Monday, October 3, 2011
Droning
I'm still not entirely sure why conservatives despise President Obama so much. I mean, sure, maybe you could nail him on a competency thing, or a lack of effective leadership thing. Maybe. But for a lot of them to keep on keeping on on with this whole socialist accusation is utterly bizarre. a) The dude's health-care plan, while admittedly flawed, is basically a knockoff of the Gingrich and Bennett-Wyden plans (not to mention, Romneycare). b) The stimulus package (also flawed) had pretty close to 40% tax breaks in it. c) He's essentially capitulated to the Republicans two times now on the budget (the first time during the lame-duck session, the second during the recent debt-ceiling debate). And d) he's killing terrorists and deporting illegals - both at a significantly MORE rapid rate than his predecessor! I mean, come on, conservatives, give the guy at least a modicum of a pat on the back once in a while. It's not like you have to vote for him or anything.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
58 comments:
They hate him primarily because FOX tells them to, and I think you know that.
No John,you're wrong.Not all conservatives follow FOX in lockstep and actually most of us dont "hate" Obama.We just think he's a complete incompetent and quite the B.S. artist.We feel his campaign of class warfare is...well,its classless.We feel after all is said and done he's just a typical Chicago politican,nothing more,nothing less.But,no we dont actually hate the guy.
I don't think you hate the man. I mis-spoke. I think you despise what FOX tells you his politics are and no amount of reality will change that.
FOX tells you he is responsible for our national debt and our bad economy, and even though both existed prior to him taking office, you believe it. He continued the Bush spending policies, and you think they explain the deficit, so he is a moron.
Some of you blame Obama care, even though no only a slight increase in the entitlement budget bucket happened and very large ones in revenue cuts and military spending happened, from the Bush administration to the Obama administration, FOX says that the Affordable Healthcare act is a major contributor the deficit. Even though it can be almost be produced numerically with two buckets added together, revenue cuts + defense increase, FOX thinks it is something Obama did or didn’t do.
And I see charts all over the web supporting this. One of them even has “treasury department” in small print at the bottom. I went to the Treasury department and the CBO and checked their numbers against the charts. Some of them were pure fiction and others were leaving out much of the story. The only valid one I have seen is the one that shows that the debt is increasing faster per year under the Obama administration than it did under the Bush administration, yet if you go lookup what the numbers that contribute are, it comes back mostly to loss of revenue coupled with increased defense spending, both trains Bush dispatched and Obama failed to derail.
OK, let’s stop discussing it now. Conservations like this usually result in very long debates with 60+ comments and I don’t have time for it. I have a very tight work schedule.
And Heathen, don't whip out charts. I really don't have time to go find my own charts (again), and it is such a silly game, anyway.
.
"I think you despise what FOX tells you his politics are and no amount of reality will change that."
Home Run!
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
John,although our politics are diametrically opposite I do respect your opinions.Please, why do liberals believe every conservative worships at the FOX altar?If you feel that would'nt the same hold true for libs pertaining to MSNBC or Kos or Media Matters ot The Huff Post? Or do you feel only liberals are capable of original thought.
John,you seem a bright person and I'm guessing your heart lies on the far left.Surely you cant call this president a success.Yes he did inherit a less then stellar economy,but fact is his policies have made it far worse.Obamacare is a sham with opt outs for favorite businesses or contributors.And yes its undeniable that it has raised the cost of doing business for companys unable to opt out.As for loss of revenue that Obama wants to cover with tax increases,its primarily due to 20 million americans being unemployed and not paying taxes.So John,if you feel the current condition of the country is acceptable,the path we're on is the right one and an america more in the likeness of say Greece,Spain or France is your Utopia so be it.
Rusty,
Please, why do liberals believe every conservative worships at the FOX altar? I don’t believe that. I believe those who irrationally attack mostly do. FOX, along with Rush and few others produce the vast majority of mis-information repeated. That is the really the only reason. Most devout conservatives do not support many of their extreme positions very well.
If you feel that would'nt the same hold true for libs pertaining to MSNBC or Kos or Media Matters ot The Huff Post? Yes, to a lesser degree, and I have argued this online in defense of attacks on conservatives many times. Here is the difference: those organizations are all less successful in unifying their disciples. They don’t get the same kinds of ratings FOX gets and they don’t have the same level of ideological commitment. They are getting there, though. Give them time.
