Puttin the HIGH in hypocrisy

[RedskinsDave]

From a few years ago:

This week's inauguration story came ready with two interesting news angles: the huge cost (in contrast with the dire situation in Iraq) and the unprecedented security. And in both cases, the political press corps, as has been its habit under the Bush administration, showed little interest in prying. In the days and weeks leading up to the event, the press has largely treated inauguration criticism as partisan and silly, making sure to give Bush backers lots of time and room to defend the unmatched pomp and circumstance.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/20/media_on_inauguration


This wasn't the only place liberals bitched about the cost of the inauguration.

Now today:

President Barack Obama (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/barackobama)'s inauguration next week is set to be the most expensive ever, predicted to reach over $150m (£102m). This dwarfs the $42.3m spent on George Bush's inauguration in 2005 and the $33m spent on Bill Clinton's in 1993.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/01/13/2009-01-13_obamas_inauguration_is_most_expensive_ev.html

Can anyone find me those folks who were crying about bail outs or screaming about fiscal responsibility or are they already holding their spots on the Mall?

[PyroGenic]

maybe there's a correlation between cost and attendance?

I don't think that Bush's inauguration was this historically hefty, either.

[RedskinsDave]

maybe there's a correlation between cost and attendance?

I don't think that Bush's inauguration was this historically hefty, either.

The point is the money. If I cry about my cash flow and then throw myself an extragavant birthday party, should you still take my cash flow claims seriously? I would think not.

[PyroGenic]

The point is the money. If I cry about my cash flow and then throw myself an extragavant birthday party, should you still take my cash flow claims seriously? I would think not.

Only if you had 1-4 million people attending :)

I mean, the sheer number of people predicted to attend this event has to be met with accordingly somehow, right?

[ClubSandwichGuy]

...

I don't even understand how it costs that much. What are they paying for? (I've never been to an inauguration before, so if the answer is really obvious I'm sorry.)


Also, anyone got the numbers on how many people are attending this inauguration compared to years past?

[BurgundyNGold]

Only if you had 1-4 million people attending :)

I mean, the sheer number of people predicted to attend this event has to be met with accordingly somehow, right?
They're reasonably expecting 2-2.5M people to attend. It the temperatures are as cold as today, expect maybe 1.8-2M. At the cost of $150M (and climbing) that's a cost of $60/person in attendance. That's more expensive to put on than a football game. Considering that most people will be standing (not sitting), there isn't a stadium and they don't have to pay multi million $ in game checks to players, it seems even more disportionately expensive.

I get the feeling that the inauguration is an excuse to get funding into capital improvements, police and security budgets. There's no way a few bleachers cost that much to set up and secure, lol.

[CNYSkinFan]

I think you are seeing the vast amount of that money in security....with so many people spilling into the capital area the cost of security is skyrocketing on an exponential level. Not only do they have to secure Obama, but that many people in one place makes a very tempting target for a terroriast or just plain nutso to do something like the 1996 oplympic bombing.

Not ot mention mundane stuff like traffic control and emergency services.

[BurgundyNGold]

I think you are seeing the vast amount of that money in security....with so many people spilling into the capital area the cost of security is skyrocketing on an exponential level. Not only do they have to secure Obama, but that many people in one place makes a very tempting target for a terroriast or just plain nutso to do something like the 1996 oplympic bombing.

Not ot mention mundane stuff like traffic control and emergency services.
No need for traffic control. They're closing half the streets in the District. Genius, lol.

[Biggie]

Not ot mention mundane stuff like traffic control and emergency services.
That's a big part of it, I think. The entire area's infrastructure needs to be able to handle two million more people in the space of a few days.

[Sweepea436]

I'm not even in MD and its ruining my long weekend!! Stupid standby!

[BSMKF]

The media demonized Bush that's why.


That being said.... I wish the best for Obama and our country.

[CNYSkinFan]

The media demonized Bush that's why.


That being said.... I wish the best for Obama and our country.
damn pesky media destroyed the economy, had a horrible responsse in Katrina, and hid the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Damn media

[RedskinsDave]

I am already gearing up to throw some of the left's crap back in their face. A few are: 1. Is dissention still patriotic? 2. Are we still to question authority? and my favorite 3. Is it okay to refer to this president as a chimp?

There are many, many more of course. It should be a fun four years. Being the bleating minority has some advantages.

[Keino]

I am already gearing up to throw some of the left's crap back in their face. A few are: 1. Is dissention still patriotic? 2. Are we still to question authority? and my favorite 3. Is it okay to refer to this president as a chimp?

There are many, many more of course. It should be a fun four years. Being the bleating minority has some advantages.

1. Yes. Dissension is patriotic.

2. Yes. Authority should be questioned and I think you will find that this guy welcomes questioning as opposed to trying to squash it.

3. Um. Hmmmm. If it is done in the context that Bush's was I suppose that is acceptable. Goose and Gander and all that. I did think the Curios George charicature was funny during the election.

[Biggie]

I am already gearing up to throw some of the left's crap back in their face. A few are: 1. Is dissention still patriotic? 2. Are we still to question authority? and my favorite 3. Is it okay to refer to this president as a chimp?

There are many, many more of course. It should be a fun four years. Being the bleating minority has some advantages.
Go ahead. We, for our part, won't be calling you an un-American terrorist sympathizer.

[remaxjon]

not a big deal we can just print some more money

[fent]

not a big deal we can just print some more money

viva la revolucion!!!!!

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4876/antipaulck9.jpg

[remaxjon]

viva la revolucion!!!!!

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4876/antipaulck9.jpg

typical Paul supporter imo
http://willdo.philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/111207ronpaul.jpg

[Fathead]

lol!

[RedskinsDave]

Go ahead. We, for our part, won't be calling you an un-American terrorist sympathizer.

That would be impossible anyways. I always support our military and our country against others no matter who the CIC is.

[akhhorus]

typical Paul supporter imo
http://willdo.philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/111207ronpaul.jpg

Thats an improvement from fent's pic, how?

[Keino]

That would be impossible anyways. I always support our military and our country against others no matter who the CIC is.

Sorry, but opposing a military action undertaken by the CIC for political reasons is not the same thing as opposing our country or our military or supporting its enemies. So again, if you choose to dissent, as is your American right, by all means do so, but don't hold yourself out to be more patriotic than someone who justly opposes military action because they don't blindly support the political goals of the CIC. It speaks exactly to the heart of what Biggie was saying.

[remaxjon]

Thats an improvement from fent's pic, how?

it wasn't meant to be an improvement

Its me and my gf hanging out just before the launch of the blimp. The guy with the camera is dressed like George Washington

[Keino]

it wasn't meant to be an improvement

Its me and my gf hanging out just before the launch of the blimp. The guy with the camera is dressed like George Washington

Seriously?

[remaxjon]

Seriously?

no but it would confirm what many(likely all) here think of my views

and I stand by don't worry about the money we will just print more. What could happen

[akhhorus]

no but it would confirm what many(likely all) here think of my views

and I stand by don't worry about the money we will just print more. What could happen

We're not going to print more. I don't know where you get that idea.

[RedskinsDave]

Sorry, but opposing a military action undertaken by the CIC for political reasons is not the same thing as opposing our country or our military or supporting its enemies. So again, if you choose to dissent, as is your American right, by all means do so, but don't hold yourself out to be more patriotic than someone who justly opposes military action because they don't blindly support the political goals of the CIC. It speaks exactly to the heart of what Biggie was saying.

If you really don't see that there are more than a few on the left who oppose any and every action, especially military, taken by someone from the other side then you're not looking. Ask anyone serving what they think of the "I support the troops but not the war" mantra. They don't buy it.

[Keino]

If you really don't see that there are more than a few on the left who oppose any and every action, especially military, taken by someone from the other side then you're not looking. Ask anyone serving what they think of the "I support the troops but not the war" mantra. They don't buy it.

Whether they buy it or not, they cannot presume to know my heart and mind. I did not support the Iraq action (well documented here) and the fact that it was G-Dub's idea wasn't the reason, but rather it was a bad idea that wasn't very well thought out and we were already fighting a war on a different and more relevant front.

SO...If my dissension makes the enlisted man think I don't support him and pray for his safety, that really has no bearing on the matter. It is possible to support the troops while not supporting the politics that has them in harms way unnecessarily.

Support of the politics of the CIC is not a litmus test for patriotism or love of troops and country.

[hogskins]

If you really don't see that there are more than a few on the left who oppose any and every action, especially military, taken by someone from the other side then you're not looking.

That's a valid point, and deserves the scrutiny that it gets. I wonder what percentage of the left subscribes to that notion, and can be described as "pacifist at all costs"? I also wonder what percentage of the right are "chickenhawks" who support any and every action, as long as someone else is doing the fighting?

Ask anyone serving what they think of the "I support the troops but not the war" mantra. They don't buy it.

If you limit the question to those who are serving, the answer is self-fulfilling, but accurate to a degree, because they are the casualties. The American people at-large haven't sacrificed much in Iraq. That is, until it's time to pay the tab.

[remaxjon]

We're not going to print more. I don't know where you get that idea.

I'm sorry create out thin air

[Sweepea436]

I know everybody has, and is entitled to, their own opinion - so I'm not trying to judge anything anyone said here -- that said -- I'm enlisted so I get in alot of the "support the troops, not the war" conversations. Mostly from families that lost someone. From them, I understand the sentiment. But I can't say the same about the "casual observer". It's kind of like saying "I hope business owners are successful in this country, but I'll never buy American".

It's like putting "All due respect" before an insult.

But like I said, everyone is entitled to their own -- its the beauty of this country.

:Peace:

[akhhorus]

I know everybody has, and is entitled to, their own opinion - so I'm not trying to judge anything anyone said here -- that said -- I'm enlisted so I get in alot of the "support the troops, not the war" conversations. Mostly from families that lost someone. From them, I understand the sentiment. But I can't say the same about the "casual observer". It's kind of like saying "I hope business owners are successful in this country, but I'll never buy American".


But you are trying to judge. And your comparison doesn't make any sense. A war is a specific policy understaken and continued by the government, that can be ended by the government at any time. Deciding to buy or boycott a product from a certain place isn't. Personally, I think that trying to make a question of supporting the war/supporting the troops is a false choice. Everyone supports the troops and wants them to come home as soon as possible. Disagreeing with the policy of a war is no different than disagreeing with tax/foreign/social policy.

I'm sorry create out thin air

We don't do that either. How about learning something about the economy before commenting?

[remaxjon]

We don't do that either. How about learning something about the economy before commenting?

The FEd buys assets and gives the seller newly created reserves from the central bank

or

creates money out of thin air

[Sweepea436]

But you are trying to judge. And your comparison doesn't make any sense. A war is a specific policy understaken and continued by the government, that can be ended by the government at any time. Deciding to buy or boycott a product from a certain place isn't. Personally, I think that trying to make a question of supporting the war/supporting the troops is a false choice. Everyone supports the troops and wants them to come home as soon as possible. Disagreeing with the policy of a war is no different than disagreeing with tax/foreign/social policy.


No. I'm really not. I have enough of my own shortcomings to judge anyone else for anything, especially something as little as their opinion. I was giving a personal perspective on a comment that applied to my line of work. Not trying to agree/disagree with policy. (I signed away that right 14 years ago! lol)

My examples are comparable in my mind because if you're not participating in it (ie. small business owner, soldier), then your really just armchair quarterbacking (which I love to read on this board, lots of people much smarter than me here). At this point in my career, war is my job, no matter how it came to be. And when you say that you support my work, but not my job - it's hard to take that person seriously if they haven't also lived it. It's hard to get out there and do what we do, without believing in what you're doing.

That's all I was getting at. Doesn't mean I think any less of anyone as a person though -- we just disagree on this subject.

[Keino]

No. I'm really not. I have enough of my own shortcomings to judge anyone else for anything, especially something as little as their opinion. I was giving a personal perspective on a comment that applied to my line of work. Not trying to agree/disagree with policy. (I signed away that right 14 years ago! lol)

My examples are comparable in my mind because if you're not participating in it (ie. small business owner, soldier), then your really just armchair quarterbacking (which I love to read on this board, lots of people much smarter than me here). At this point in my career, war is my job, no matter how it came to be. And when you say that you support my work, but not my job - it's hard to take that person seriously if they haven't also lived it. It's hard to get out there and do what we do, without believing in what you're doing.

That's all I was getting at. Doesn't mean I think any less of anyone as a person though -- we just disagree on this subject.


But that's just it. I support you. I want you to come home safe along with the remainder of your unit and all of our troops in Iraq (and I am assuming you are in Iraq, so pardon if my assumption is incorrect, it doesn't take away from my overall point). Problem is as a matter of policy, I don't think that our country is best served by having our troops spread so thin as a result of this action, nor do I think our armed forces were ever intended to be occupiers of a foreign country, but rather defenders of our borders and interests against foreign threats. Iraq, through an ongoing policy of containment was not a threat to us, our interests or the world. My further opposition to this action stems from how it was sold to the American Public (You know, those of us footing the bill for this Billions per month expenditure) via innuendo, shaky intel and tenuous connections to Al-Q and 9/11. These critiques point directly to the CIC and how he chose to use the military and are not critiques of the soldiers themselves.

Again. I can support you while not supporting the politics that place you in harms way. They are not one and the same.

Edit: And why do I have to lose someone for that particular opinion to have validity? Isn't the desire not to lose some one for no good reason enough?

[Ibleedburgundy]

sorry about that. double post

[Ibleedburgundy]

Go ahead. We, for our part, won't be calling you an un-American terrorist sympathizer.

Hey speak for yourself!

I am already gearing up to throw some of the right's crap back in their face.

[akhhorus]

The FEd buys assets and gives the seller newly created reserves from the central bank

or

creates money out of thin air

You really have no clue what you're talking about. The govt doesn't just print new money when they want to fund some massive project. They borrow the money from central banks(or issue bonds). Even when the fed reserve or treasury buys assets as you so simplistically put it, they're giving them currency that came from somewhere(loans, credits, assets sales, bonds).

No. I'm really not. I have enough of my own shortcomings to judge anyone else for anything, especially something as little as their opinion. I was giving a personal perspective on a comment that applied to my line of work. Not trying to agree/disagree with policy. (I signed away that right 14 years ago! lol

My examples are comparable in my mind because if you're not participating in it (ie. small business owner, soldier), then your really just armchair quarterbacking (which I love to read on this board, lots of people much smarter than me here). At this point in my career, war is my job, no matter how it came to be. And when you say that you support my work, but not my job - it's hard to take that person seriously if they haven't also lived it. It's hard to get out there and do what we do, without believing in what you're doing.

That's all I was getting at. Doesn't mean I think any less of anyone as a person though -- we just disagree on this subject.

I think you're confusing the issue. War is your job as a soldier, but that doesn't mean that people have to support everything you've been ordered to do in your job. By your logic, if you like a TV channel, you have to like every show on the channel or you don't like it. This country was founded on the right for even the minority to dissent(and try to change), so saying that you have to support every policy that's been decided after the decision has been made is fairly well absurd if we're talking about America.

EDIT: I think that there's a distinction between loving the soldier for what they do and hating the politician for making questionable decisions. You can hate the politician without criticizing the soldier.

[Sweepea436]

But that's just it. I support you. I want you to come home safe along with the remainder of your unit and all of our troops in Iraq (and I am assuming you are in Iraq, so pardon if my assumption is incorrect, it doesn't take away from my overall point). Problem is as a matter of policy, I don't think that our country is best served by having our troops spread so thin as a result of this action, nor do I think our armed forces were ever intended to be occupiers of a foreign country, but rather defenders of our borders and interests against foreign threats. Iraq, through an ongoing policy of containment was not a threat to us, our interests or the world. My further opposition to this action stems from how it was sold to the American Public (You know, those of us footing the bill for this Billions per month expenditure) via innuendo, shaky intel and tenuous connections to Al-Q and 9/11. These critiques point directly to the CIC and how he chose to use the military and are not critiques of the soldiers themselves.

Again. I can support you while not supporting the politics that place you in harms way. They are not one and the same.

Edit: And why do I have to lose someone for that particular opinion to have validity? Isn't the desire not to lose some one for no good reason enough?

So many things to reply to! You seriously underestimate my typing laziness! :-) ((I'm home now BTW, but I've been to I & A multiple times))

The problem is that I can't openly agree or disagree with CIC policy on the board. Offline, I'd be more than happy too. I will say that there is alot of validity to what you say (especially with the recent re-heat in Korea staring us in the face now), and if this was a game of Risk or something - if I was king for a day ----- well..............

As far as border security, ect: To me, its really just a matter of taking care of the problem with OUR citizens out of harms way, or letting them continue to pick us apart in our own yard.

Iraq - I dont see how Saddam/Iraq turned in to some weak kid we picked on. Even without the WMD's, he gased his own people, killed tens of thousands. People there dont all hate us (contrary to every news story) - I'm not convinced it was a bad idea to go there. Whether or not Democracy sticks....... ??? who knows.

To answer the edit - You dont have to have lost someone for your opinion to be valid. I, personally, can just sympathize more with someone who makes the statement we're discussing, when they have lost someone to the war. They know the rigors of military life and the bond we share - so I just view them as more invested in it, more than me fortunately. Life is worth more than money (and I do pay taxes too!!) :-)

I'm glad to know that you dont want anyone to get hurt out there. Who would?

