thought, for some time.

The only way to deal with rock stubborn liberals is to charge them head-on, like a marauding horde of Viking invaders, scare the bejeebers outta them, disorient them, and then exact all the legislative booty you can before they catch their balance.

Then there's the "good cop, bad cop" routine played out by the calm, wise men of the party against the young bombthrowers.

The Obamacrats are still try to figure out what is hitting 'em.

From all appearances, Obamacrats will be even farther up the creek after 2012.

Democrats ought to be tired of being outFOXED, by now.

Posted by: battleground51 | March 7, 2011 6:43 AM | Report abuse

"The union thugs, Obama, outlaw "immigrants", Islamic wackos, and homosexuals need more supportive editorialization."

Not to mention those scary college kids...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030602662.html?hpid=topnews

Posted by: DDAWD | March 7, 2011 6:46 AM | Report abuse

"New Hampshire's new Republican state House speaker is pretty clear about what he thinks of college kids and how they vote. They're 'foolish,' Speaker William O'Brien said in a recent speech to a tea party group. 'Voting as a liberal. That's what kids do,' he added, his comments taped by a state Democratic Party staffer and posted on YouTube. Students lack 'life experience,' and 'they just vote their feelings.' "

Posted by: DDAWD | March 7, 2011 6:49 AM | Report abuse

So much better to grow up into a Conservative with chronic adrenal problems.

Ideals are for chumps, don't you know. The real meaning of life is grim persistence and nothing more.

Posted by: caothien9 | March 7, 2011 7:01 AM | Report abuse

Union thugs; push away a camera

Tea Party patriots: stomping heads

Homosexuals? Islamists? Someone get rattlegourd his Haldol, toot sweet.

Posted by: caothien9 | March 7, 2011 7:05 AM | Report abuse

shrink:

""American socialism will have nothing to do with the proletariat, or parsing relations to the means of production, nor nationalizing this or that resource or industry.""

Or, in other words, it will have nothing to do with, er, socialism.

""But the meritocracy is about taking care of each other in the accomplishment of the mission, together.""

It seems apparent that you would like to rehabilitate the word, but cooperation and the sharing of common goals are not what define "socialism", much as you would like people to think otherwise.

Posted by: ScottC3 | March 7, 2011 7:16 AM | Report abuse

Shrink, seems to me that keeping the foreclosed houses in limbo is good for the housing market, since so khat additional houses for sale are just going to pushndown prices. Not to mention that people being kicked out of foreclosed houses aren't likely to do anything to make them attractive to sell.

Posted by: caothien9 | March 7, 2011 7:22 AM | Report abuse

It seems apparent that you would like to rehabilitate the word, but cooperation and the sharing of common goals are not what define "socialism", much as you would like people to think otherwise.

==

Whether or not they comprise socialism, they certainly are alien concepts to ScottC3.

We should discuss the principles behind the predicates underlying the preference for common goals.

Posted by: caothien9 | March 7, 2011 7:26 AM | Report abuse

"It seems apparent that you would like to rehabilitate the word, but cooperation and the sharing of common goals are not what define "socialism", much as you would like people to think otherwise.

Posted by: ScottC3"

The word has pretty much lost all meaning, but mainly because idiots like you simultaneously Independently Came Up With the idea of using it as a catch all for just about any policy you don't like.

Like this guy at NRO who tries to standardize the definition of Socialism.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257302/socialism-back-kevin-d-williamson?page=1

It's ridiculously broad definition and would include just about any government.

And contains this passage.

"As a practical matter, all modern governments engage in some public provision of non-public goods. That does not mean that every government is, in a meaningful sense, socialist, or that it would make sense to describe every government that maintains a public school or a public highway as socialist. There are questions of degree, and questions of judgment, and the answers to those questions will vary from case to case."

So basically, the definition is "you're a Socialist if I call you a Socialist."

So yeah, the definition will get shifted quite a bit because you morons simply want a slur for Obama.

And when someone comes up with a definition of Socialism that can't be used as a slur, you start whining like a little b***h.

Good job.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 7, 2011 7:35 AM | Report abuse

eeep, shouldn't be that snarky on Lundi Gras. But Scott is possibly the most intellectually dishonest poster on here and that gets the blood boiling a bit.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 7, 2011 7:43 AM | Report abuse

Seems like the essence of socialism for the greeps is anything that "redistributes" money. Everyone's taxes should go into a cookie jar with their names taped on it and absolutely nobody should ever get a penny from anyone else's jar. The idea of people paying for anything that doesn't benefit them personally and directly seems to offends the crap out of the Conservative People. Redistribution. The essence of injustice.

No wonder ScottC wants to see a flat tax, and at a rate so low that anything other than what we somehow refer to with a straight face as "defense" and the enabling (but NOT the regulation) of commerce is flat out impossible (cue the "I never said that" dodge-a-matic) .. this saves the cost of those cookie jars and scotch tape but has the same effect.

Really need to wonder what the hell is wrong with these Conservative People. I think you're right, DDAWD, it really is all about membership.

Posted by: caothien9 | March 7, 2011 7:52 AM | Report abuse

It's CREEPING socialism that sets off alarm bells.