John,you seem a bright person and I'm guessing your heart lies on the far left. Surely you cant call this president a success. I don’t hold him accountable for not doing the impossible. No president could have solved the problems he inherited. Bush had years and was unable to solve them, so people think maybe getting someone who thinks just like Bush in office will do the trick. Also, probably no president would have avoided the problems that caused the nation to disintegrate during the Bush Era. Bush gets much blame he did not earn and Obama gets more blame he did not earn. Bush was not perfect and Obama was not either. Bush was given far more opportunity to display his imperfections and he proudly did.
Most of what Obama did was continue fighting the problem much in the same way that Bush had, the Affordable Healthcare Act and a greater willingness to compromise being the two most notable differences. The Affordable Health Care Act was not free, as democrats sometimes claim, and it also was not wildly expensive and completely unpaid for through other entitlement reductions, as Republicans claim.
When we look at what allowed the deficit to spiral out of control it was largely a defense and revenue issue, not completely. Bush sent a train down the track and when Obama got in, he did not stop that train. Bush was faced with choices, the starting or not starting of dangerous trains. Obama did not face choices of that magnitude. We don’t know what would have happened if Obama had been in office instead of Bush, but I think it’s safe to say, it would not have been pretty either. Economic factors effecting America were bigger than America, and certainly bigger than any single man. The path America would take to confront them was a decision made by Bush, as it had to be. He was the one holding the reigns.
Yes he did inherit a less then stellar economy,but fact is his policies have made it far worse. Some things got worse. Liberals argue that it was all Bush’s fault. Things were on a path to destruction and nothing was going to pull things off that path. Some say maybe aggressive Keynesian policy could have. Some say it would have made things worse. Republicans say Obama made things much worse, but he did nothing that can explain that, and the Affordable Healthcare Act doesn’t when you crunch the numbers.
[To Be Continued ...]
[Conclusion …]
Conservatives say Obama should have given tax incentives to business to boost GDP growth. You can argue that for small business, but not for large corporations. We have already seen that as their profits increased, they cut their budgets. It’s a confidence issue, not a lack of funding. More tax benefits would simply have given them more money for their mattresses.
I have not consulted the cabbies yet. They know as much as the political enthusiasts commenting. People who spend their lives studying this cannot figure the answer out: too complex and too many variables. Since the cabbies and bloggers are ignorant of the majority of the variables, it is easier for them to figure out the right answer.
Obamacare is a sham with opt outs for favorite businesses or contributors. I don’t have the bandwidth to debate ObamaCare. I wish I did. Almost everyone with an opinion has no idea how it was paid for or how it works or the cost amortization timeline. If they did, they would shut up, because when the Harvard PHD starts trying to figure it all up once he has all the factors figured out, he decides it is simpler just to return to his cab.
Obamacare is a sham with opt outs for favorite businesses or contributors. I don’t have the bandwidth to debate ObamaCare. I wish I did. Almost everyone with an opinion has no idea how it was paid for or how it works or the cost amortization timeline. If they did, they would shut up, because when the Harvard PHD starts trying to figure it all up once he has all the factors figured out, he decides it is simpler just to return to his cab.
And yes its undeniable that it has raised the cost of doing business for companys unable to opt out. Your point is irrelevant, overall, so I will not try to refute it. I will say that small businesses should be able to opt out or the government should cover the difference.
As for loss of revenue that Obama wants to cover with tax increases,its primarily due to 20 million americans being unemployed and not paying taxes. I guess you are unaware of this historical tax lows coupled with historic lack of payment, coupled with repeated temporary tax cuts. If I were unaware of all of this, I would agree with you.
So John,if you feel the current condition of the country is acceptable,the path we're on is the right one and an america more in the likeness of say Greece,Spain or France is your Utopia so be it.
I do not feel that way. There may be no way to fix this problem, and if there is, no one may actually know it. Your faith is great. Someone has the solution, because someone must. It is my candidate. That is a completely faith based position with no real reason behind it. There are forces at play that are bigger than a single man. The President is not the God you imagine him to be, regardless of his color, red or blue.