Again, for clarification, I value everyones opinion, I encourage respectable debates among my subordinates - but I also tend to give more credit to an arguement based on a persons investment in the subject.

For example - there are several members on this board (to include you - just so you know I'm not trying to fight with you here!!) who's opinion on Redskins matters mean more to me than others. There are several people here who do their homework and are clearly more educated on those matters, so I read what they say mostly, and take in the rest just for S&G's......... and I'll be honest - I can say that everyone reading this thread has more government and policy knowledge than I do - that's why I read it - to get perspective that isn't force fed to me on TV. Which is why I usually dont chime in on this forum. But I had personal experience with what was bing discussed - so i'm sharing. I'm happy to give my opinion since your asking - but I'm not going to presume to change your mind - I know you know what you're talking about - I'm only offering the world how I see it.


How am I doing? lol

[akhhorus]

Iraq - I dont see how Saddam/Iraq turned in to some weak kid we picked on. Even without the WMD's, he gased his own people, killed tens of thousands.

I believe, not just as an american but as a political scientist, that this is an extremely dangerous standard to justify American military action. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but then why did we select him and not Kim Jong-Il, Obiang, Chinese Communist leadership, and any other of a dozen(s) of dictators and oppressive leadership groups for regime change? I'm not trying to argue the causes of the Iraq war, but I think if you use some sort of moral high ground to justify(past tense justification) a military action, you're opening up a can of worms no one wants to.

[Sweepea436]

I think you're confusing the issue. War is your job as a soldier, but that doesn't mean that people have to support everything you've been ordered to do in your job. By your logic, if you like a TV channel, you have to like every show on the channel or you don't like it. This country was founded on the right for even the minority to dissent(and try to change), so saying that you have to support every policy that's been decided after the decision has been made is fairly well absurd if we're talking about America.

EDIT: I think that there's a distinction between loving the soldier for what they do and hating the politician for making questionable decisions. You can hate the politician without criticizing the soldier.


No you dont but public opinion can seriously effect the psyche of soldiers and .... on the fencers? Its hard enough to do what we have to do and live any semblance of a normal life (see: military divorce rate) - without having to listen to people tell you your sacrifice is a waste of time and money.

I'll repeat for the sake of having the same sentiments towards you - I know you know what your talking about - i enjoy your insight on most topics - so I'm not trying to fight or change your mind - just speaking from the heart through my eyes.

I dont doubt you have very good reasons for not agreeing with the war - but the support the soldier not the war sentiment just seems empty hearted. I have no clue what you do for a living but being a good hearted human - I genuinely hope you dont get injured in any way shape or form going to, from or while at your job. That's human....... wait..... i just re read this and I think I kind of made your point -LMAO - I

guess I just equate the statement to a shot at the pride we have as soldiers. It's purely unscientific but most people I know personally belive that we have made many changes for the better over there. It just irks me a little that because you dont like the person that made us go to do what we do - that it discredits the good that we have done there. Does that make sense?

[Sweepea436]

I believe, not just as an american but as a political scientist, that this is an extremely dangerous standard to justify American military action. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but then why did we select him and not Kim Jong-Il, Obiang, Chinese Communist leadership, and any other of a dozen(s) of dictators and oppressive leadership groups for regime change? I'm not trying to argue the causes of the Iraq war, but I think if you use some sort of moral high ground to justify(past tense justification) a military action, you're opening up a can of worms no one wants to.


Probably why I'm not wearing a suit. And definitely not in to canned worm opening. I'm just saying that we didn't throw a dart at a map and attack (to my knowledge). And yeah, the rest of those people aren't living very saintly lives either. Do I agree with us being world police? Nope. I wish were were just border security as was mentioned before, however, whether you hate us for it, or like us for it - thats what the world sees us as and expects us to be. But like you said that's a whole different subject that I'm trying mightily not to get in over my head with....... :)

[akhhorus]

No you dont but public opinion can seriously effect the psyche of soldiers and .... on the fencers? Its hard enough to do what we have to do and live any semblance of a normal life (see: military divorce rate) - without having to listen to people tell you your sacrifice is a waste of time and money.

Well, I'm sorry if soldiers and their families are hurt by criticism of the war, but the critics aren't attacking them, they're attacking the decision makers of the war, not those who fight it. I have yet to hear any mainstream criticism of the Iraq war from anyone who criticized the soldiers.

I'll repeat for the sake of having the same sentiments towards you - I know you know what your talking about - i enjoy your insight on most topics - so I'm not trying to fight or change your mind - just speaking from the heart through my eyes.


I appreciate where you're coming from on this one. Trust me. And it breaks my heart that soldiers are hurt by people criticizing the war, but if the choice is:
1-No dissent and unquestioned/unwavering support for a war, whether or not its a good decision.
2-Free and open dissent, whether or not people are hurt by it.

I'll take #2 because thats what the country is founded on.

I dont doubt you have very good reasons for not agreeing with the war - but the support the soldier not the war sentiment just seems empty hearted. I have no clue what you do for a living but being a good hearted human - I genuinely hope you dont get injured in any way shape or form going to, from or while at your job. That's human....... wait..... i just re read this and I think I kind of made your point -LMAO - I


But criticizing the decision to go to war isn't criticizing the sacrifices anyone has made in the war.

I guess I just equate the statement to a shot at the pride we have as soldiers. It's purely unscientific but most people I know personally belive that we have made many changes for the better over there. It just irks me a little that because you dont like the person that made us go to do what we do - that it discredits the good that we have done there. Does that make sense?

We have done a lot of good there, and while I supported the war initially, it doesn't justify the bad that has happened there to everyone involved. Criticizing why we went to war or criticizing the war in general isn't criticizing what any soldier has given in the war. Its criticizing the politicians who made the decision to go to war.

[Sweepea436]

Well, I'm sorry if soldiers and their families are hurt by criticism of the war, but the critics aren't attacking them, they're attacking the decision makers of the war, not those who fight it. I have yet to hear any mainstream criticism of the Iraq war from anyone who criticized the soldiers.



I appreciate where you're coming from on this one. Trust me. And it breaks my heart that soldiers are hurt by people criticizing the war, but if the choice is:
1-No dissent and unquestioned/unwavering support for a war, whether or not its a good decision.
2-Free and open dissent, whether or not people are hurt by it.

I'll take #2 because thats what the country is founded on.



But criticizing the decision to go to war isn't criticizing the sacrifices anyone has made in the war.



We have done a lot of good there, and while I supported the war initially, it doesn't justify the bad that has happened there to everyone involved. Criticizing why we went to war or criticizing the war in general isn't criticizing what any soldier has given in the war. Its criticizing the politicians who made the decision to go to war.

Ok - I agree that you shouldn't blindly follow any decisions made by a political figure. But I didn't get involved with this thread from the political slant. A couple of folks were speculating on a military persons perspective on the statement, and (knowing that I dont speak for all military members) I gave mine..... it snowballed a bit from there, but I maintain my stance that I know nothing about policy, yet have opinions on EVERYTHING!! :) I just enjoy reading about it and other peoples opinions.

I wont (ever) try to disprove any theories in this forum, I wholeheartedly believe you'd all tear me to shreds as soon as I posture one way or another. So I'll thank you for your support - digest your opinions (all) and keep on defending your right to have them!! I hope you'll all stay as nice to me the next time I dare to "double dutch" in and out of a debate!! Cheers

EDIT: Heading out the door - I'll be back trolling tomorrow!!

[RedskinsDave]

Hey speak for yourself!

I am already gearing up to throw some of the right's crap back in their face.

That's a two way street. You and yours have taken disrespect to all new lows and I don't think I have any choice but to return the favor.

There was a thread on another board where a con was making comments about the cost of Michelle's outfits and I told him to cut it out and noted that they don't cost America a dime. I regret it now after seeing some of the comments lefties have made.

[Ibleedburgundy]

That's a two way street.

Hell yeah it is, which is why I took your exact quote and changed "left" to "right."

You and yours have taken disrespect to all new lows


Oh stop it, American politics have always been like this. It goes with the territory. Besides, I am in no way responsible for what some butthead says any more that you are responsible for what Ann Coulter says.

And please, try and make the case that I/the left are any more disrespectful to GWB than you/the right are to Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy.

and I don't think I have any choice but to return the favor.


Nobody is forcing you to climb into the mudpit. It's always gonna be there.

There was a thread on another board where a con was making comments about the cost of Michelle's outfits and I told him to cut it out and noted that they don't cost America a dime. I regret it now after seeing some of the comments lefties have made

How much did the banana suit cost anyway? J/K, I thought she looked fine. Regardless of the forum, I'm pretty sure criticizing a politician's family is not an effective way to win a political debate. I think your initial reaction was correct.

[Keino]

I am only going to deal with these 2 quoted sections:


The problem is that I can't openly agree or disagree with CIC policy on the board. Offline, I'd be more than happy too. I will say that there is alot of validity to what you say (especially with the recent re-heat in Korea staring us in the face now), and if this was a game of Risk or something - if I was king for a day ----- well..............

No, you can't which is why it is important for those of us not duty bound to follow orders without question to ask questions and dissent if those questions are not answered with any degree of satisfaction. In fact, it can be argued that in our dissension, we are supporting the troops with the desire to see them (you) used with more care and efficiency.



Iraq - I dont see how Saddam/Iraq turned in to some weak kid we picked on. Even without the WMD's, he gased his own people, killed tens of thousands. People there dont all hate us (contrary to every news story) - I'm not convinced it was a bad idea to go there. Whether or not Democracy sticks....... ??? who knows.

What made it a bad idea was the fact that we were already in a war on a different front and the Iraq action took away from that war (which everyone and their mama supported by the way). In additon, as I mentioned earlier, Iraq did not represent a credible threat. Every attempt to paint them as such was ridiculous, from tying them to 9/11 to the BS Yellowcake Uranium purchase from Nigeria.

I am/was not opposed to taking out Saddam, eventually. I was opposed to opening up a new war front with no plan and no conclusion in sight to the first war front.

[remaxjon]

You really have no clue what you're talking about. The govt doesn't just print new money when they want to fund some massive project. They borrow the money from central banks(or issue bonds). Even when the fed reserve or treasury buys assets as you so simplistically put it, they're giving them currency that came from somewhere(loans, credits, assets sales, bonds).



.
Thats right the government barrows money it doesn't have and puts that money into the market to pay for things tax dollars can't. This way they never have to raise your taxes just make more money. The money in theory will be paid back but that doesn't change the fact that a bunch of money was just put into the economy. Money that came from thin air backed by nothing.

PS
If you have any sell your bonds
get out of the dollar
google Peter Schiff
stop being pompous

[akhhorus]

Thats right the government barrows money it doesn't have and puts that money into the market to pay for things tax dollars can't.

Coming from someone who's a mortgage broker, you seem to totally hate one of the underpinning of your profession.

This way they never have to raise your taxes just make more money.

Thats not true at all.

The money in theory will be paid back but that doesn't change the fact that a bunch of money was just put into the economy. Money that came from thin air backed by nothing.

You're still totally clueless. The money comes from somewhere, and the money has to be paid back. That money didn't come from thin air. And they certainly aren't just "printing up more money." When are you going to bother to fact check what you read on the Paul forums?

PS
If you have any sell your bonds
get out of the dollar
google Peter Schiff
stop being pompous

1. I know who Peter Schiff is. He was right about the subprime meltdown, but it doesn't take much insight to see that mortgages handed out to people who shouldn't have gotten them(and/or backed them with securities), and then the financial companies tying themselves to this bad paper would lead to problems. He was far from the only person predicting the crash.
2. Pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about isn't being pompous.

[remaxjon]

I'm not a mortgage broker

everything I typed was true especially the last thing and that goes for this topic or any other

[akhhorus]

I'm not a mortgage broker

Sorry, a real estate agent. You're still critical of one of the underpinnings of your profession.

everything I typed was true especially the last thing and that goes for this topic or any other

Considering that you're wrong about fundamental facts about the economy(nevermind your nativity when it comes to US politics and foreign policy), you haven't been right/true once here. Please for once fact check what the Paultards tell you to believe.

[Sweepea436]

I am only going to deal with these 2 quoted sections:



No, you can't which is why it is important for those of us not duty bound to follow orders without question to ask questions and dissent if those questions are not answered with any degree of satisfaction. In fact, it can be argued that in our dissension, we are supporting the troops with the desire to see them (you) used with more care and efficiency.





What made it a bad idea was the fact that we were already in a war on a different front and the Iraq action took away from that war (which everyone and their mama supported by the way). In additon, as I mentioned earlier, Iraq did not represent a credible threat. Every attempt to paint them as such was ridiculous, from tying them to 9/11 to the BS Yellowcake Uranium purchase from Nigeria.

I am/was not opposed to taking out Saddam, eventually. I was opposed to opening up a new war front with no plan and no conclusion in sight to the first war front.

While I'm sure there is a strategy to what we did in Iraq, and are doing in Afghanistan - most of our success seems to be coming from acting rapidly on intel/chatter we get from the field.

We know now, after investigation - that the intel we acted on was bad. But I can't blame them for acting on what they had. We had just been attacked on our own soil a year earlier - no Iraq didnt do it - but lets not fool ourselves in to thinking that the whole middle east didnt have an eye on us, waiting for a moment of weakness. I (me personally -- one man who's opinion matters little in the grand scheme of things) didn't mind being proactive. You said you wouldn't have minded going after Saddam later..... how much later? After he DID get strong enough to attack us? Ask his own people how credible a threat he was.....

Trust me, after the "right sizing" of our troops - I wasn't super-excited to know that I'd be spending at least half of each year inhaling sand. We are feeling the effects of being stretched thin. But...... picture a tennis ball machine. Each terrorist faction or country that harbors them has a tennis ball machine pointed at us. Everytime they build up enough funds, materials, ect. - they are going to fire a shot at us. Do we sit back and try to return serve all day, or go try to shut the machines off?

[akhhorus]

We know now, after investigation - that the intel we acted on was bad. But I can't blame them for acting on what they had.

But, we were willfully blind to the problems with that intel. Most of the WMD case came from a German intel source inside Iraq(who defected in 2002), and no other intel agency thought he was credible since he was caught in so many lies about his claims and had alcohol problems. A group of WMD CIA analysts sued the White House for pressuring them to come up with what they wanted to hear(it was settled before it could get to discovery).

We had just been attacked on our own soil a year earlier - no Iraq didnt do it - but lets not fool ourselves in to thinking that the whole middle east didnt have an eye on us, waiting for a moment of weakness. I (me personally -- one man who's opinion matters little in the grand scheme of things) didn't mind being proactive.

No one in the Middle East can even take on Israel, how are they going to take us on?

You said you wouldn't have minded going after Saddam later..... how much later? After he DID get strong enough to attack us? Ask his own people how credible a threat he was.....

Again, by this logic, we should be "removing" plenty of our allies from across the globe. Saddam was a nuisance, but removing him hasn't been worth the cost or the trouble.

Trust me, after the "right sizing" of our troops - I wasn't super-excited to know that I'd be spending at least half of each year inhaling sand. We are feeling the effects of being stretched thin. But...... picture a tennis ball machine. Each terrorist faction or country that harbors them has a tennis ball machine pointed at us. Everytime they build up enough funds, materials, ect. - they are going to fire a shot at us. Do we sit back and try to return serve all day, or go try to shut the machines off?

There's ways to destroy terrorist networks without committing a trillion dollars and 4000 lives each time(nevermind that Iraq never harbored Al Queda or supported them). Look at how we're disrupting AQ and their Pakistani allies with drones firing outside of Pakistan at the cost of a couple million a drone+40,000 dollars a missile. For 1 billion dollars, we can have a fleet of drones circling near any country that harbors Al Queda and it gives us near-instant strike capabilities when we find a target.

[Keino]

I'll just add that the policy of containment essentially kept Saddam from accumulating the additional power necessary to make him relevant outside of Iraq's borders.

[Sweepea436]

But, we were willfully blind to the problems with that intel. Most of the WMD case came from a German intel source inside Iraq(who defected in 2002), and no other intel agency thought he was credible since he was caught in so many lies about his claims and had alcohol problems. A group of WMD CIA analysts sued the White House for pressuring them to come up with what they wanted to hear(it was settled before it could get to discovery).



No one in the Middle East can even take on Israel, how are they going to take us on?



Again, by this logic, we should be "removing" plenty of our allies from across the globe. Saddam was a nuisance, but removing him hasn't been worth the cost or the trouble.



There's ways to destroy terrorist networks without committing a trillion dollars and 4000 lives each time(nevermind that Iraq never harbored Al Queda or supported them). Look at how we're disrupting AQ and their Pakistani allies with drones firing outside of Pakistan at the cost of a couple million a drone+40,000 dollars a missile. For 1 billion dollars, we can have a fleet of drones circling near any country that harbors Al Queda and it gives us near-instant strike capabilities when we find a target.

Yeah.... I'm not smart enough to figure out the multi-quote deal so this'll have to do.

You raise great points, I wish this didn't have to take place on the computer, because it takes me all day to type out what i want to say (one of my aforementioned shortcomings).

--I see what your saying about discrediting the German intel source, but wasn't it intel that wasn't acted on that led to the 9/11 attack? I dont see anybody who wants to keep their livelihood making the same mistake twice.