A little socialism today.

A little more tomorrow.

A little more next week.

A little more next month.

Full blown, USSR, style communism next year.


For liberals, a little socialism is not enough.

Give 'em an inch and they'll take a hundred miles.

It never stops!

The next Democrat/socialist will always try to take it a bit further.

Obama took a quantum leap.

Marx is smiling up at us from deeeeep below.

A sardonic grin that scares American patriots.

Posted by: battleground51 | March 7, 2011 7:56 AM | Report abuse

But Scott is possibly the most intellectually dishonest poster on here

==

I would tend to agree, excepting only possibly Jake/claw, but he's a lot stupider.

Scott's frosty outraged denial of the content of his own posts is way way up there on the falsehood meter.

QB would qualify but he seems limited to "you're delusional" and "your assertions have no basis" and generic junk like that.

Scott's insistence on moving any actual debate of his sociopathic positions into unreferential generality is loathsome.

Posted by: caothien9 | March 7, 2011 7:59 AM | Report abuse

If only you were right, battleground, if only.

But you seem a tad confused on your terms. Communism and socialism are orthogonal.

Posted by: caothien9 | March 7, 2011 8:02 AM | Report abuse

jake I have blocked, qb is just stupid, more so than dishonest.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 7, 2011 8:18 AM | Report abuse

What you two don't understand is that I'm posting Greg Sargent's "Morning Plum", I would tend to agree, excepting only possibly Jake/clawrence12's "stupid" rejoinder, quarterback1's "sociopathic" posts, ScottC3's "loathsome" posts, AND caothien9's denouncement thereof.

Time for a new thread.

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 7, 2011 8:29 AM | Report abuse

I hate to interrupt the "love fest" but this is pretty interesting and informative from McClatchy re public employee pensions. Once the economy rebounds, if they can keep the slash and burn cuts to a minimum, it's just not that big of a deal. Even CA has enough to pay out fully for over 15 years. IL and NJ have some of the worst problems because they conveniently sort of forgot to put the money in the kitty. Kentucky seems to have made the worst investments, they only have a little over 4 years.

""Another misperception tied to the pension debate is that while the private sector has shed jobs during the economic crisis, state and local government employment has grown — and pensions along with it.

Since September 2008_ when state and local government employees numbered 19,385,000 and the economic crisis turned severe — the governments' payrolls shrunk by 407,000, to 18,978,000 this January, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

When calculating from December 2007_ the month that the National Bureau of Economic Research determined was the start of the Great Recession_ state and local government employment has fallen by 703,000 jobs amid a downturn that cost the nation more than 8 million jobs overall.""

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/06/109649/why-employee-pensions-arent-bankrupting.html#ixzz1Fv7EoEN4

Posted by: lmsinca | March 7, 2011 8:31 AM | Report abuse

"Intellectually dishonest"="my comprehension is poor" or "I am blind to my own assumptions"

"Stupid "="my reasoning and argument skills are weak" or "I lose too many arguments"

Funny stuff

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 7, 2011 8:36 AM | Report abuse

lms:

""I hate to interrupt the "love fest"...""

I think "hate-fest" would have been more accurate.

Posted by: ScottC3 | March 7, 2011 8:36 AM | Report abuse

"Shrink, seems to me that keeping the foreclosed houses in limbo is good for the housing market, since so that additional houses for sale are just going to pushndown prices."

Maybe so in the short term, I know a nice couple that is living in a house they haven't made a payment on in two years, for some reason, the bank has not evicted them. The long term problem is with "confidence", knowing where the bottom of the market is with some degree of confidence. When everyone knows there is still $1.5T in "toxic assets" backed by F&F, when everyone knows that more than a million homes are going into foreclosure this year, the addition of this title fiasco, unknown but certainly in the millions more homes with questions about who actually owns them, that is just one more reason to stay out of the housing market unless you absolutely have be in it and about that a person can be pretty confident.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 7, 2011 8:37 AM | Report abuse

""I think "hate-fest" would have been more accurate.""

I was being "ironical" and "subtle", LOL.

Posted by: lmsinca | March 7, 2011 8:41 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/03/the_morning_plum_200.html

Posted by: sargegreg | March 7, 2011 8:45 AM | Report abuse


input this URL:

( http://www.chic-goods.com/ )

you can find many cheap and high stuff
(jor dan shoes)
(NBA NFL NHL MLB jersey)
( lv handbag)
(cha nel wallet)
(D&G sunglasses)
(ed har dy jacket)
(UGG boot)

WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

===== http://www.chic-goods.com/ =====

===== http://www.chic-goods.com/ =====

Posted by: chicgoods | March 7, 2011 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Long term effects of BDS*

We can piss off:

- teachers
- union members
- baby boomers
- Muslim citizens
- Mexican citizens
- college students
- gays
- "non-believers"
- the poor
- the sick
- the unemployed
- the middle class
- women who want to make their own moral choice

...and still be re-elected in 2012 and defeat Obama.

*Bush Delusional Syndrome

Posted by: areyousaying | March 7, 2011 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company