Even if Obama could fix things, which is a big honking if, he will not be able to try to fix this unless he gets Tea Party congress back on track. He foolishly once thought compromise would work. I think he has been disabused. Together we stand; divided we fall.
I wish I had more time. I have a lot of interest in this topic, but I am having to bow out of discussions / debates. Too many thread making too many verbal garments, and not enough fabric. Hectic work schedule.
[THE END]
Knowing I'm not one of the conservatives you're referring to, having never called Obama a socialist, I have to object to one premise.
Will, you say Republicans should be supportive of the stimulus package because it included tax breaks (aside: are those the same as tax cuts, or is this NewSpeak?). Contrary to popular perception, conservatives do not salivate like Pavlov's dogs at the sound of "tax cuts."
Not all tax cuts are equal. "Targeted" tax cuts (more NewSpeak) from both parties have built our complex income tax system.
Back to my point... I won't blindly support a Democrat proposal simply because it includes tax cuts. Apparently that's how Obama expected his tax act to get passed, too.
Might as well also ask why the rabid hatred of George W. Bush also. We even have a commenter here that declares Bush gullty of horrible crimes (despite the fact that the actual authorities on the matters have deemed him innocent), slanders him frequently, and even wants him killed.
------------
John said: "FOX tells you he is responsible for our national debt and our bad economy, and even though both existed prior to him taking office, you believe it."
On Obama's watch, the national debt has gone up 50%. Bush gave us the lions share of the debt problem before Obama. Yet, Obama has made the problem much worse, isntead of improving it.
About Obamacare, John also said: "I wish I did. Almost everyone with an opinion has no idea how it was paid for or how it works or the cost amortization timeline."
This applies very strongly to the people who voted on it. The Democratic Party leaders in Congress who pushes this said it was a bad idea to read it and try to understand it.
dmarks: We even have a commenter here that declares Bush guilty of horrible crimes (despite the fact that the actual authorities on the matters have deemed him innocent)...
This is a totally and completely false statement. Show me the court verdict where bush was tried for his crimes and pronounced innocent. I never heard that he was deemed innocent... I've only heard about people who wanted to look forward and not back (the Obama Administration) and thus announced their decision to IGNORE bush's crimes.
Failing to prosecute crimes isn't the same as declaring someone innocent. That's just common sense... something dmarks obviously has none of.
dmarks: The Democratic Party leaders in Congress who pushes [the affordable care act] said it was a bad idea to read it and try to understand it.
Another totally and completely false statement. What dmarks is doing here is repeating a lie about what Nancy Pelosi said.
Nancy Pelosi said Congress would have to pass the bill so the AMERICAN PEOPLE would know what was in it. What she meant was that some citizens were falling for the Republican lies about the bill, but that after it passed they'd find out how it could benefit them.
No Democrat who voted on the bill ever said they didn't read the bill.
btw, the reason the national debt has increased is because we are in a recession. Tax receipts are down significantly because people are out of work and because the Republicans have refused to increase taxes on the wealthy.
The national debt has increased solely because of the cost of the bush recession (lost revenues) and the cost of bush's wars. We'd have a balanced budget if not for the enormous costs associated with the failures of the bush administration.
Obama had the right idea with the stimulus (although it wasn't big enough and contained to many tax cuts). Now he has agreed to cutting spending which is a very bad idea... because it will prolong the recession and increase the national debt.
It's incredibly obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that the Republican party is responsible for the continuing recession and increasing national debt.
John Myte: Here is the difference: those organizations [HuffPo, Kos, Media Matters] are all less successful in unifying their disciples
No. They're more successful at telling the truth.
John Myte: I don’t hold him accountable for not doing the impossible. No president could have solved the problems he inherited.
Yes, I agree with that. Although the capitulation didn't help. Talking about "capitulation", do the commenters here remember when I mentioned my concerns regarding Obama capitulating to the Republicans... and was viciously attacked by Will's buddy in Moderation, Marcus?
Now Will uses the word in a post and it's OK? It looks like I was more right then I knew when I blogged about The Idiocy of Moderation.