--Israel had our backing all the way up until this most recent offensive didn't they? If so, that would explain that to me

--Yeah, I thought about that after I sent it - I'm not condoning overthrowing every country that has ever burned our flag in protest, but Hussein was a nightmare to his own people (the Kurds think its worth it). He needed to be gone. They didnt hang him for WMD's. We shouldn't have given him a pass in Bush version1.

-- The drones are working well, probably the way of the future - but you can't just waltz in to a country and set up shop "just in case". It takes bodies& money to do that. I'm not saying that we haven't spent an insane amount of money on this war - but we have been spending alot of time/resources adapting to the asymetric battlefield. We need to seriously study this conflict when (if) it ends and get a strategy to adapt to an enemy that doesn't play by the "rules" - given. Problem is, we were already set up with the expensive toys before we got in to this thing - when all we really needed (UAV's aside) was special forces and a supply chain.

[akhhorus]

Yeah.... I'm not smart enough to figure out the multi-quote deal so this'll have to do.

You raise great points, I wish this didn't have to take place on the computer, because it takes me all day to type out what i want to say (one of my aforementioned shortcomings).

--I see what your saying about discrediting the German intel source, but wasn't it intel that wasn't acted on that led to the 9/11 attack? I dont see anybody who wants to keep their livelihood making the same mistake twice.


I see what you're saying, but you still have to consider the source you get it from. Before 9-11, different agencies had different pieces of the puzzle, but it was direct proof, not accusation from a discredited source. And the WH was leaning on the CIA to strip out all their doubts from their WMD intel before they presented it to congress. In one of Woodward's books, Tenet and Rumsfeld briefs Bush on the WMD evidence in 2002, and Bush thinks its crap.

And for the record, we ignored Intel that Saudis got from the capture of an Al Queda paymaster who was behind the London Tube bombings.

--Israel had our backing all the way up until this most recent offensive didn't they? If so, that would explain that to me


No Middle Eastern nation has the military capabilities to take on Israel in a war, even if we didn't back up Israel at all. No Middle Eastern nation has the abilities to defend against a determined US attack, so any "aspirations" they might have had before and after 9-11 were insanity. Even if a country wanted to kick the US in the balls before a planned attack, no one would deal with Al Queda to make that happen. Iraq under Saddam was a pan-arabist nationalist based government who AQ is totally opposed to. Iran is a Shia religious theocracy, AQ is a Sunni religious terrorist group. Iran's arrested any and all members of AQ they catch before they hate each other more than they hate us.

--Yeah, I thought about that after I sent it - I'm not condoning overthrowing every country that has ever burned our flag in protest, but Hussein was a nightmare to his own people (the Kurds think its worth it). He needed to be gone. They didnt hang him for WMD's. We shouldn't have given him a pass in Bush version1.


We invaded because of WMDs. And if a leader is such a problem, then sign a President finding authorizing his assassination. Thats perfectly legal here.

-- The drones are working well, probably the way of the future - but you can't just waltz in to a country and set up shop "just in case". It takes bodies& money to do that. I'm not saying that we haven't spent an insane amount of money on this war - but we have been spending alot of time/resources adapting to the asymetric battlefield. We need to seriously study this conflict when (if) it ends and get a strategy to adapt to an enemy that doesn't play by the "rules" - given. Problem is, we were already set up with the expensive toys before we got in to this thing - when all we really needed (UAV's aside) was special forces and a supply chain.

You can run them from a friendly country nearby(which is how we do it for Pakistan) or off an aircraft carrier off the nearest coast. If the goal is to rid the world of Al Queda(you technically can't fight "terrorism" since its a verb and not a noun), you can't invade every single country that has Al Queda members within its borders. The United States would needs ten of millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars to accomplish that if invasion is justified(nevermind that Al Queda wasn't in Iraq before we invaded). Iraq might have changed how we fight terrorism, but the drones were in the pipeline long before 9-11 and in use in Afghanistan before we invaded Iraq.

[Sweepea436]

I see what you're saying, but you still have to consider the source you get it from. Before 9-11, different agencies had different pieces of the puzzle, but it was direct proof, not accusation from a discredited source. And the WH was leaning on the CIA to strip out all their doubts from their WMD intel before they presented it to congress. In one of Woodward's books, Tenet and Rumsfeld briefs Bush on the WMD evidence in 2002, and Bush thinks its crap.

And for the record, we ignored Intel that Saudis got from the capture of an Al Queda paymaster who was behind the London Tube bombings.



No Middle Eastern nation has the military capabilities to take on Israel in a war, even if we didn't back up Israel at all. No Middle Eastern nation has the abilities to defend against a determined US attack, so any "aspirations" they might have had before and after 9-11 were insanity. Even if a country wanted to kick the US in the balls before a planned attack, no one would deal with Al Queda to make that happen. Iraq under Saddam was a pan-arabist nationalist based government who AQ is totally opposed to. Iran is a Shia religious theocracy, AQ is a Sunni religious terrorist group. Iran's arrested any and all members of AQ they catch before they hate each other more than they hate us.



We invaded because of WMDs. And if a leader is such a problem, then sign a President finding authorizing his assassination. Thats perfectly legal here.



You can run them from a friendly country nearby(which is how we do it for Pakistan) or off an aircraft carrier off the nearest coast. If the goal is to rid the world of Al Queda(you technically can't fight "terrorism" since its a verb and not a noun), you can't invade every single country that has Al Queda members within its borders. The United States would needs ten of millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars to accomplish that if invasion is justified(nevermind that Al Queda wasn't in Iraq before we invaded). Iraq might have changed how we fight terrorism, but the drones were in the pipeline long before 9-11 and in use in Afghanistan before we invaded Iraq.


I'm learning alot here. Not being funny - I spend most of my time on here reading these threads because they are interesting (and sometimes funny).

I've taken MY part of this conversation about as far as I can with my own knowledge on the subject -- Anything else would PURELY be ripped off some web site. I'm sorry I can't roll any further with you - but i'll keep reading up - and when I'm not feeling stupid for having to look up half the things you guys discuss in here :thinker:- I might jump back in.

Hope I didnt disappoint too bad :Peace:

[Keino]

Sweepa I think you handled yourself admirably. You came in, gave your perspective and how you reached your conclusions and you were open to people making counter-points and you even considered them.

At the end of the day we all learn from each other by sharing perspectives.

[Sweepea436]

Sweepa I think you handled yourself admirably. You came in, gave your perspective and how you reached your conclusions and you were open to people making counter-points and you even considered them.

At the end of the day we all learn from each other by sharing perspectives.

Yeah, and I'm in my infancy here when it comes to..... well.... most things politics, mainly because I dont usually believe a word I read. But it's almost like a puzzle trying to find the truth in the BS - I'm starting to get addicted to following it all - and I've achieved many more "lightbulb" moments in following the back and forth in here than most anywhere else. So for that - I thank you all!

And I chose to bow out gracefully because i've seen what happens when people run out of material and start pulling stuff out of their a@@es on this site.:devil1: Nobody wants to be THAT guy! Haha. I'm glad the password was taken off this section.

[RedskinsDave]

I'll just add that the policy of containment essentially kept Saddam from accumulating the additional power necessary to make him relevant outside of Iraq's borders.

We won't know if that's true until we're done looking. :Peace:

[Biggie]

Hey speak for yourself!

I am already gearing up to throw some of the right's crap back in their face.
I don't agree with this at all. The thing I hated most about the Bush administration was the entire atmosphere of right-left conflict and divisiveness - Rove divided the country so he could conquer it. That needs to end, and one of the things I like about President Obama is that he doesn't insult and demean people who disagree with his point of view (look at how he reacted to Biden making fun of Chief Justice Roberts). Being a conservative does not make you a bad person, and I know better than to think that Rush Limbaugh represents everyone who identifies themselves as a member of the "right".

[lorimike]

I don't agree with this at all. The thing I hated most about the Bush administration was the entire atmosphere of right-left conflict and divisiveness - Rove divided the country so he could conquer it. That needs to end, and one of the things I like about President Obama is that he doesn't insult and demean people who disagree with his point of view (look at how he reacted to Biden making fun of Chief Justice Roberts). Being a conservative does not make you a bad person, and I know better than to think that Rush Limbaugh represents everyone who identifies themselves as a member of the "right".
<<<<

Obama has all the maintream media to be the playground bully for him. Partisanship is part of politics. Democrats griped and kicked and screamed since day one of Bush's presidency. They even chanted nah nah nah , eh eh eh goodbye to Bush during the innauguration ceremony. I think it cuts both ways but Democrats seem to be much more mean about it.

[fpickering]

damn pesky media destroyed the economy, had a horrible responsse in Katrina, and hid the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Damn media


Now hold on a second. I am no big fan of Bush but I have to respond to your post.

1. Bush did not destroy the economy.

The factors that went into the destruction the economy were the ridiculous liberal policies and moronic liberal politicians who pressured banks to give loans to unqualified persons who could not afford them. In addition, it was the greed, irresponsibility and negligence of the banks and mortgage corporations themselves and their boards that exist to protect the shareholders. Finally and generally speaking, it was the persons themselves who took out loans that they simply were not prepared or able to repay.

2. You can't blame Bush for Katrina.

Bush did not call for a category 5 storm to converge on New Orleans. He did not delay the construction of capable levies when it was known that they would only hold for a category 3 storm. He was not responsible for coming up with the evacuation plan, etc...
The bottom line is that Katrina was a horrible and unfortunate natural disaster and if you had to blame anyone it would have to be local and state government officials.
The city of New Orleans was also flooded in 1947 and 1965, were those incidents Bush's fault too?

3. WMD in Iraq

Every intelligence agency on the planet, including our own CIA agreed that Saddam had WMD. So, are you blaming him for believing the CIA?

[akhhorus]

Now hold on a second. I am no big fan of Bush but I have to respond to your post.

1. Bush did not destroy the economy.

The factors that went into the destruction the economy were the ridiculous liberal policies and moronic liberal politicians who pressured banks to give loans to unqualified persons who could not afford them. In addition, it was the greed, irresponsibility and negligence of the banks and mortgage corporations themselves and their boards that exist to protect the shareholders. Finally and generally speaking, it was the persons themselves who took out loans that they simply were not prepared or able to repay.


There were no government programs that "pressured" banks to give out loans to those who weren't qualified for it. The low income home owner policies started under Clinton(and continued under Bush) were backed by secured government bonds(not securities) and there were never were enough of these loans to make any difference with the subprime meltdown. Freddie and Fannie mac didn't give out enough subprime loans to be the problem either. What created this subprime crisis was zero oversight of the mortgages(thanks to the OTS totally refusing to do any oversight, they were even letting banks file false statements) and of the Credit default swaps(and the banks tying themselves to it thanks to Gramm-Lugar) along with no one in any position of power believing that home values could sink, not any social programs.


2. You can't blame Bush for Katrina.

Bush did not call for a category 5 storm to converge on New Orleans. He did not delay the construction of capable levies when it was known that they would only hold for a category 3 storm. He was not responsible for coming up with the evacuation plan, etc...
The bottom line is that Katrina was a horrible and unfortunate natural disaster and if you had to blame anyone it would have to be local and state government officials.
The city of New Orleans was also flooded in 1947 and 1965, were those incidents Bush's fault too?


Katrina and the levees breaking weren't Bush's fault. Putting a nimrod in charge of FEMA and showing zero leadership during Katrina were his fault.

3. WMD in Iraq

Every intelligence agency on the planet, including our own CIA agreed that Saddam had WMD. So, are you blaming him for believing the CIA?

1. The main source for the intel was "curveball" a drunk who everyone believed was lying. No one was told until after the war about his flaws.
2. The "sources" of intel was from the Iraq exile groups under Chalabi, needless to say, they had a motive to get us to kick Saddam out.
3. Several CIA analysts sued the White House because they were being politically pressured(probably by Addington and Scooter Libby), the White House stripped out all the CIA's doubts in the Intel that was presented to congress in 2002.

[fpickering]

I believe, not just as an american but as a political scientist, that this is an extremely dangerous standard to justify American military action.

I am not sure if I would have invaded Iraq but to be fair we don't have all of the details and access to all of the information. However, just playing devils advocate:

How about repetitive violations of UN resolutions?

Repeatedly Firing on US Aircraft in the no fly zone?

Saddam attempting to assassinate Bush (41)?

Creating a "safe haven" for terrorist and 9/11 collaborator Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ansar al-Islam, a large terrorist network associated with Al Qaeda?

How about this -> "He (Saddam Hussein) has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members." - Then NY Senator Hillary Clinton

etc, etc, etc.

[akhhorus]

I am not sure if I would have invaded Iraq but to be fair we don't have all of the details and access to all of the information. However, just playing devils advocate:

How about repetitive violations of UN resolutions?


So are we invading Israel next because they violate UN Resolutions?

Repeatedly Firing on US Aircraft in the no fly zone?

That justifies an invasion, how?

Saddam attempting to assassinate Bush (41)?


Then assassinate Saddam.

Creating a "safe haven" for terrorist and 9/11 collaborator Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ansar al-Islam, a large terrorist network associated with Al Qaeda?


Zarqawi wasn't in Iraq until late 2002, and then he was in the Kurdish controlled areas. Ansar al-Islam was protected by a faction of Kurds, not Saddam(and funded by Iran, Saddam's mortal enemy).

How about this -> "He (Saddam Hussein) has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members." - Then NY Senator Hillary Clinton

etc, etc, etc.

Yet another thing Hillary is wrong about. Saddam was not in bed with Al Queda any way you want to slice it.

[Biggie]

<<<<

Obama has all the maintream media to be the playground bully for him. Partisanship is part of politics. Democrats griped and kicked and screamed since day one of Bush's presidency. They even chanted nah nah nah , eh eh eh goodbye to Bush during the innauguration ceremony. I think it cuts both ways but Democrats seem to be much more mean about it.
I'll admit that I was a very vocal critic of the Bush administration and was very happy to see him go. I criticized his administration because it deserved it, as evidenced by the historically-low approval ratings.

To say that Democrats are meaner about it... I wouldn't go that far. In the last eight years, "liberal" has been transformed into a swear word, and it wasn't the liberals that did it.

[akhhorus]

There were no government programs that "pressured" banks to give out loans to those who weren't qualified for it. The low income home owner policies started under Clinton(and continued under Bush) were backed by secured government bonds(not securities) and there were never were enough of these loans to make any difference with the subprime meltdown. Freddie and Fannie mac didn't give out enough subprime loans to be the problem either. What created this subprime crisis was zero oversight of the mortgages(thanks to the OTS totally refusing to do any oversight, they were even letting banks file false statements) and of the Credit default swaps(and the banks tying themselves to it thanks to Gramm-Lugar) along with no one in any position of power believing that home values could sink, not any social programs.


Some detail on this:
http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:TcA9Tzx4aqgJ:www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/barr021308.pdf+subprime+University+of+Michigan%27s +Michael+Barr&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

In short: 80% of the subprime loans given out were given out by independent mortgage brokers(banks and mortgage service companies) that weren't subject to the Community Reinvestment Act(the low income housing program), so how could that act been the problem?

[fpickering]

What created this subprime crisis was zero oversight of the mortgages(thanks to the OTS totally refusing to do any oversight, they were even letting banks file false statements) and of the Credit default swaps(and the banks tying themselves to it thanks to Gramm-Lugar), not any social programs.


The credit default swaps were responsible for the downfall of AIG but without the failing mortgages to drive them, credit default swaps would not have ever been an issue. The bottom line is that people were being given loans that could not afford them and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd did defend Fannie and Freddie despite efforts by Republicans to regulate the agencies due to concerns regarding their financials.

The bottom line is, Bush was not to blame.


Katrina and the levees breaking weren't Bush's fault. Putting a nimrod in charge of FEMA and showing zero leadership during Katrina were his fault.


Again, if you are going to lay blame then you must blame the local and state governments who failed their constituents. They are responsible for building levies that would withstand category 5 storms, they were responsible for evacuation efforts. The State and Local governments categorically failed.
I am the first to say that I hate inept political appointees but I have to say that I find it extremely ironic that you would talk bad about a Presidential appointment today of all days , given that our Liberal Congress just approved the appointment of a Tax Cheat for Sec. of Treasury!




1. The main source for the intel was "curveball" a drunk who everyone believed was lying. No one was told until after the war about his flaws.
2. The "sources" of intel was from the Iraq exile groups under Chalabi, needless to say, they had a motive to get us to kick Saddam out.
3. Several CIA analysts sued the White House because they were being politically pressured(probably by Addington and Scooter Libby), the White House stripped out all the CIA's doubts in the Intel that was presented to congress in 2002.

This does not disprove the fact that every intelligence agency on the planet agreed that Saddam had WMD.

[Keino]

I'll admit that I was a very vocal critic of the Bush administration and was very happy to see him go. I criticized his administration because it deserved it, as evidenced by the historically-low approval ratings.

To say that Democrats are meaner about it... I wouldn't go that far. In the last eight years, "liberal" has been transformed into a swear word, and it wasn't the liberals that did it.

That actually began in the early 80s in an effort to overcome the over the top liberalism that guided the policies of the 70s.

And of course Dems aren't meaner about it. I don't think you will find many people who condones that nah nah nah nah chant. My first thought when I heard was "Cmon guys, we don't need to be classles and tarnish this historic moment in the process".

[Keino]

This does not disprove the fact that every intelligence agency on the planet agreed that Saddam had WMD.


Not only is this Hyperbolic, it ignores the fact that there was allegations of "Politicized intelligence". It is not a fact that every intelligence agency on the planet thought Saddam had WMD which is why Germany and France specifically asked us to let the inspectors finish their work (And yes there was politics involved in their positions that I am fully aware of). Are you going to just ignore the cooked "Yellowcake Uranium Purchase" intel? and the subsequent outing of Valerie Plame?

[akhhorus]

The credit default swaps were responsible for the downfall of AIG but without the failing mortgages to drive them, credit default swaps would not have ever been an issue.

Thats exactly the point. The banks were allowed to tie themselves to the CDS because of the lack of regulation.

The bottom line is that people were being given loans that could not afford them and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd did defend Fannie and Freddie despite efforts by Republicans to regulate the agencies due to concerns regarding their financials.

No, thats all wrong. Freddie and Fannie only got into the subprime mortgage business after people saw the danger and thought that shifting the mortgages to those GSEs would prevent the meltdown. Freddie/Fannie weren't seriously involved in subprime mortgages when the problem was growing/ignored.

The bottom line is, Bush was not to blame.


Bush(and Clinton for signing Gramm-Lugar) is to blame for gutting the regulation of the banks which led to the CDM growing to around 500 billion dollars. The OTS was letting WaMu and IndyMac submit false reports so that they could appear solvent!

Again, if you are going to lay blame then you must blame the local and state governments who failed their constituents. They are responsible for building levies that would withstand category 5 storms, they were responsible for evacuation efforts. The State and Local governments categorically failed.

Thats why they have FEMA, no state/local government is capable to deal with a disaster of that scale. FEMA is empowered by Congress to suspend the constitution and take over control of any area in event of disaster. Even a well run state like Texas couldn't deal with the Ike aftermath!

And no, it wasn't Louisiana that built the levees, it was the Army Corps of Engineers.

I am the first to say that I hate inept political appointees but I have to say that I find it extremely ironic that you would talk bad about a Presidential appointment today of all days , given that our Liberal Congress just approved the appointment of a Tax Cheat for Sec. of Treasury!


You would agree that there's a difference between Geithner(who clearly is qualified for that job, despite being a tax cheat) and Mike Brown(who clearly was unqualified for that job).

This does not disprove the fact that every intelligence agency on the planet agreed that Saddam had WMD.

You're not reading what I wrote: no one believed the source we used for our WMD intel and even the CIA had deep reservations about it(even Bush didn't believe the WMD intel at the first briefing over it), so no, you're wrong.

[fpickering]

So are we invading Israel next because they violate UN Resolutions?


Haha, all of the factors that I listed and more that I did not combined
justified the invasion. As I said before, I am not sure that I would have invaded but I am not going to attack Bush for doing so.

I am not sure that you are correct about Zarqawi. There are conflicting reports on his affiliation to the many Iraqi factions. I never said that Al Queda was in bed with Saddam.
I did find a story about an Al Qaeda document that stated Zarqawi was also in the Sunni areas in Central Iraq before the war, areas controlled and loyal to Saddam regime. One would think that if Iraq and Zarqawi were enemies by proxy as you suggested that he would have never done this.
http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=383


Some more really good info:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/334dhoqq.asp

[fpickering]

I'll admit that I was a very vocal critic of the Bush administration and was very happy to see him go. I criticized his administration because it deserved it, as evidenced by the historically-low approval ratings.


The overwhelming majority of liberals would not have approved of his performance no matter what he did.

The lemmings who ignorantly swallowed the extreme liberal bias fed to them by the media and Hollywood certainly would not have approved of the job he was doing, because... hey... Kanye West says he is bad.

Add that to losing favor among his Conservative Base and it is a perfect storm of low approval ratings.


All I am trying to say is that there is a lot that go into approval ratings.

[akhhorus]

Haha, all of the factors that I listed and more that I did not combined justified the invasion. As I said before, I am not sure that I would have invaded but I am not going to attack Bush for doing so.

Fine, believe whatever you want to. I believed in the invasion when we did it, but all the info thats come out about the politicking of the reasons destroy any justification.

I am not sure that you are correct about Zarqawi. There are conflicting reports on his affiliation to the many Iraqi factions. I never said that Al Queda was in bed with Saddam.

You're implying that there was a substantive link between AQ and Saddam(nevermind the philosophical differences they have) because Al-Zarqawi(who wasn't a real member of Al Queda until after the invasion, he had his own group) and Ansar Al-Islam were in Iraq before the invasion. "in bed," "drinking buddies," whatever..use whatever metaphor you want.

I did find a story about an Al Qaeda document that stated Zarqawi was also in the Sunni areas in Central Iraq before the war, areas controlled and loyal to Saddam regime. One would think that if Iraq and Zarqawi were enemies by proxy as you suggested that he would have never done this.
http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=383


So, they're taking a post on a terrorist internet forum as the truth...LOL

Some more really good info:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/334dhoqq.asp

The Weekly Standard article is a howl: Abu Zubaydah was insane(and maybe mentally retarded) and babbled about these insane plots AQ was cooking up. Other detainees have told us that he was actually just some gopher who looked after Bin Laden's wives.

Nevermind that his "corroboration" of this story from Al-Masri, reported in the Sunday Times, was heavily disputed, nevermind this passage:
"Like Zarqawi, many Arabs fleeing American retaliation in Afghanistan after 9/11 found refuge with Ansar al-Islam. But then came an unexpected development. According to Dr Muhammad al-Masari, a Saudi specialist on Al-Qaeda’s ideology, Saddam established contact with the “Afghan Arabs” as early as 2001, believing he would be targeted by the US once the Taliban was routed."

So...
-Zarqawi hides with the Iranian funded terrorists hiding in the Kurdish controlled areas of Iraq
-Saddam made contact after 9-11 with Afghan Arabs(who knows if thats even AQ) according to an AQ mouthpiece(supposedly).

You should read the links they provide. There's zero detail and very vague with their descriptions of the "links."

[akhhorus]

The overwhelming majority of liberals would not have approved of his performance no matter what he did.

The lemmings who ignorantly swallowed the extreme liberal bias fed to them by the media and Hollywood certainly would not have approved of the job he was doing, because... hey... Kanye West says he is bad.

Add that to losing favor among his Conservative Base and it is a perfect storm of low approval ratings.

All I am trying to say is that there is a lot that go into approval ratings.

This is exactly why the GOP(which I'm a member of) lost in 2008(and in 2006). The philosophy of "The problem isn't our ideas or that we got too lazy/corrupt, but because that evil media demonized us!" Its horsesh*t.

[fpickering]

Not only is this Hyperbolic, it ignores the fact that there was allegations of "Politicized intelligence". It is not a fact that every intelligence agency on the planet thought Saddam had WMD which is why Germany and France specifically asked us to let the inspectors finish their work (And yes there was politics involved in their positions that I am fully aware of). Are you going to just ignore the cooked "Yellowcake Uranium Purchase" intel? and the subsequent outing of Valerie Plame?

So much to refute. First, let me reword my statement. It was generally accepted that Saddam had WMD.

Consider this excerpt from a story dated July. 5, 2008:

"The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/


Some have suggested that the yellowcake story was not "cooked" and the "outing" of Valarie Plame was a ridiculous circus perpetuated and fueled by Joe Wilson and the liberal media.



"There's a big difference both legally and ethically between revealing an agent's identity for the revenge purpose of ruining her career, and citing nepotism (truthfully!) to explain to a puzzled reporter why an undistinguished and obviously partisan former ambassador had been sent to investigate this "crazy report" (his wife's words to the Senate). We'd argue that once her husband broke his own cover to become a partisan actor, Ms. Plame's own motives in recommending her husband deserved to become part of the public debate. She had herself become political.

Mr. Wilson also seems to have dissembled about how he concluded that there was nothing to the Iraq-Niger uranium story, serving for example as the anonymous source for a June 12, 2003, Washington Post story saying "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.' " There were some forged documents related to an Iraq-Niger uranium deal. Trouble was, such documents had not even come to the intelligence community (never mind to Mr. Wilson's attention) by the time of his trip, and obviously hadn't been the basis of the report he'd been sent to investigate. He told the Senate he may have "mispoken"--at some length we guess--on this issue.

The Senate Intelligence Committee found, finally, that far from debunking the Iraq-Niger story, Mr. Wilson's debrief was interpreted as providing "some confirmation of foreign government service reporting" that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. Why? Because he'd reported that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki had told him of a 1999 visit by the Iraqis to discuss "commercial relations," which the leader of the one-industry country logically interpreted as interest in uranium.

Remember that Messrs. Bush and Blair only said that Iraq had "sought" or was "trying to buy" uranium, not that it had succeeded. It now appears that both leaders have been far more scrupulous in discussing this and related issues than much of the media in either of their countries, which would embarrass the journalistic profession, if that were possible.

All of this matters because Mr. Wilson's disinformation became the vanguard of a year-long assault on Mr. Bush's credibility. The political goal was to portray the President as a "liar," regardless of the facts. Now that we know those facts, Americans can decide who the real liars are. "

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005354

[hail2skins]

Ahh, this is gonna get good. I'm watching.

[fpickering]

Thats exactly the point. The banks were allowed to tie themselves to the CDS because of the lack of regulation.


Agreed.



No, thats all wrong. Freddie and Fannie only got into the subprime mortgage business after people saw the danger and thought that shifting the mortgages to those GSEs would prevent the meltdown. Freddie/Fannie weren't seriously involved in subprime mortgages when the problem was growing/ignored.


I do not agree with this. Fannie and Freddie were dealing with the subprime loans far before anyone suggested that there would be a meltdown.



The OTS was letting WaMu and IndyMac submit false reports so that they could appear solvent!


I am not sure about this point but I find it to be pretty irrelevant to the topic of the original discussion that Bush was to blame for the economy meltdown.



Thats why they have FEMA, no state/local government is capable to deal with a disaster of that scale. FEMA is empowered by Congress to suspend the constitution and take over control of any area in event of disaster. Even a well run state like Texas couldn't deal with the Ike aftermath!

And no, it wasn't Louisiana that built the levees, it was the Army Corps of Engineers.


FEMA is designed to arrive after the disaster has struck. The damage was already done and no one should have remained in New Orleans. The evacuation planning was a nightmare and woefully filled with incompetence.

I know that the Army Corps of Engineers built the levies but there were multiple reports over the years that stated that they would not withstand anything over a category 3 storm and their legislators ignored said reports and failed to act.




You would agree that there's a difference between Geithner(who clearly is qualified for that job, despite being a tax cheat) and Mike Brown(who clearly was unqualified for that job).


I don't know if Brown was qualified for the job and neither do you unless you have worked with him. In addition, we are not qualified to comment on his capacity to lead FEMA as we have no experience in disaster recovery.

I would argue wholehardedly that being a tax cheat absolutely disqualifies you to hold any office. I understand that his penalty was waived. That just gets my blood boiling. I am sick and tired of all of the corruption that is pervasive amongst people in positions of power.


You're not reading what I wrote: no one believed the source we used for our WMD intel and even the CIA had deep reservations about it(even Bush didn't believe the WMD intel at the first briefing over it), so no, you're wrong.

Discounting the source of the intel there were still widespread beliefs that Saddam had WMD. I would agree that this idea is very much in contention but to state unequivicocally that there were no WMD would be foolhardy IMO.

[fpickering]

You're implying that there was a substantive link between AQ and Saddam(nevermind the philosophical differences they have) because Al-Zarqawi(who wasn't a real member of Al Queda until after the invasion, he had his own group) and Ansar Al-Islam were in Iraq before the invasion. "in bed," "drinking buddies," whatever..use whatever metaphor you want.


I am not implying what you state. I am saying that evidence suggests that Saddam's Iraq harbored terrorists and their affiliation to one another is in dispute.



The Weekly Standard article is a howl: Abu Zubaydah was insane(and maybe mentally retarded) and babbled about these insane plots AQ was cooking up. Other detainees have told us that he was actually just some gopher who looked after Bin Laden's wives.

Nevermind that his "corroboration" of this story from Al-Masri, reported in the Sunday Times, was heavily disputed, nevermind this passage:
"Like Zarqawi, many Arabs fleeing American retaliation in Afghanistan after 9/11 found refuge with Ansar al-Islam. But then came an unexpected development. According to Dr Muhammad al-Masari, a Saudi specialist on Al-Qaeda’s ideology, Saddam established contact with the “Afghan Arabs” as early as 2001, believing he would be targeted by the US once the Taliban was routed."

So...
-Zarqawi hides with the Iranian funded terrorists hiding in the Kurdish controlled areas of Iraq
-Saddam made contact after 9-11 with Afghan Arabs(who knows if thats even AQ) according to an AQ mouthpiece(supposedly).

You should read the links they provide. There's zero detail and very vague with their descriptions of the "links."


a lot of unsubstantiated stuff there on your part. I actually have to run. take it easy.

[akhhorus]

Agreed.

And the Banks were allowed to get into the CDM thanks to Bush's lack of regulation and the Gramm-Lugar bill of 2000(which was a bi-partisan failure).

I do not agree with this. Fannie and Freddie were dealing with the subprime loans far before anyone suggested that there would be a meltdown.

They were backing the subprime loans(not giving them out) until about 2005-2006(generally speaking). The private banks, and primarily guys like Wamu, IndyMac, Long Beach Financial(who almost took down Wachovia) and Countrywide Financial were giving out the subprime loans more than anyone else.

I am not sure about this point but I find it to be pretty irrelevant to the topic of the original discussion that Bush was to blame for the economy meltdown.


The fact that the regulators under Bush were allowing banks to falsify their statements is pretty relevant to a discussion about how Bush screwed up the economy.

FEMA is designed to arrive after the disaster has struck. The damage was already done and no one should have remained in New Orleans. The evacuation planning was a nightmare and woefully filled with incompetence.


Except for when they have warning of a disaster, then FEMA is expected to take control before the event.

I know that the Army Corps of Engineers built the levies but there were multiple reports over the years that stated that they would not withstand anything over a category 3 storm and their legislators ignored said reports and failed to act.


Actually the corps told them it could withstand a Cat 3 hurricane. The difference was that the natural barrier for hurricane, the wetlands, had been ruined too much.

I don't know if Brown was qualified for the job and neither do you unless you have worked with him. In addition, we are not qualified to comment on his capacity to lead FEMA as we have no experience in disaster recovery.


Here was Brown's experience prior to running FEMA:
City Council of the city of Edmond, Oklahoma
Lawyer
Chairman of a municipal power company
Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association
General Counsel for FEMA.

And considering his performance in Katrina, he wasn't qualified.

I would argue wholehardedly that being a tax cheat absolutely disqualifies you to hold any office. I understand that his penalty was waived. That just gets my blood boiling. I am sick and tired of all of the corruption that is pervasive amongst people in positions of power.


I agree, too bad thats not the point. Geithner was head of the NY Federal Reserve and clearly is qualified for the job of Treasury Sec(whether he deserves the job is another question). Brown had zero emergency experience.

Discounting the source of the intel there were still widespread beliefs that Saddam had WMD. I would agree that this idea is very much in contention but to state unequivicocally that there were no WMD would be foolhardy IMO.

The problem is that the "belief" that Saddam had WMD was couched with a lot of doubts and grey areas where the intel agencies had no real definition..and those doubts and grey areas were removed from the case for war. You couldn't state unequivocally either way in 2002, but the evidence for them having WMDs was shaky at best(and turned out to be false).

[akhhorus]

I am not implying what you state. I am saying that evidence suggests that Saddam's Iraq harbored terrorists and their affiliation to one another is in dispute.

Except that the only terrorist group in Iraq before 9-11 was working for Saddam's mortal enemy(and sheltered by another).

a lot of unsubstantiated stuff there on your part. I actually have to run. take it easy.

You should check out what you're posting there if you want to see "unsubstantiated" material.

[Biggie]

The overwhelming majority of liberals would not have approved of his performance no matter what he did.

The lemmings who ignorantly swallowed the extreme liberal bias fed to them by the media and Hollywood certainly would not have approved of the job he was doing, because... hey... Kanye West says he is bad.

Add that to losing favor among his Conservative Base and it is a perfect storm of low approval ratings.

All I am trying to say is that there is a lot that go into approval ratings.
Lying the nation's way into a war is a quick fire way to earn the ire of liberals, true.

(Full disclosure: I don't consider myself a liberal here, just trying to set a fair standard.)

I just don't understand how you can blame people for... disagreeing with policies they don't agree with.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I don't agree with this at all. The thing I hated most about the Bush administration was the entire atmosphere of right-left conflict and divisiveness - Rove divided the country so he could conquer it. That needs to end, and one of the things I like about President Obama is that he doesn't insult and demean people who disagree with his point of view (look at how he reacted to Biden making fun of Chief Justice Roberts). Being a conservative does not make you a bad person, and I know better than to think that Rush Limbaugh represents everyone who identifies themselves as a member of the "right".

I meant that as a joke. Clearly it flopped! All I did was take Dave's sentence and change one word. I am not actually gearing up to question the patriotism of right wingers when they inevitably disagree with the way Obama uses our troops.

Agree with everything you said.

[Ibleedburgundy]

The overwhelming majority of liberals would not have approved of his performance no matter what he did.