John Myte: no president would have avoided the problems that caused the nation to disintegrate during the Bush Era. Bush gets much blame he did not earn and Obama gets more blame he did not earn.
No, I completely disagree with this. The Housing bubble could have been prevented if either bush had fought for increased regulation instead of deregulation and his "ownership society"...
...or if Clinton hadn't signed the deregulatory regulation to begin with. And, regarding the terrorist attacks on 9/11, those could have been avoided if the bush administration had simply paid attention.
All of the problems that "caused nation to disintegrate during the Bush Era" could have easily been avoided if only we had a competent president and a consensus that Libertarian-type deregulation is insane.
John Myte: We don't know what would have happened if Obama had been in office instead of Bush, but I think it's safe to say, it would not have been pretty either.
There would not have been any wars, because the Obama Administration (if it had directly followed the Clinton Administration) would have taken the Clinton Administration's warning about OBL and al Qaeda seriously and aggressively went after them. They would have connected the dots and prevented the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The housing bubble would probably still occurred though... we know this because Obama brought in Clinton's economic advisers. But, at least the Obama Administration would have acted to re-regulate after the bubble burst. Dodd-Frank doesn't go far enough, but Republicans acted to weaken it. It most likely would have been stronger otherwise.
John Myte: Some say maybe aggressive Keynesian policy could have.
That would have been one component of a successful strategy to turn the bush recession around. The other, and more important component would be to change our job-killing trade policies. But Obama, who said during the campaign that he might re-examine NAFTA, is now pushing MORE job-killing free trade agreements...
...so, while a more aggressive Keynesian stimulus would have helped, it would not have solved the problem. Nothing will until a majority of our legislators acknowledge the insanity of "free trade".
We also need to raise taxes (at least back up to the Clinton-era rates) and eliminate loopholes, but backing off of job-killing free trade policies is the essential step we must take... or continue to see the middle class slip into poverty.
WD: The ICC has failed to act on Boyle's assertion. Boyle failed to make a case, and showed no evidence.
"and thus announced their decision to IGNORE bush's crimes."
There are no crimes to ignore.
"Failing to prosecute crimes isn't the same as declaring someone innocent."
In the eyes of the law, someone is innocent until proven guilty. It is not a failure to prosecute crimes. Boyle's cases was so weak it got no where. There are simply no crimes to have failed to prosecute.
"The national debt has increased solely because of the cost of the bush recession"
Actually, it has increased due to the policies of President Obama after Jan 21, 2009. This is when it became the Obama recession.
And yes, Pelosi said this. You are lying about this, despite evidence. I remember when Will caught you lying about Pelosi refusing to bully her workers into joining unions.
dmarks: The ICC has failed to act on Boyle's assertion. Boyle failed to make a case, and showed no evidence.
Wrong. The Obama administration applied pressure to international bodies that were considering prosecution. International law forbids a country from launching an unprovoked attack. The attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq were unprovoked, thus clearly illegal under international law.
dmarks: There are no crimes to ignore.
Yes there were. The attack against Afghanistan was not authorized by the UN. When the US joined the UN we agreed to abide by the rules of the UN. When bush attacked Afghanistan without authorization he broke the rules set out by the UN. Remember he said that we didn't "need permission" to defend ourselves?
What do you think he was talking about? He was referring to the fact that the UN didn't authorize the attack. It's just that simple. Perhaps it would have been another matter if bush had withdrawn the US from the UN first, but he didn't.
And then there's also the matter of the "enhanced interrogation" which is really torture. That is illegal under the Geneva conventions. There are a number of war crimes bush could be charged with, but because the US is a Super Power he won't be.
Might makes right. You said something similar a while ago, remember? You said "those with the gold make the rules". Now, for some reason you're claiming that that isn't what is happening regarding bush being charged. It's ridiculous.
The Obama Administration is using it's influence to quash any investigation. If they weren't I am certain there would be one.
dmarks: In the eyes of the law, someone is innocent until proven guilty.
Yes, in the "eyes of the law", but not in reality. Does dmarks really believe that all individuals who commit crimes are caught, tried and convicted? Does he believe that NEVER in the history of the United States has anyone ever committed a crime and gotten away with it?