Bush had 86%-91% approval ratings at one point. Surely you realize this includes a lot of liberals.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1723/Presidential-Job-Approval-Depth.aspx

The lemmings who ignorantly swallowed the extreme liberal bias fed to them by the media and Hollywood certainly would not have approved of the job he was doing, because... hey... Kanye West says he is bad.


Did you really just complain about media bias after posting the weekly standard as a source?

[fpickering]

This is exactly why the GOP(which I'm a member of) lost in 2008(and in 2006). The philosophy of "The problem isn't our ideas or that we got too lazy/corrupt, but because that evil media demonized us!" Its horsesh*t.

Actually, the reason Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 was that they ignored the desires and principles of their Conservative base by:
Not listening about immigration enforcement in 2006,
Expanding the size power and cost of government,
Going back on promises Bush made while campaigning,
Nominating a unelectable moderate known for stabbing his own party in the back as their nominee, and
Not being able to effectively communicate a vision for the Country.

[akhhorus]

Actually, the reason Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 was that they ignored the desires and principles of their Conservative base by:
Not listening about immigration enforcement in 2006,
Expanding the size power and cost of government,
Going back on promises Bush made while campaigning,

You can fairly say that all 3 of these were in effect while Bush was campaigning in 2004.

Nominating a unelectable moderate known for stabbing his own party in the back as their nominee,

McCain was the only republican who had even a remote shot to win in 2008. The country is moving leftwards thanks to Bush's screwups, and a hard right candidate would have gotten clobbered by a bigger margin.


Not being able to effectively communicate a vision for the Country.

Agreed.

[fpickering]

And the Banks were allowed to get into the CDM thanks to Bush's lack of regulation and the Gramm-Lugar bill of 2000(which was a bi-partisan failure).

So we agree that labeling the economy woes as "Bush's fault" is not accurate and very unfair.


They were backing the subprime loans(not giving them out) until about 2005-2006(generally speaking). The private banks, and primarily guys like Wamu, IndyMac, Long Beach Financial(who almost took down Wachovia) and Countrywide Financial were giving out the subprime loans more than anyone else.

Forgive me but you have typed sentences here without actyally saying anything. The two NYT articles (since you believe that my previous source was biased) below outline the pivotable role that Fannie played in this collapse and also show that Politicans DID apply pressure as I originally stated and you refuted without offering any proof.

"Congress was demanding that Mr. Mudd help steer more loans to low-income borrowers. Lenders were threatening to sell directly to Wall Street unless Fannie bought a bigger chunk of their riskiest loans."

"Dozens of interviews, most from people who requested anonymity to avoid legal repercussions, offer an inside account of the critical juncture when Fannie Mae’s new chief executive, under pressure from Wall Street firms, Congress and company shareholders, took additional risks that pushed his company, and, in turn, a large part of the nation’s financial health, to the brink.

Between 2005 and 2008, Fannie purchased or guaranteed at least $270 billion in loans to risky borrowers — more than three times as much as in all its earlier years combined, according to company filings and industry data."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/business/05fannie.html?_r=1&em



"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."

"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60


The fact that the regulators under Bush were allowing banks to falsify their statements is pretty relevant to a discussion about how Bush screwed up the economy.


Can you post some proof to substantiate this claim?


Except for when they have warning of a disaster, then FEMA is expected to take control before the event.


So, you are contending that FEMA should have anticipated that the levies would have toppled over and the entire city of New Orleans would be flooded and been ready to deal with that before the event? That is just asinine. Don't you think that this sounds like the job of the local government? They knew the levies could only withstand a category 3 and they did nothing about it.



Actually the corps told them it could withstand a Cat 3 hurricane. The difference was that the natural barrier for hurricane, the wetlands, had been ruined too much.


This is exactly what I said in my original post.
"there were multiple reports over the years that stated that they would not withstand anything over a category 3 storm"




Here was Brown's experience prior to running FEMA:
City Council of the city of Edmond, Oklahoma
Lawyer
Chairman of a municipal power company
Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association
General Counsel for FEMA.

And considering his performance in Katrina, he wasn't qualified.


I am not saying definitively that he was or was not qualified, but I do know that you nor I have enough intimate knowledge with what actually happened or relevant experience to declare him unqualified. Just my opinion here.



I agree, too bad thats not the point. Geithner was head of the NY Federal Reserve and clearly is qualified for the job of Treasury Sec(whether he deserves the job is another question). Brown had zero emergency experience.


That is exactly the point. Being a tax cheat basically exemplifies that you are not a moral or ethical person and those characteristics make you unqualified for the job of Treasury Sec.



The problem is that the "belief" that Saddam had WMD was couched with a lot of doubts and grey areas where the intel agencies had no real definition..and those doubts and grey areas were removed from the case for war. You couldn't state unequivocally either way in 2002, but the evidence for them having WMDs was shaky at best(and turned out to be false).

**He had WMD according to the Saddam Hussein tapes found and the subsequent story below by investors business daily.

"In a tape dating to April 1995, Saddam and several aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had found traces of Iraq's biological weapons program. On the tape, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, is heard gloating about fooling the inspectors.

"We did not reveal all that we have," he says. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."

There's more. Indeed, as late as 2000, Saddam can be heard in his office talking with Iraqi scient"

-snip-

"Lest you think we're making the case entirely based on these tapes, let us assure you that other evidence — mounting by the day — points to the same conclusion.

We've been very impressed by the story told by Georges Sada, the former No. 2 in Iraq's air force. He has written a book, "Saddam's Secrets," that details how the Iraqi dictator used trucks, commercial jets and ships to remove his WMD from the country. At the time, the move went largely undetected, because Iraq pretended the massive movement of materiel was to help Syrian flood victims.

Nor is Sada alone. Ali Ibrahim, another of Saddam's former commanders, has largely corroborated Sada's story."

http://www.mooregop.org/IBD_Saddam_had_WMDs.html

[fpickering]

Lying the nation's way into a war is a quick fire way to earn the ire of liberals, true.

(Full disclosure: I don't consider myself a liberal here, just trying to set a fair standard.)

I just don't understand how you can blame people for... disagreeing with policies they don't agree with.

**Refer to my previous post and the investors business daily article. Bush did not lie. There were WMD in Iraq. Saddam himself admitted to as much on the tapes discovered. This very situation underscores my point about the liberal media as well. Most Americans do not know about this because the liberal media did not want you to know about it.

[fpickering]

Except that the only terrorist group in Iraq before 9-11 was working for Saddam's mortal enemy(and sheltered by another).

This is not a fact. I have seen nothing that supports your theory.

You should check out what you're posting there if you want to see "unsubstantiated" material.

You have made many claims and have failed to back them up with supporting evidence. I, on the other hand, have cited articles that support my positions.

[akhhorus]

So we agree that labeling the economy woes as "Bush's fault" is not accurate and very unfair.

Are you kidding me? Bush was at the helm when the regulators were gutted and the banks were allowed to do whatever they wanted(there's a infamous picture of the OTS regulators holding chainsaws to a stack of paperwork as a metaphor of what they were planning on doing to bank/mortgage regulations). He has a lot of the blame for the subprime meltdown. But you're claiming that this forgives him? Are you just a hack?

Forgive me but you have typed sentences here without actyally saying anything.

No, I just said something you don't want to hear.

The two NYT articles (since you believe that my previous source was biased) below outline the pivotable role that Fannie played in this collapse and also show that Politicans DID apply pressure as I originally stated and you refuted without offering any proof.

"Congress was demanding that Mr. Mudd help steer more loans to low-income borrowers. Lenders were threatening to sell directly to Wall Street unless Fannie bought a bigger chunk of their riskiest loans."


Who was in charge of congress during that time exactly? You're not seriously going to try and claim that a party totally in a minority could apply any serious pressure to anyone?

"Dozens of interviews, most from people who requested anonymity to avoid legal repercussions, offer an inside account of the critical juncture when Fannie Mae’s new chief executive, under pressure from Wall Street firms, Congress and company shareholders, took additional risks that pushed his company, and, in turn, a large part of the nation’s financial health, to the brink.

Between 2005 and 2008, Fannie purchased or guaranteed at least $270 billion in loans to risky borrowers — more than three times as much as in all its earlier years combined, according to company filings and industry data."


And that contradicts my point about how they were enlisted to try and help the problem that the independent banks created how?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/business/05fannie.html?_r=1&em

"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."

"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60


I've explained why Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act didn't have anything to do with the Subprime meltdown. You haven't posting anything to contradict what I said.

Can you post some proof to substantiate this claim?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/22/AR2008122201301_pf.html

So, you are contending that FEMA should have anticipated that the levies would have toppled over and the entire city of New Orleans would be flooded and been ready to deal with that before the event? That is just asinine.

FEMA is there to prepare/plan for the worst case scenario and deal with it since no state/local authorities are capable of dealing with a natural disaster by themselves. There is zero excuse for FEMA to hesitate for 3 days before doing anything substantial to help in New Orleans after Katrina.

Don't you think that this sounds like the job of the local government? They knew the levies could only withstand a category 3 and they did nothing about it.


See above.

This is exactly what I said in my original post.
"there were multiple reports over the years that stated that they would not withstand anything over a category 3 storm"


No, its not what you said, and doesn't imply what you're trying to get it to.

I am not saying definitively that he was or was not qualified, but I do know that you nor I have enough intimate knowledge with what actually happened or relevant experience to declare him unqualified. Just my opinion here.


You can believe any sophistry you want to. His resume and his actions in the clutch show that he was unqualified for the job. I believe he even said that he shouldn't have been in charge of FEMA during the hearings on Katrina.

That is exactly the point. Being a tax cheat basically exemplifies that you are not a moral or ethical person and those characteristics make you unqualified for the job of Treasury Sec.


No, the point was qualifications of experience, etc. Not moral/ethical failings.

**He had WMD according to the Saddam Hussein tapes found and the subsequent story below by investors business daily.

IBD? LMAO.

"In a tape dating to April 1995, Saddam and several aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had found traces of Iraq's biological weapons program. On the tape, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, is heard gloating about fooling the inspectors.

"We did not reveal all that we have," he says. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."

There's more. Indeed, as late as 2000, Saddam can be heard in his office talking with Iraqi scient"


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107758,00.html

JON GIBSON: Bart, that's today's big question. Did Saddam Hussein (search) think he had weapons that, in fact, he didn't have?

BARTON GELLMAN, "WASHINGTON POST": Unless you are in his head, you with cannot know that for sure, but there's some evidence for it.

Scientists and design engineers and Iraqi generals and scientists told me that either they or people they knew had lied to Saddam about progress because he's a hard guy to say no to. Or because they wanted money and prestige or because they were protecting themselves from rival programs.

And Saddam was given information that was not true.

GIBSON: And consequently, that same kind of information wound up in the possession of Western intelligence agencies, who believed what he believed, that, in fact, they did have the stuff?

GELLMAN: Well, it's funny. The investigation by the CIA called scientists lying to Saddam, they call that red on red deception. Red is the bad guys. But it was also red on blue, where blue is the good guys, because U.S. intelligence was hearing some of the same reports and would naturally have credited some of those reports.

"Lest you think we're making the case entirely based on these tapes, let us assure you that other evidence — mounting by the day — points to the same conclusion.

We've been very impressed by the story told by Georges Sada, the former No. 2 in Iraq's air force. He has written a book, "Saddam's Secrets," that details how the Iraqi dictator used trucks, commercial jets and ships to remove his WMD from the country. At the time, the move went largely undetected, because Iraq pretended the massive movement of materiel was to help Syrian flood victims.

Too bad that the Iraq survey group says that there's no evidence of Sada's claims. And if they were shipped to Syria(his claim and the only plausible destination for any supposed WMDs), why exactly did Syria feel the need to try and collaborate with North Korea to develop a WMD program(which Israel took out)? And why did Israeli intel totally miss or ignore those Iraqi made WMDs when they were able to find out about a heavily hidden nuke program in Syria?

Nor is Sada alone. Ali Ibrahim, another of Saddam's former commanders, has largely corroborated Sada's story."

http://www.mooregop.org/IBD_Saddam_had_WMDs.html

Ali Ibrahim claimed that Russia helped them move WMD, which is patently absurd.

[akhhorus]

You have made many claims and have failed to back them up with supporting evidence. I, on the other hand, have cited articles that support my positions.

You should actually read what your sources claim with the Iraq/Al Queda connection. There's nothing but pure speculation and claim from "sources" without confirmation from anywhere. You're taking heavily partisan sources and blogs, and trying to say this validates your claims. Thats nonsense.

[akhhorus]

**Refer to my previous post and the investors business daily article. Bush did not lie. There were WMD in Iraq. Saddam himself admitted to as much on the tapes discovered. This very situation underscores my point about the liberal media as well. Most Americans do not know about this because the liberal media did not want you to know about it.

Except that no one can find those supposed WMD. Not even the survey group commissioned by the White House(and DOD/CIA) to find out what happened with Iraq and WMD believes the claims you posted here. Oh wait, thats the liberal media's fault somehow...

[Ibleedburgundy]

fpickering, you seem like an intelligent guy, but you are living in a Republican bubble.

[RedskinsDave]

I've explained why Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act didn't have anything to do with the Subprime meltdown. You haven't posting anything to contradict what I said.

It most certainly did have something to do with the subprime loans. It pretty much demanded they be given out.


FEMA is there to prepare/plan for the worst case scenario and deal with it since no state/local authorities are capable of dealing with a natural disaster by themselves. There is zero excuse for FEMA to hesitate for 3 days before doing anything substantial to help in New Orleans after Katrina.

As I have repeated ad nauseum, FEMA had less to do with the Katrina fiasco than the state and local emergency agencies did and it's not even close.

[Keino]

[INDENT]

It most certainly did have something to do with the subprime loans. It pretty much demanded they be given out.

That is simply not true Dave. The CRA demanded making loans available to low and moderate income families, it did not advocate not properly underwriting these loans which is what caused the subprime mess. CRA loans have mostly been profitable and those lenders responsible for the sub-prime mess were not CRA regulated institutions. In fact CRA regulated institutions made about 25% of the Subprime loans out there.

Numerous Federal Reserve Bank Officers have opined that CRA loans were in large part, responsibly made.

[RedskinsDave]

That is simply not true Dave. The CRA demanded making loans available to low and moderate income families, it did not advocate not properly underwriting these loans which is what caused the subprime mess. CRA loans have mostly been profitable and those lenders responsible for the sub-prime mess were not CRA regulated institutions. In fact CRA regulated institutions made about 25% of the Subprime loans out there.

Numerous Federal Reserve Bank Officers have opined that CRA loans were in large part, responsibly made.

It spurred the whole "everyone should own a home" crap that gave way to the subprime industry. Sure the actual CRA loans haven't gone belly up but it led the way for Fannie to back other shady loans.

[akhhorus]

It most certainly did have something to do with the subprime loans. It pretty much demanded they be given out.

Except that 80% of the subprime loans were given out by lenders who weren't subject to the CRA. And from the Federal reserve:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm

Some critics of the CRA contend that by encouraging banking institutions to help meet the credit needs of lower-income borrowers and areas, the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending. We have not yet seen empirical evidence to support these claims, nor has it been our experience in implementing the law over the past 30 years that the CRA has contributed to the erosion of safe and sound lending practices.

Krozner was one of Bush's economic advisors before he became a Fed. Reserve chairman.

From the Bank of International Settlement's working paper on it(PDF, I'll email it to you if you want):

Contrary to some media commentary, there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust. This Act only applies to depositories, and did not cover most of the important subprime lenders. Depositories showed a lesser tendency to write subprime loans than lenders not subject to the Act (Yellen 2008).

As I have repeated ad nauseum, FEMA had less to do with the Katrina fiasco than the state and local emergency agencies did and it's not even close.


The state and local agencies clearly failed, but thats why FEMA exists: to take control when state/local agencies fail and are overwhelmed. Even in the most generous split for blame in FEMA's favor: FEMA is to blame for everything that happened after the hurricane since they're empowered to override the local government if they see fit.

[fpickering]

McCain was the only republican who had even a remote shot to win in 2008. The country is moving leftwards thanks to Bush's screwups, and a hard right candidate would have gotten clobbered by a bigger margin.



I disagree with this 100%. A more Conservative candidate who frankly
did not look frail and weak and could communicate a Conservative message
effectively, like Romney could have won.

Bush was a moderate to liberal Republican. How was placing someone with very similar views as the GOP Nominee going to improve their chances given that the theme of Obama's campaign was change?

[akhhorus]

I disagree with this 100%. A more Conservative candidate who frankly
did not look frail and weak and could communicate a Conservative message
effectively, like Romney could have won.


Romney would have gotten hammered because of his flip flops on social issues. And considering that the most openly liberal candidate in 30 years won, saying that running a more conservative candidate would win isn't supported by the results.

Bush was a moderate to liberal Republican.

Bush was a radical, not liberal/moderate/conservative.

How was placing someone with very similar views as the GOP Nominee going to improve their chances given that the theme of Obama's campaign was change?

Because the only way they could have won the swing/indy voters would be to run towards the middle. Even if a more conservative candidate would have held VA and NC through more conservative excitement, they still would have lost(because they would have lost the latino vote even more in states like Colorado, New Mexico, and Florida).

[Biggie]

**Refer to my previous post and the investors business daily article. Bush did not lie. There were WMD in Iraq. Saddam himself admitted to as much on the tapes discovered. This very situation underscores my point about the liberal media as well. Most Americans do not know about this because the liberal media did not want you to know about it.
You don't need to tell me that there were WMDs in Iraq. My parents lived in Iran during the war with Iraq where he used those weapons. If the United States was so concerned about them, then perhaps it shouldn't have facilitated their sale to Baghdad?

But getting back to the point of his administration's lies - it's beyond debatable that the war was declared based on false pretenses. This is not a media bias issue, this is a truth issue. I think akh's made that point beyond clear.

[fpickering]

Are you kidding me? Bush was at the helm when the regulators were gutted and the banks were allowed to do whatever they wanted(there's a infamous picture of the OTS regulators holding chainsaws to a stack of paperwork as a metaphor of what they were planning on doing to bank/mortgage regulations). He has a lot of the blame for the subprime meltdown. But you're claiming that this forgives him? Are you just a hack?


I am still looking for some evidence to backup your claims that Bush's lack of regulation was the direct cause of the economic collapse.
The cause of the current woes was very simple:

The lending of gigantic sums of money to people who were not prepared or able to pay it back. The increased number of home buyers and loans fueled by the idiotic lending/borrowing behavior by the banks and buyers respectively, drove up the prices of homes. Once more and more buyers defaulted and foreclosed, the margin that was artifically created by the aforementioned infusion of new buyers grew larger and larger. The banks were now left holding the bag and it is mostly their fault.
Sure there were downstream activities that also contributed like the credit swaps but again, that was pure idiocy on the parts of anyone who sold these.

Free market principles would say that it was the responsibility of the banks and organizations to not take on too much risk and they violated this cardinal rule. I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe in personal responsibility or you expect the government to regulate your life.
So, no I am not a hack, I actually am not very fond of Bush but I believe in truth.



No, I just said something you don't want to hear.


You really did type a lot and say nothing. I never said that Fannie and Freddie were "giving out" subprime loans. Do you have a response to the two NYT articles that I posted that proved my initial points which you shot down? Would you care to retract your previous statements?



Who was in charge of congress during that time exactly? You're not seriously going to try and claim that a party totally in a minority could apply any serious pressure to anyone?


Which party in the majority at the time is totally irrelevant. The theme that started this exchange was my saying that Bush was not responsible for the economic collapse. Bush is not Congress.



And that contradicts my point about how they were enlisted to try and help the problem that the independent banks created how?


This is not what the articles I cited and posted says at all. They were not "enlisted". They were pressured. You said earlier in the thread that they were not pressured by Congress. I posted that excerpt to show that they were, in fact pressured.



I've explained why Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act didn't have anything to do with the Subprime meltdown. You haven't posting anything to contradict what I said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/22/AR2008122201301_pf.html


This article does not contend that the Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with the meltdown. All it states is that some regulator allowed some bank to falsify its records two months before its collapse. So what? This did not cause anything. If anything, it just delayed the collapse.



FEMA is there to prepare/plan for the worst case scenario and deal with it since no state/local authorities are capable of dealing with a natural disaster by themselves. There is zero excuse for FEMA to hesitate for 3 days before doing anything substantial to help in New Orleans after Katrina.


The Government is infamous for being terribly inefficient. This is horrible and not something that I like but it is a reality when dealing with a large bureaucratic organization. This is not isolated to FEMA. I was disappointed to see the government rear its ugly head again but how was this Bush's fault?




No, its not what you said, and doesn't imply what you're trying to get it to.


I have no idea what you are getting at here.



No, the point was qualifications of experience, etc. Not moral/ethical failings.


The morals and/or ethics of a person are qualities that must be considered when considering any leadership position. Further, his claim that he is "unaware" of the IMF's regulations establishing the responsibility for paying payroll taxes, considering he is a director of the institution, leads me to believe that he doesn't understand our financial system. Does not sound like he is qualified given that the Treasury is the department we're told is in charge of overseeing the IRS.



IBD? LMAO.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107758,00.html





Too bad that the Iraq survey group says that there's no evidence of Sada's claims. And if they were shipped to Syria(his claim and the only plausible destination for any supposed WMDs), why exactly did Syria feel the need to try and collaborate with North Korea to develop a WMD program(which Israel took out)? And why did Israeli intel totally miss or ignore those Iraqi made WMDs when they were able to find out about a heavily hidden nuke program in Syria?



Ali Ibrahim claimed that Russia helped them move WMD, which is patently absurd.

A lot of speculation on your part here, none of which refute the content on the Saddam tapes. Saddam had WMD. I do not claim to know what he did with them or where they went but he had them. This was one of the points in my original post which you took issue with.

[fpickering]

You should actually read what your sources claim with the Iraq/Al Queda connection. There's nothing but pure speculation and claim from "sources" without confirmation from anywhere. You're taking heavily partisan sources and blogs, and trying to say this validates your claims. Thats nonsense.

I never made any claims about any Iraq/Al Queda connection.
You are inventing a position, attributing it to me and then trying to refute it.

I quote a variety of sources including the NYT. Feel free to refute anything that they say but please source it.

You don't sound like a Republican.

[fpickering]

Except that no one can find those supposed WMD. Not even the survey group commissioned by the White House(and DOD/CIA) to find out what happened with Iraq and WMD believes the claims you posted here. Oh wait, thats the liberal media's fault somehow...

Supposed? Saddam and his henchmen admitted the existence of WMD in the tapes. Why would they do this if they did not exist?
Also, what about the 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" extracted from Iraq in 2008?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

It is irrelevant that no one can find them. You being a Republican must be aware of the liberal media bias, right?

[fpickering]

fpickering, you seem like an intelligent guy, but you are living in a Republican bubble.

I am not a Republican. I am a conservative.

[akhhorus]

I am still looking for some evidence to backup your claims that Bush's lack of regulation was the direct cause of the economic collapse.

That's willful blindness on your part.

The cause of the current woes was very simple:

The lending of gigantic sums of money to people who were not prepared or able to pay it back. The increased number of home buyers and loans fueled by the idiotic lending/borrowing behavior by the banks and buyers respectively, drove up the prices of homes. Once more and more buyers defaulted and foreclosed, the margin that was artifically created by the aforementioned infusion of new buyers grew larger and larger. The banks were now left holding the bag and it is mostly their fault.
Sure there were downstream activities that also contributed like the credit swaps but again, that was pure idiocy on the parts of anyone who sold these.

*The people who couldn't afford the loans got them because there was no regulation of the banks/MSC handing them out(you were saying something about not seeing evidence of how the lack of regulation leading to economic problems.
*The credit swaps(again, totally unregulated: no one really knew how much was in the CDM) tied all the banks/investment firms to each other, so went Lehman went down, AIG went down and the cascade began. Also, the OTS allowed firms to borrow as much a 30 times their capital(more evidence of how lack of regulation contributed to problems), which meant that everyone got over leveraged.

Yet you want to claim that there's no evidence that the lack of regulation led to economic problems? Really? You might want to reconsider your statement there.

Free market principles would say that it was the responsibility of the banks and organizations to not take on too much risk and they violated this cardinal rule. I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe in personal responsibility or you expect the government to regulate your life.

I believe in personal responsibility, but if you think firms will self police themselves, you're a fool.

So, no I am not a hack, I actually am not very fond of Bush but I believe in truth.


Then start believing in the truth.

You really did type a lot and say nothing.

I supposed that's better than your "i'm typing a lot of horsecrap and saying its daisies" strategy?

I never said that Fannie and Freddie were "giving out" subprime loans.

And I said that they didn't, that they were guaranteeing subprime loans after the govt saw the danger of subprime loans(on the premise that Freddie/Fannie were big enough to handle the shocks). Nothing you've posted contradicts that.

Do you have a response to the two NYT articles that I posted that proved my initial points which you shot down? Would you care to retract your previous statements?


I have responded, you just don't like the answers.

Which party in the majority at the time is totally irrelevant.

You're claiming that the Dems in congress pressured Freddie/Fannie into taking on bad paper. At the times you are contending this happened, the GOP was in full control of the government. The Dems could huff and puff all they want, but nothing got done without the GOP's consent. Only the GOP could actually pressure anyone. So, here are your options:
1-The GOP was heavily involved in the supposed pressuring from 2002-2006
2-You don't have basic knowledge of how the US government is set up.

Take your pick.

The theme that started this exchange was my saying that Bush was not responsible for the economic collapse. Bush is not Congress.

But congress can't pass anything without Bush's support. And Bush warned congress he would veto a bill trying to reign in Freddie/Fannie.

This is not what the articles I cited and posted says at all. They were not "enlisted". They were pressured. You said earlier in the thread that they were not pressured by Congress. I posted that excerpt to show that they were, in fact pressured.


I repeat:

You're claiming that the Dems in congress pressured Freddie/Fannie into taking on bad paper. At the times you are contending this happened, the GOP was in full control of the government. The Dems could huff and puff all they want, but nothing got done without the GOP's consent. So, here are your options:
1-The GOP was heavily involved in the supposed pressuring from 2002-2006
2-You don't have basic knowledge of how the US government is set up.

Take your pick.

This article does not contend that the Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with the meltdown. All it states is that some regulator allowed some bank to falsify its records two months before its collapse. So what? This did not cause anything. If anything, it just delayed the collapse.


If a senior regulator is allowing a bank to commit a federal crime, the regulation was non-existent.

The Government is infamous for being terribly inefficient. This is horrible and not something that I like but it is a reality when dealing with a large bureaucratic organization. This is not isolated to FEMA. I was disappointed to see the government rear its ugly head again but how was this Bush's fault?


Oh christ is this pathetic. So, its not anyone's fault but general govt sloth now? Bush appointed a clearly unqualified person to head an important agency, he's responsible for their failures. The President is responsible for the failures of his appointees in their jobs.

I have no idea what you are getting at here.


You said that the levees could handle a Cat 3(and no more) storm. I agreed, and pointed out that the wetlands(which have been depended on to drain the water surge from a hurricane) were damaged from years of neglect(which is a bi-partisan failure). In any event, it was a failure of those who built them.

The morals and/or ethics of a person are qualities that must be considered when considering any leadership position. Further, his claim that he is "unaware" of the IMF's regulations establishing the responsibility for paying payroll taxes, considering he is a director of the institution, leads me to believe that he doesn't understand our financial system. Does not sound like he is qualified given that the Treasury is the department we're told is in charge of overseeing the IRS.


This is irrelevant. The question is about experience. Brown didn't have it, Geithner-moral/ethical issues aside-does.

A lot of speculation on your part here, none of which refute the content on the Saddam tapes. Saddam had WMD. I do not claim to know what he did with them or where they went but he had them. This was one of the points in my original post which you took issue with.

This is nonsense. You want to claim Saddam had WMD, despite zero evidence inside Iraq or that he moved them..and you have the gall to claim that I'm speculating? An official DOD/CIA/White House survey group of thousands of specialists appointed by the Bush administration disagree with you, yet I'm speculating? Is this the best you can do? Really? Are you this much of a hack that you've twisted yourself into this absurd stand?

[fpickering]

Romney would have gotten hammered because of his flip flops on social issues. And considering that the most openly liberal candidate in 30 years won, saying that running a more conservative candidate would win isn't supported by the results.

Bush was a radical, not liberal/moderate/conservative.

Because the only way they could have won the swing/indy voters would be to run towards the middle. Even if a more conservative candidate would have held VA and NC through more conservative excitement, they still would have lost(because they would have lost the latino vote even more in states like Colorado, New Mexico, and Florida).

Flip flopping does not hold a candle to all of the contraversial Obama affiliations that largely went ignored.
Obama won not because he was liberal. He won because McCain's campaign was awful, McCain was an awful candidate as I posted earlier and Obama was totally aided by the liberal media.

I disagree with your assessment of Bush. Radical he was not. He was a moderate to liberal Republican. (big gov't, spending, immigration) I also disagree with your analysis that the only thing that would have won the election would be a moderate candidate. There is no way to say this with 100% certainty, there are way too many variables and the issues are much more complicated than whether or not someone is Latino or not.

Romney's strong point was Economics and being that we were in an Economic Crisis, he would have blown Obama out of the water in the debates.

[akhhorus]

Supposed? Saddam and his henchmen admitted the existence of WMD in the tapes. Why would they do this if they did not exist?

Because they were being lied to by their scientists.

Also, what about the 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" extracted from Iraq in 2008?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

That wasn't weapons grade uranium. Thats a major difference between a WMD and a power source. Yes, they could enrich it, but thats a very complicated process that's very hard to keep secret(Iran's tried to keep it secret, but totally has failed).

It is irrelevant that no one can find them. You being a Republican must be aware of the liberal media bias, right?

Are you kidding? Its irrelevant that no one can find these supposed WMDs anywhere? Not in Iraq, not in Syria, no evidence that they were moved from Iraq pre-invasion, yet you're so desperate to try and claim that Saddam had WMDs, that you're willing to say something as stupid as that it doesn't matter that no one can find them? So, if the police arrested you for having 30 kilos of heroin and 10 child porno tapes in your house, then can still throw you in jail if they can't find it anywhere or any proof that you ever had it because some friend of yours claimed that you had it?

[akhhorus]

Flip flopping does not hold a candle to all of the contraversial Obama affiliations that largely went ignored.
Obama won not because he was liberal. He won because McCain's campaign was awful, McCain was an awful candidate as I posted earlier and Obama was totally aided by the liberal media.

If you want to accuse McCain of being a non-conservative republican, then what's Romney? He was basically a conservative democrat as government of Mass. Obama won because he ran a very effective campaign, and all of his "affiliations" were explored ad nauseum.

I disagree with your assessment of Bush. Radical he was not. He was a moderate to liberal Republican. (big gov't, spending, immigration)

And he applied neo-con philosophy to foreign and domestic goals. Yes, he expanded the government/spending, but his philosophical underpinnings(freedom moderates peoples and expansive home ownership) are radical ideas for any party.

I also disagree with your analysis that the only thing that would have won the election would be a moderate candidate. There is no way to say this with 100% certainty, there are way too many variables and the issues are much more complicated than whether or not someone is Latino or not.


You can believe whatever you want to. But even if you turn traditionally republican states over to the GOP in the 2008 election, the GOp still loses to Obama.

Romney's strong point was Economics and being that we were in an Economic Crisis, he would have blown Obama out of the water in the debates.

Romney couldn't out-debate an awful debater in McCain, even on economic issues, how would he beat Obama?

[fpickering]

You don't need to tell me that there were WMDs in Iraq. My parents lived in Iran during the war with Iraq where he used those weapons. If the United States was so concerned about them, then perhaps it shouldn't have facilitated their sale to Baghdad?

But getting back to the point of his administration's lies - it's beyond debatable that the war was declared based on false pretenses. This is not a media bias issue, this is a truth issue. I think akh's made that point beyond clear.

It is not beyond debatable. The reasons for the war were many.

[fpickering]

That's willful blindness on your part.


Is it? Then why have you not shown me one article that says that Bush deregulated and as a result the economic meltdown we are currently in occurred.


*The people who couldn't afford the loans got them because there was no regulation of the banks/MSC handing them out(you were saying something about not seeing evidence of how the lack of regulation leading to economic problems.
*The credit swaps(again, totally unregulated: no one really knew how much was in the CDM) tied all the banks/investment firms to each other, so went Lehman went down, AIG went down and the cascade began. Also, the OTS allowed firms to borrow as much a 30 times their capital(more evidence of how lack of regulation contributed to problems), which meant that everyone got over leveraged.

Yet you want to claim that there's no evidence that the lack of regulation led to economic problems? Really? You might want to reconsider your statement there.

I believe in personal responsibility, but if you think firms will self police themselves, you're a fool.


In a free market economy, it is the bank's responsibility and duty to their shareholders to manage the amount of risk that they incur... Not the government's... because incurring too much risk could lead to the the liquidation of the corporation.

Just like it is your responsibility how much credit card debt you incur, not the your State government's.

Greed and incompetence caused the current crisis and these same institutions perpetuated the problem by participating in the credit swaps. Why anyone would provide an insurance policy against an asset with an unknown value and an unknown probability of failure is beyond me and it is just plain stupid.

These firms should have the competency to know that not policing yourself will lead to your company being dissolved so I would say that is an incentive.

If it is fair to say that it is our responsibility to police ourselves from incurring too much risk while not relying on government regulation to do so, then why is it so far fetched to expect fortune 500 companies to do the same?

[akhhorus]

Is it? Then why have you not shown me one article that says that Bush deregulated and as a result the economic meltdown we are currently in occurred.

I've shown you how the banks started failing because they tied themselves in the CDM to the subprime mortgages given out in large numbers thanks to deregulation. Thats concrete proof. If you want a specific article, here you go:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/business/27sec.html?_r=1
The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a longtime proponent of deregulation, acknowledged on Friday that failures in a voluntary supervision program for Wall Street’s largest investment banks had contributed to the global financial crisis, and he abruptly shut the program down.

(snip)

“The last six months have made it abundantly clear that voluntary regulation does not work,” he said in a statement. The program “was fundamentally flawed from the beginning, because investment banks could opt in or out of supervision voluntarily. The fact that investment bank holding companies could withdraw from this voluntary supervision at their discretion diminished the perceived mandate” of the program, and “weakened its effectiveness,” he added.