I think this is incredibly naive of dmarks, and anyone who isn't as naive as dmarks knows what he is claiming is false. People can be guilty of a crime and the authroities can be aware of their guilt but still decide to not prosecute. This doesn’t make the individual "innocent".
dmarks: Actually, it has increased due to the policies of President Obama after Jan 21, 2009. This is when it became the Obama recession.
Incorrect. It increased for the reasons I laid out in my previous post. The only thing I blame Obama for is continuing to support job-killing free trade agreements. Everything else I blame the Democrats for. This is still the bush recession.
@w-dervish
"The attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq were unprovoked, thus clearly illegal under international law."
9/11 attacks = unprovoked?
What's the travel time between your planet and Earth?
"And then there's also the matter of the 'enhanced interrogation' which is really torture."
enhanced interrogation ≠ torture*
Torture is illegal under the Geneva conventions, as well as the Army field manual and federal law. Enhanced interrogation is not.
*Just in case the symbol didn't render properly, that's a does-not-equal sign.
dmarks: There are no crimes to ignore.
I already addressed this falsehood with my last comment... but didn't mention the specific law bush broke, which I will do now...
An article on the British National Party website lays out how the bush administration broke international law... the article says, "the UN Charter, which has been ratified by the American [government], says that all UN member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no member nation can use military force except in self-defense.
The invasion of Afghanistan, Operation Enduring Freedom, was never authorized by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and is therefore illegal in terms of the UN Charter. As such, it is a de facto breach of international law.
The American and British governments have argued that UN authorization was not needed because the invasion was an act of collective self-defense (as defined by Article 51 of the UN Charter) after the attacks of [9/11].
This argument is clearly fallacious, as the state of Afghanistan was not involved in the events of 9-11. Individual terrorists, most of whom were Egyptian and Saudi Arabian in origin, carried out the attacks, and not the Afghan state".
Specifically bush violated Articles 33 and 39 of the UN charter. This is indisputable.
Article 33 says, "The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice".
bush rejected the Taliban's offer to turn over bin Laden. He issued an ultimatum and refused to negotiate. This was in clear violation of Article 33.
Article 39 says, "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".
bush acted in violation of Article 39 when he said the US didn't "need permission" to defend itself. The UN never decided "what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42" because bush refused to negotiate and launched an attack. The UN charter clearly says unauthorized action is not permitted. The UN did not authorize the invasion of Afghanistan.
Heathen Republican: 9/11 attacks = unprovoked?
An excerpt from my previous comment (which should not have posted THREE times... blogger screwed that up, not me).
"This argument is clearly fallacious, as the state of Afghanistan was not involved in the events of 9-11. Individual terrorists, most of whom were Egyptian and Saudi Arabian in origin, carried out the attacks, and not the Afghan state".
Also, water boarding IS torture. Aside from all the other authorities that will tell you it is, the US attorney Eric Holder has said it is. My question to Holder is... so why aren't you prosecuting those who authorized it?
dmarks: And yes, Pelosi said this. You are lying about this, despite evidence. I remember when Will caught you lying about Pelosi refusing to bully her workers into joining unions.
Nancy Pelosi said, "But we have to pass the bill so YOU (my emphasis) can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy". Nancy Pelosi said the American people weren't aware of how they could benefit from the legislation because of the fog of controversy. She was not saying she, or any other Democrat who voted for the bill, hadn't read it. Are you going to dispute video evidence dmarks? She said "you" not "we". Watch the video.
Also, what you remember about Will catching me lying about Pelosi refusing to bully her workers into joining unions is incorrect. Peter Schweizer claims (in his book) that Nancy Pelosi is a hypocrite for not hiring union workers, but while "A television station in San Francisco, KGO-TV [who] reviewed Schweizer's claims against Nancy Pelosi [and] found Schweizer's allegation that the workers at Pelosi's vineyard were not union workers to be true... [the] 1975 Agricultural Labor Relations Act PREVENTS Pelosi from assisting her workers to form a union or discussing a union contract with them unless they unionized on their own".
Because of this Schweizer's claims that Pelosi is a hypocrite for not hiring union workers is FALSE, because she is legally prevented from assisting her workers from forming a union. The obvious conclusion is that Peter Schweizer is a weaselly liar.