(snip)

The program Mr. Cox abolished was unanimously approved in 2004 by the commission under his predecessor, William H. Donaldson. Known by the clumsy title of “consolidated supervised entities,” the program allowed the S.E.C. to monitor the parent companies of major Wall Street firms, even though technically the agency had authority over only the firms’ brokerage firm components.

The commission created the program after heavy lobbying for the plan from all five big investment banks. At the time, Mr. Paulson was the head of Goldman Sachs. He left two years later to become the Treasury secretary and has been the architect of the administration’s bailout plan.

(snip)

In 2004, at the urging of the investment banks, the commission adopted a voluntary program. In exchange for the relaxation of capital requirements by the commission, the banks agreed to submit to supervision of their holding companies by the agency.

Bush appointed Cox, knowing that he was an ardent deregulator. Cox deregulated at the behest of the investment banks. QED Bush is ultimately responsible for deregulating the financial industry to the point where they almost destroyed the system.

In a free market economy, it is the bank's responsibility and duty to their shareholders to manage the amount of risk that they incur... Not the government's... because incurring too much risk could lead to the the liquidation of the corporation.


Technically correct, but if the government says the line is at X, the shareholders will demand that their company go to X to maximize profit, regardless of the risks.

Just like it is your responsibility how much credit card debt you incur, not the your State government's.


Except that there's not a group of investors pushing you to maximize your profit through expansion.

Greed and incompetence caused the current crisis and these same institutions perpetuated the problem by participating in the credit swaps. Why anyone would provide an insurance policy against an asset with an unknown value and an unknown probability of failure is beyond me and it is just plain stupid.


An excellent question. Wells Fargo(and a few other banks) saw the risk and stayed out of the subprime mortgages. I can provide you an article about a hedge fund manager who tried to warn everyone about the risks and shorted all the subprime investors(made a fortune when Lehman went under, about 300 million in one day), but no one listened to them because the bond rating agencies were part of the problem. People got greedy beyond any realistic proportion, and they got burned for it.

These firms should have the competency to know that not policing yourself will lead to your company being dissolved so I would say that is an incentive.


Except that everyone had a financial incentive to show a maximum profit, even the in-house regulators. The system, both private and public was perverted. The management leaned on the in-house regulators to ignore any red flags of the loans/investments.

If it is fair to say that it is our responsibility to police ourselves from incurring too much risk while not relying on government regulation to do so, then why is it so far fetched to expect fortune 500 companies to do the same?


Because the fortune 500 companies are there to make a profit, their shareholders demand it, individuals don't have such pressures, and individuals don't get a bonus each fiscal quarter for showing an improved profit.

[fpickering]

Because they were being lied to by their scientists.


Really? Is your proof of this anything but speculative in nature?


That wasn't weapons grade uranium. Thats a major difference between a WMD and a power source. Yes, they could enrich it, but thats a very complicated process that's very hard to keep secret(Iran's tried to keep it secret, but totally has failed).

Are you kidding? Its irrelevant that no one can find these supposed WMDs anywhere? Not in Iraq, not in Syria, no evidence that they were moved from Iraq pre-invasion, yet you're so desperate to try and claim that Saddam had WMDs, that you're willing to say something as stupid as that it doesn't matter that no one can find them? So, if the police arrested you for having 30 kilos of heroin and 10 child porno tapes in your house, then can still throw you in jail if they can't find it anywhere or any proof that you ever had it because some friend of yours claimed that you had it?
[/QUOTE]

No one looked in Syria, no way that they would have allowed that to happen.

Also, there was evidence that the weapons were moved but you dismissed it with nothing more than pure speculation. More evidence exists from the audio tapes. You discounted that by saying first that it was IBD reporting it so it must somehow be false and then by declaring definitively that the Scientists were lying to Saddam. All speculation on your part.

Your analogy is not represenative of the scenario at hand. Here is a way more accurate analogy:
A murder occurred. The suspect confessed to the murder and multiple persons said that they also witnessed it. The only problem is that we cannot find the body. Do you think that the guy gets convicted? I do.

[akhhorus]

Really? Is your proof of this anything but speculative in nature?

That "speculation" is more tangible that your supposed proof.

No one looked in Syria, no way that they would have allowed that to happen.


Yet Mossad knew exactly where a top secret Syrian nuclear program was(and destroyed it). But you would have us believe that they found out this top state secret a short time after it was begun, but ignored(or couldn't find) any Iraqi WMDs supposedly moved to Syria?

Also, there was evidence that the weapons were moved but you dismissed it with nothing more than pure speculation.

Considering that a survey group of WMD experts said that there is no proof of it, thats solid study as compared to an Iraqi military's officer's claim.

More evidence exists from the audio tapes. You discounted that by saying first that it was IBD reporting it so it must somehow be false and then by declaring definitively that the Scientists were lying to Saddam. All speculation on your part.


Again: the Iraq Survey Group said that there was zero proof of it. Thats not speculation. You can bang your head against this wall all you want, but the ISG was appointed by Bush and they said there wasn't any WMDs(except Iran war era artillery shells that weren't a threat to anyone) in Iraq. And that there was no proof that they were moved to Syria.

Your analogy is not represenative of the scenario at hand. Here is a way more accurate analogy:
A murder occurred. The suspect confessed to the murder and multiple persons said that they also witnessed it. The only problem is that we cannot find the body. Do you think that the guy gets convicted? I do.

The prosecution would need proof that violent physical harm happened if they couldn't produce a body(blood of the supposed victim for example, the Supreme Court ruled on this in 1960 that "circumstantial evidence, when sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, may prove the death of a missing person, the existence of a homicide and the guilt of the accused"). There's no circumstantial evidence, just accusation with Iraqi WMDs. The better analogy if you want to use murder cases is that the police get a phone call from someone that they saw someone take a gun into a house and thinks that a murder happened. The police arrive and there's no body, no gun and no evidence of a murder.

[fpickering]

If you want to accuse McCain of being a non-conservative republican, then what's Romney? He was basically a conservative democrat as government of Mass. Obama won because he ran a very effective campaign, and all of his "affiliations" were explored ad nauseum.


Oh yeah, if you were a Republican you would know that McCain is a moderate to liberal Republican. Definitely not a Conservative.
Romney was a fiscal Conservative and seemed to morph into a social one as well.

Sure, Obama's affiliations were mentioned but NOT explored by the liberal media. Give me a break. He got a pass. Oh, what Sen. Obama.. you were not aware of Wright's racist and extremist views? Ok, we believe you despite the fact that you were a member of his Church for 20 years, he married you and your wife and he was your personal spiritual advisor.

What Sen. Obama, Rezko was just an associate? Oh really? We believe you despite the fact that he bought the land that you built your home on.

What was that Sen Obama? Oh the terrorist Ayers was just a guy around the neighborhood? We will take your word for it and just drop it altogether as a non issue despite the fact that you began your political career in his home.

If the same had happened to a Republican, the liberal media would have ensured that he exit the race.

Meanwhile, the liberal hordes were sent to Alaska to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin. How do you explain the fact that there was no story there yet they all went looking for one all the while ignoring the several stories that did
exist and were staring them in the face?

Oh, I remember, it must be crazy theory that I have about liberal media bias, right?

The media's "coverage" of this past election represented a derelict of their most fundamental duty to the American people and it will not soon be forgotten.


And he applied neo-con philosophy to foreign and domestic goals. Yes, he expanded the government/spending, but his philosophical underpinnings(freedom moderates peoples and expansive home ownership) are radical ideas for any party.

You can believe whatever you want to. But even if you turn traditionally republican states over to the GOP in the 2008 election, the GOp still loses to Obama.

Romney couldn't out-debate an awful debater in McCain, even on economic issues, how would he beat Obama?

Freedom does moderate people. Dictatorships breed oppression, anger and hate. That is not radical. That is common sense.

Expanded Gov't is a liberal philosophy and one that we have witnessed under Bush and will continue to witness under Obama. As he said, Government is the only solution to our problems.

McCain did not foster confidence. Many of the people I talked to were worried if he would make it through his term. McCain did not out debate Romney. Some morons picked McCain for God knows what reason.
Also, Obama did not win the debates. Many were ties and McCain actually came out on top of one. .. and I detest McCain.

So when are you going to admit that you lied about being a Republican?

[fpickering]

I've shown you how the banks started failing because they tied themselves in the CDM to the subprime mortgages given out in large numbers thanks to deregulation. Thats concrete proof. If you want a specific article, here you go:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/business/27sec.html?_r=1


This article says that oversight fueled collapse. Not caused. I have said as much.

It appears that we have different philosophies. I believe in a free market system and you believe that the govt should police our behavior. How liberal of you.

[akhhorus]

Oh yeah, if you were a Republican you would know that McCain is a moderate to liberal Republican. Definitely not a Conservative.

McCain is a fiscal conservative and a social progressive(at times). He's not a liberal by any stretch. He disagrees on immigration and global warming, but is a solid republican otherwise.

Romney was a fiscal Conservative and seemed to morph into a social one as well.


You don't know what you're talking about. Romney was a social liberal as Governor, and decided to be a social conservative when he decided to run for president.

Sure, Obama's affiliations were mentioned but NOT explored by the liberal media. Give me a break. He got a pass. Oh, what Sen. Obama.. you were not aware of Wright's racist and extremist views? Ok, we believe you despite the fact that you were a member of his Church for 20 years, he married you and your wife and he was your personal spiritual advisor.

What Sen. Obama, Rezko was just an associate? Oh really? We believe you despite the fact that he bought the land that you built your home on.

What was that Sen Obama? Oh the terrorist Ayers was just a guy around the neighborhood? We will take your word for it and just drop it altogether as a non issue despite the fact that you began your political career in his home.


You can beat your head against this wall all you want, the media spent a long time probing these issues, even networks like MSNBC.

If the same had happened to a Republican, the liberal media would have ensured that he exit the race.


Believe whatever you want to. I didn't hear about McCain's buddy G. Gordon Liddy during the campaign, and he once gave a lecture to listeners on his radio show how to shoot federal agents around their body armor. Mccain still went on his show after that disgusting talk by Liddy.

Meanwhile, the liberal hordes were sent to Alaska to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin. How do you explain the fact that there was no story there yet they all went looking for one all the while ignoring the several stories that did exist and were staring them in the face?


Believe whatever you want to, the stories about Palin were spread by members of the Alaska GOP, but god forbid you should do some basic checking.

Oh, I remember, it must be crazy theory that I have about liberal media bias, right?

The media's "coverage" of this past election represented a derelict of their most fundamental duty to the American people and it will not soon be forgotten.


Believe whatever you want to. Reality is a concept that you rarely deal with anyways.


Freedom does moderate people. Dictatorships breed oppression, anger and hate. That is not radical. That is common sense.


So, when we freed the Iraqis, and they consistently voted against our favored candidates, and voted a pro-iranian government in, thats moderation? When we got Israel to agree to elections for the palestinian territories, and they elected Hamas, thats moderation? So, if we opened up Saudi Arabia to free elections, and they vote Osama Bin Laden in as their president, is that moderation?

Expanded Gov't is a liberal philosophy and one that we have witnessed under Bush and will continue to witness under Obama. As he said, Government is the only solution to our problems.


There's liberal programs of expansion of social programs, and then there's bush's ideas of just adding as much pork as possible to any bill no matter how absurd(mainly, I suspect, so that no one would oppose any foreign or domestic policy bills of his, no matter how much it would cost). One's liberal, one's lazy radicalism.

McCain did not foster confidence. Many of the people I talked to were worried if he would make it through his term. McCain did not out debate Romney. Some morons picked McCain for God knows what reason.

You mean the Republican voters?

Also, Obama did not win the debates. Many were ties and McCain actually came out on top of one. .. and I detest McCain.


McCain was pretty bad during the debates. He looked too unfocused during a time when people wanted to see calmness. But he's always been a bad debater, and Romney looked bad in those debates against him.

So when are you going to admit that you lied about being a Republican?

I've been a republican since I was 18, I don't like Bush(and Cheney) and what he's done to effectively destroy Reaganism as a politicial movement. The difference is that I'll be honest with my disappointment with the party and not try to claim that all is well as the ship sinks into the ocean.

[akhhorus]

This article says that oversight fueled collapse. Not caused. I have said as much.

So, before the investment banks got heavily into the CDM, they got their wish from the SEC and got a system with no effective oversight at the same time the OTS was telling them that they could go 30 times their capital into debt, and you're going to try and claim with a straight face that this total lack of oversight didn't cause anything? Debate is pointless with you if you're just going to make up your own facts whenever is suits you.

It appears that we have different philosophies. I believe in a free market system and you believe that the govt should police our behavior. How liberal of you.

I'm a firm Adam Smith believer, but even though he is the intellectual bedrock of the free market system, he also said that the start of any conspiracy is two businessman talking.

[fpickering]

That "speculation" is more tangible that your supposed proof.


Oh come on. You deem audio tapes of Saddam and his cohorts discussing their WMD and efforts to conceal it - "supposed proof"?

Your speculation is just that. Speculation.



Yet Mossad knew exactly where a top secret Syrian nuclear program was(and destroyed it). But you would have us believe that they found out this top state secret a short time after it was begun, but ignored(or couldn't find) any Iraqi WMDs supposedly moved to Syria?


Yes, speaking of Israelis, Israel's top general said that Saddam Hussein moved his chemical weapons to Syria six weeks before the war started.


Considering that a survey group of WMD experts said that there is no proof of it, thats solid study as compared to an Iraqi military's officer's claim.


What did they base their opinions on? Speculation? BTW, it was two separate Iraqi military officers who made the claim regardless of your speculative attempts to discredit them.



Again: the Iraq Survey Group said that there was zero proof of it. Thats not speculation. You can bang your head against this wall all you want, but the ISG was appointed by Bush and they said there wasn't any WMDs(except Iran war era artillery shells that weren't a threat to anyone) in Iraq. And that there was no proof that they were moved to Syria.


Not banging my head against the wall, just poking holes in all of your points.



The prosecution would need proof that violent physical harm happened if they couldn't produce a body(blood of the supposed victim for example, the Supreme Court ruled on this in 1960 that "circumstantial evidence, when sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, may prove the death of a missing person, the existence of a homicide and the guilt of the accused"). There's no circumstantial evidence, just accusation with Iraqi WMDs. The better analogy if you want to use murder cases is that the police get a phone call from someone that they saw someone take a gun into a house and thinks that a murder happened. The police arrive and there's no body, no gun and no evidence of a murder.

No they would not. Not with a confession and witnesses to the murder. I have seen cases of persons getting convicted of murder without a body.

Your new analogy also does not hold water. Saddam and his cohorts themselves were on tape.

[akhhorus]

Oh come on. You deem audio tapes of Saddam and his cohorts discussing their WMD and efforts to conceal it - "supposed proof"?

Your speculation is just that. Speculation.

Except that there was no physical proof of those weapons and his scientists told us that they were lying to him. Saddam and his cronies could say that they had a fleet of unicorns, but if there's no proof of unicorns, you can't hold up an audio tape of Saddam talking about Unicorns as proof.

Yes, speaking of Israelis, Israel's top general said that Saddam Hussein moved his chemical weapons to Syria six weeks before the war started.

And yet, the Israelis struck a nuke facility inside Syria before it even got operational and did nothing about those supposed WMDs? That doesn't make any sense.

What did they base their opinions on? Speculation? BTW, it was two separate Iraqi military officers who made the claim regardless of your speculative attempts to discredit them.


They based their conclusions of going through the supposed WMD sites with a fine tooth comb(even searching sites that Cheney asked them to check out via phone). And yes, it was 2 officers, but one made a claim so ridiculous that his credibility is shot.

Not banging my head against the wall, just poking holes in all of your points.


When you're arguing against the very person you're defending, you're banging your head against the wall.

No they would not. Not with a confession and witnesses to the murder. I have seen cases of persons getting convicted of murder without a body.

Except that there's no confession and no proof of a murder.

Your new analogy also does not hold water. Saddam and his cohorts themselves were on tape.

To repeat myself:
Except that was no physical proof of those weapons and his scientists told us that they were lying to him. Saddam and his cronies could say that they had a fleet of unicorns, but if there's no proof of unicorns, you can't hold up an audio tape of Saddam talking about having Unicorns as proof.

And if those tapes were taken at face value, then how come the ISG dismissed them as evidence and said that Saddam had no WMDs after the Gulf War? The head of the ISG report said that those tapes confirm that Saddam only had the intention to build an WMD program when circumstances permitted?

[fpickering]

McCain is a fiscal conservative and a social progressive(at times). He's not a liberal by any stretch. He disagrees on immigration and global warming, but is a solid republican otherwise.


is he a fiscal conservative? Did he not support the massive bailout that has spun out of control? That is not very conservative.

immigration and global warming are two gigantic liberal issues. Please don't discount the weight of these issues.



You don't know what you're talking about. Romney was a social liberal as Governor, and decided to be a social conservative when he decided to run for president.


I do know what I am talking about. Romney did what he did in a liberal state to stay elected.



You can beat your head against this wall all you want, the media spent a long time probing these issues, even networks like MSNBC.


again, not beating my head against the wall, the media mentioned the issued but just took Obama's word for it.



Believe whatever you want to. I didn't hear about McCain's buddy G. Gordon Liddy during the campaign, and he once gave a lecture to listeners on his radio show how to shoot federal agents around their body armor. Mccain still went on his show after that disgusting talk by Liddy.


What? Was Liddy his pastor, neighbor or did he sit on a board with him?
Oh, he just went on his show? That is weak.



Believe whatever you want to, the stories about Palin were spread by members of the Alaska GOP, but god forbid you should do some basic checking.


I spoke nothing about who spread the stories. That is categorically irrelevant. What is relevant to the discussion at hand is the liberal hordes that descended upon Wasilla Alaska while not willing to do the same regarding Obama and his many sketchy affiliations.



Believe whatever you want to. Reality is a concept that you rarely deal with anyways.


I deal solely in reality and truth based on facts and evidence, not speculation.



So, when we freed the Iraqis, and they consistently voted against our favored candidates, and voted a pro-iranian government in, thats moderation? When we got Israel to agree to elections for the palestinian territories, and they elected Hamas, thats moderation? So, if we opened up Saudi Arabia to free elections, and they vote Osama Bin Laden in as their president, is that moderation?

There's liberal programs of expansion of social programs, and then there's bush's ideas of just adding as much pork as possible to any bill no matter how absurd(mainly, I suspect, so that no one would oppose any foreign or domestic policy bills of his, no matter how much it would cost). One's liberal, one's lazy radicalism.


That is democracy and with democracy comes the responsibility to elect capable persons who will do what is best for the nation. BTW, Osama and Saudi Arabia are mortal enemies.

Speaking of pork. Hillary Clinton was #1 in pork barrel spending and Barack Obama's was 2nd. Pork barrel spending is a liberal staple.
.


McCain was pretty bad during the debates. He looked too unfocused during a time when people wanted to see calmness. But he's always been a bad debater, and Romney looked bad in those debates against him.

I've been a republican since I was 18, I don't like Bush(and Cheney) and what he's done to effectively destroy Reaganism as a politicial movement. The difference is that I'll be honest with my disappointment with the party and not try to claim that all is well as the ship sinks into the ocean.
[/QUOTE]

This is of course highly subjective commentary so we should take it for what it is worth.

It sounds like you are actually liberal. You might want to explore that.

[akhhorus]

is he a fiscal conservative? Did he not support the massive bailout that has spun out of control? That is not very conservative.

How many dozens of other GOP politicians supported it also? It did pass with 90 votes in the Senate.

immigration and global warming are two gigantic liberal issues. Please don't discount the weight of these issues.


Those aren't core conservative issues.

I do know what I am talking about. Romney did what he did in a liberal state to stay elected.


So, he was lying then, but he's not lying now? Lmao.

again, not beating my head against the wall, the media mentioned the issued but just took Obama's word for it.


believe whatever you want to.

What? Was Liddy his pastor, neighbor or did he sit on a board with him?
Oh, he just went on his show? That is weak.


And Liddy held a fundraiser for mccain in his house. Which is more of a connection between Obama and Ayers.

I spoke nothing about who spread the stories. That is categorically irrelevant. What is relevant to the discussion at hand is the liberal hordes that descended upon Wasilla Alaska while not willing to do the same regarding Obama and his many sketchy affiliations.


Huh? You're blaming the media for descending on Palin's hometown to find out about her, but ignoring the fact that Palin's own state party was spreading the stories about her? Please turn your brain to the on position.

I deal solely in reality and truth based on facts and evidence, not speculation.


:lol1:

That is democracy and with democracy comes the responsibility to elect capable persons who will do what is best for the nation.

No, you said that Freedom moderates, I showed recent examples of why thats false. God forbid you should stay on topic.

BTW, Osama and Saudi Arabia are mortal enemies.


Osama and the Saudi royal family are mortal enemies, the people of Saudi Arabia rather think a lot of him.

Speaking of pork. Hillary Clinton was #1 in pork barrel spending and Barack Obama's was 2nd. Pork barrel spending is a liberal staple.
.

And Ron Paul was one of the biggest pork requesters in all of congress, so is he a liberal? The politician who's requested more pork per capita in the United States over the last few years was Sarah Palin, so is she a liberal also?

This is of course highly subjective commentary so we should take it for what it is worth.

It sounds like you are actually liberal. You might want to explore that.

*yawn* Sorry I believe in Bill Buckley's ideas about open debate on the issues and open dissent, but thats just the traditional small c conservative in me :)

[fpickering]

Except that there was no physical proof of those weapons and his scientists told us that they were lying to him. Saddam and his cronies could say that they had a fleet of unicorns, but if there's no proof of unicorns, you can't hold up an audio tape of Saddam talking about Unicorns as proof.

And yet, the Israelis struck a nuke facility inside Syria before it even got operational and did nothing about those supposed WMDs? That doesn't make any sense.


So we should believe scientists but not two Iraqi military officers? Why exactly?

Also, we should believe that the Israeli General was wrong?


They based their conclusions of going through the supposed WMD sites with a fine tooth comb(even searching sites that Cheney asked them to check out via phone). And yes, it was 2 officers, but one made a claim so ridiculous that his credibility is shot.


You are totally discounting the fact that Saddam was working against the inspectors to derail their inspections. The claim that Russia sold WMD to Iraq and then worked to cover it up is not ridiculous. It is entirely plausable.
I don't trust former KGB head Putin. Do you?



And if those tapes were taken at face value, then how come the ISG dismissed them as evidence and said that Saddam had no WMDs after the Gulf War? The head of the ISG report said that those tapes confirm that Saddam only had the intention to build an WMD program when circumstances permitted?

The ISG stating that the evidence was not legit means nothing to me. Just because WMD were not discovered does not prove that he had no WMD. Further, one would have to believe that Iraqi scientists risked their lives to lie to Saddam about a WMD program. I don't buy it. What would they stand to gain?
Answer: Nothing.

What would they stand to lose?
Answer: Their lives.

[akhhorus]

So we should believe scientists but not two Iraqi military officers? Why exactly?

Because the scientists were directly involved with the WMD program(such as it was), I can't prove to you that those officers were involved with the WMD program at all, and independent experts refute their claims.

Also, we should believe that the Israeli General was wrong?

So, the Israelis(well, one general if we want to be accurate, but I'll play along for a second and assume that Israeli intel agreed with him) decided that a nuke program years away from being able to produce a nuke weapon was enough of a threat to destroy, but Syria holding an iraqi stockpile of WMDs wasn't enough of a threat to deal with?

You are totally discounting the fact that Saddam was working against the inspectors to derail their inspections.

He was, which is why I'm not pointing out that the inspectors didn't find anything pre-war. But he was also paranoid to the point of destruction, so the concept that he would entrust his most prized weaponry to a foreign country doesn't pass any logical test.

The claim that Russia sold WMD to Iraq and then worked to cover it up is not ridiculous. It is entirely plausable.
I don't trust former KGB head Putin. Do you?


No, the claim is that Russians moved the WMDs to Syria in 2002. I don't trust Putin, but he wouldn't risk totally destroying his relations with the US(and Britain) to help Saddam hide a WMD program. And why would Saddam trust him with them? Russia has been helping arm Iran(Saddam's mortal enemy) for years.

The ISG stating that the evidence was not legit means nothing to me.

Hilarious. They're only experts in the field appointed by Rumseld/Tenet and Bush. I guess they're part of the liberal conspiracy?

Just because WMD were not discovered does not prove that he had no WMD.

You can believe that if you want, but it certainly doesn't prove that Saddam had a WMD program.

Further, one would have to believe that Iraqi scientists risked their lives to lie to Saddam about a WMD program. I don't buy it. What would they stand to gain?
Answer: Nothing.

What would they stand to lose?
Answer: Their lives.

As opposed to telling Saddam that they've wasted how many millions of Saddam's money and produced no effective WMD weapons? What would happen to them in that scenario? Its easy enough to fake something scientific to a layman who doesn't know what the difference between real and fake is.

[fpickering]

How many dozens of other GOP politicians supported it also? It did pass with 90 votes in the Senate.

Those aren't core conservative issues.

So, he was lying then, but he's not lying now? Lmao.


those were not true conservatives. look at what has happened. trillions have been allocated to the very people who screwed us all and the actual people that needed help (the people who lost their homes) have not been helped at all. How does that help? The bailout has been a monumental failure and a repeat of government intervention during the Great Depression which prolonged the depression.

Regarding Romney lying.... that is a ridiculous assertion. He did the will of his constituents in the liberal Mass. to stay in politics. What would you have him do? Go against the constituency and commit political suicide? The Country as a whole has a much different philosophy than Mass.





And Liddy held a fundraiser for mccain in his house. Which is more of a connection between Obama and Ayers.


It is the same connection. I do not condone or support what Liddy may have said but he did not actually conduct terrorist activities, did he? Big difference.


Huh? You're blaming the media for descending on Palin's hometown to find out about her, but ignoring the fact that Palin's own state party was spreading the stories about her? Please turn your brain to the on position.


Yes, I am blaming the liberal hordes for descending on Palin's hometown in mass, digging for dirt while not doing the same due diligence on the many nefarious connections Obama had.



No, you said that Freedom moderates, I showed recent examples of why thats false. God forbid you should stay on topic.


If people elect leaders whose aim is violence and the elimination of a people then they will be held accountable for that.



Osama and the Saudi royal family are mortal enemies, the people of Saudi Arabia rather think a lot of him.



If people elect leaders whose aim is violence and the elimination of a people then they will be held accountable for that.



And Ron Paul was one of the biggest pork requesters in all of congress, so is he a liberal? The politician who's requested more pork per capita in the United States over the last few years was Sarah Palin, so is she a liberal also?


Libertarian.

Palin is the exception to the rule. I hate pork barrel spending. Pork is antithetical to Conservatism.

[fpickering]

So, the Israelis(well, one general if we want to be accurate, but I'll play along for a second and assume that Israeli intel agreed with him) decided that a nuke program years away from being able to produce a nuke weapon was enough of a threat to destroy, but Syria holding an iraqi stockpile of WMDs wasn't enough of a threat to deal with?


I said Israeli General. That is singular.
You are assuming that they knew the location of the transferred WMD. that is a pretty large assumption.



He was, which is why I'm not pointing out that the inspectors didn't find anything pre-war. But he was also paranoid to the point of destruction, so the concept that he would entrust his most prized weaponry to a foreign country doesn't pass any logical test.


Except that he knew that we were coming to invade and Syria was their closest ally. It is perfectly logical.



No, the claim is that Russians moved the WMDs to Syria in 2002. I don't trust Putin, but he wouldn't risk totally destroying his relations with the US(and Britain) to help Saddam hide a WMD program. And why would Saddam trust him with them? Russia has been helping arm Iran(Saddam's mortal enemy) for years.


Don't you get it? The fact that Russia sold WMD material to Iraq would destroy relations with the US and Britain!
Russia under Putin, is a regime looking to get back to a superpower. What kind of behavior do you think they would undertake to do so? Helping Iraq lessen our power is precisely something that they would have done. Russia is not beholden to Iran. Their primary objective in looking to get back to a superpower would be to undermine the current only superpower and that would include assisting all of our enemies.

Saddam would have had no choice but to trust Russia. The alternative would have been to legitimize our invasion to the rest of the World and he would have lost all bargaining chips as well as his power.






Hilarious. They're only experts in the field appointed by Rumseld/Tenet and Bush. I guess they're part of the liberal conspiracy?

You can believe that if you want, but it certainly doesn't prove that Saddam had a WMD program.


It also does not prove that he did not.



As opposed to telling Saddam that they've wasted how many millions of Saddam's money and produced no effective WMD weapons? What would happen to them in that scenario? Its easy enough to fake something scientific to a layman who doesn't know what the difference between real and fake is.

So, you are suggesting that the scientists were lying to Saddam and being that he is paranoid and overseeing all operations in Iraq, he did not have anyone close to him verify what they were saying? Seems pretty far fetched to me.

[akhhorus]

those were not true conservatives. look at what has happened. trillions have been allocated to the very people who screwed us all and the actual people that needed help (the people who lost their homes) have not been helped at all. How does that help? The bailout has been a monumental failure and a repeat of government intervention during the Great Depression which prolonged the depression.


Actually it was the lack of governmental intervention that prolonged the depression. And it was 75 Senators who voted for TARP(so 34 GOP senators[including traditional conservatives like Tom Coburn, Cornyn, Chambliss, Kit Bond, John Warner, Robert Bennett and Lamar Alexander] and 47 GOP congressmen who voted for that). I can't believe all of them are fake conservatives.

Regarding Romney lying.... that is a ridiculous assertion. He did the will of his constituents in the liberal Mass. to stay in politics. What would you have him do? Go against the constituency and commit political suicide? The Country as a whole has a much different philosophy than Mass.

So, he lied about what his views were to stay in office or was capable of pandering to stay in his job. Either way, he's a flip flopper who wasn't trusted for obvious reasons. He could have run for office in Utah(where he ran the olympics to great reviews) or Michigan(where his family had a lot of links to).

It is the same connection. I do not condone or support what Liddy may have said but he did not actually conduct terrorist activities, did he? Big difference.


Besides conspiring to blow up the Brookings Institute during the Nixon years. Ayers was one of the heads of the weathermen, but(I believe) he was never linked directly to any of the bombings(thats why he left actually). Still, if you want to make an issue out of Obama's relationship to Ayers, who there's little connection between them, McCain's relationship with Liddy deserved even the slightest mention from the media(which it didn't). Or Palin's connections to the Alaskan Independence Party(who's convention she's addressed for several years in row and who's candidates run on a platform of trying to fight Washington from selling Alaska back to Russia along with anti-American statements sprinkled throughout).

Yes, I am blaming the liberal hordes for descending on Palin's hometown in mass, digging for dirt while not doing the same due diligence on the many nefarious connections Obama had.


Except for they did. It was a "liberal media member" who acquired/reported on the tapes of Jeremiah Wright(Jake Tapper) and the liberal media who Obama allowed to barrage him with questions on Resko for 5 hours in his chicago office.

If people elect leaders whose aim is violence and the elimination of a people then they will be held accountable for that.


:lol1: Sure thing there cinderella.

Libertarian.


Hardly.

Palin is the exception to the rule. I hate pork barrel spending. Pork is antithetical to Conservatism.

And yet, year in and year out, Alaska gets more pork money per capita than any other state(long before Palin became gov). While Palin was in charge of Wasilla, she requested more earmarks and pork than any other mayor(per capita) in the US(20 million dollars in 3 years for a town of 4000 people). Ron Paul likes to hold himself out as a "real conservative" but he requests millions each year in earmarks(not just for his district, he asked for 25 million dollars in 2009 for reading programs in Boston).

I said Israeli General. That is singular.
You are assuming that they knew the location of the transferred WMD. that is a pretty large assumption.

So, one general got the intel that the WMDs were sent to Syria, but no idea where they were(and Mossad didn't follow up?). That makes no sense.

Except that he knew that we were coming to invade and Syria was their closest ally. It is perfectly logical.


Link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/27/saddam.cbs/index.html)

(CNN) -- Saddam Hussein let the world think he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran and prevent the country from attacking Iraq, according to an FBI agent who interviewed the dictator after his 2003 capture.

According to a CBS report, Hussein claimed he didn't anticipate that the United States would invade Iraq over WMD, agent George Piro said on "60 Minutes," scheduled for Sunday broadcast.

"For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that (faking having the weapons) would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," said Piro.

During the nearly seven months Piro talked to Hussein, the agent hinted to the Iraqi that he answered directly to President Bush, CBS said in a posting on its Web site.

"He told me he initially miscalculated ... President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack," Piro said. "He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack."

"He didn't believe the U.S. would invade?" Correspondent Scott Pelley asked.

"No, not initially," Piro answered.

Don't you get it? The fact that Russia sold WMD material to Iraq would destroy relations with the US and Britain!

Russia didn't sell any WMD material to Iraq. They've sold nuclear tech to Iran.

Russia under Putin, is a regime looking to get back to a superpower. What kind of behavior do you think they would undertake to do so? Helping Iraq lessen our power is precisely something that they would have done. Russia is not beholden to Iran. Their primary objective in looking to get back to a superpower would be to undermine the current only superpower and that would include assisting all of our enemies.


Thats absurd. So, Russia wants to be a new superpower, instead of building up their own military(which is a joke, I've seen their fleet anchored in St. Petersburg, you can see the rust up to the ships' waterlines), and building up some real enemies to the US, they sell weaponry to Iraq? The only weapons they sold to Iraq right before the invasion was military helicopter parts.

Saddam would have had no choice but to trust Russia. The alternative would have been to legitimize our invasion to the rest of the World and he would have lost all bargaining chips as well as his power.

Except that if Russia was found out to be dealing with Iraq's WMDs, they would make bigger enemies of the Eu and the US. There's no reason for Russia to get involved with Iraq's Wmds.

It also does not prove that he did not.


If you want to apply that standard of proof, then you cannot possibly say that Saddam had Wmds.

So, you are suggesting that the scientists were lying to Saddam and being that he is paranoid and overseeing all operations in Iraq, he did not have anyone close to him verify what they were saying? Seems pretty far fetched to me.

If the scientists were working together, it wouldn't be that difficult, and they all have motive to do that if they fear collective decimation. Either way, they was no evidence found of a WMD program and the captured scientists(who really have no reason to lie to the US since the US controlled Iraq) said they were lying to him. You'd think that if there was a program, any scientist who could furnish even a tiny shred of proof of a WMD program would speak up to earn his freedom from the US?