Dervish,
This relates to your economy response to my response to Rusty. I am getting clobbered at work and this is the first time I have had a chance to address it.
I vacillated over whether to even respond to your partisan faith, because you made no points. Instead you stated partisan campaign style rhetoric. Fact Check sites would be screwed trying to evaluate your claims about what would have happened and your philosophical opinions about why certain things happened.
I have read nut job conspiracy theorists saying that Bush could have prevented 9/11 or even that he knew about it and wanted it. Considering those theories truth is beyond absurd. Even if they are, you would not know. And just so you now, the group that “got us” was committed to doing so and was going to do it, no matter who was in office. Your Black Swan fantasies do nothing to change this.
Typically I try to address rebuttals point by point. Had you posted a rebuttal, I would have considered it, even though I don’t have the time. However, since you did not, thankfully, I have no interest in posting a counter sermon to your sermon.
Back to your cab, sir. There are people with things to do and places to be.
John Myste: ...you made no points. Instead you stated partisan campaign style rhetoric.
Not true. In a post I wrote on 11/17/2009 I pointed out the following...
Richard Clarke (chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council) told [incoming president George bush] that, since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole (10/12/2000), he had been working on an "aggressive plan to take the fight to al Qaeda".
The last link is from a 8/12/2002 TIME MAGAZINE article titled, "They Had A Plan", which is a source Will might find acceptable... The article explains how the Clinton Administration developed a plan to go after al Qaeda and decided, instead of implementing the plan with only a short amount of time in the administration, to wait and hand the plan off to the incoming bush administration.
The article goes on to say...
Clarke's proposals called for the breakup of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel. The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble -- Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemen -- would be given aid to fight the terrorists.
Most important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to "eliminate the sanctuary" where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected...
The bush administration did not act on the plan. The TIME MAGAZINE article concludes that, "An aggressive campaign to degrade the terrorist network worldwide -- to shut down the conveyor belt of recruits coming out of the Afghan camps, to attack the financial and logistical support on which the hijackers depended -- just might have rendered it incapable of carrying out the Sept. 11 attacks".
The incoming Gore Administration (which is what the next administration would have been if the SCOTUS hadn't stolen the election for bush) would have taken that plan and ran with it. They would have stopped the attacks on 9/11.
I am as certain as one can be about this. Why? Because the numerous warnings (see my post) would not have been ignored by the Gore Administration like they were ignored by bush.
This isn't a "sermon", it is the truth.
John Myste: ...you made no points. Instead you stated partisan campaign style rhetoric.
Not true. In a post I wrote on 11/17/2009 I pointed out the following...
Richard Clarke (chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council) told [incoming president George bush] that, since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole (10/12/2000), he had been working on an "aggressive plan to take the fight to al Qaeda".
The last link is from a 8/12/2002 TIME MAGAZINE article titled, "They Had A Plan", which is a source Will might find acceptable... The article explains how the Clinton Administration developed a plan to go after al Qaeda and decided, instead of implementing the plan with only a short amount of time in the administration, to wait and hand the plan off to the incoming bush administration.
The article goes on to say...
Clarke's proposals called for the breakup of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel. The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble -- Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemen -- would be given aid to fight the terrorists.
Most important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to "eliminate the sanctuary" where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected...
The bush administration did not act on the plan. The TIME MAGAZINE article concludes that, "An aggressive campaign to degrade the terrorist network worldwide -- to shut down the conveyor belt of recruits coming out of the Afghan camps, to attack the financial and logistical support on which the hijackers depended -- just might have rendered it incapable of carrying out the Sept. 11 attacks".
The incoming Gore Administration (which is what the next administration would have been if the SCOTUS hadn't stolen the election for bush) would have taken that plan and ran with it. They would have stopped the attacks on 9/11.
I am as certain as one can be about this. Why? Because the numerous warnings (see my post) would not have been ignored by the Gore Administration like they were ignored by bush.
This isn't a "sermon", it is the truth.
Dervish,
I have seen this before. This is not the first time.
You didn't have to go into all again. You could have short-circuited your explanation, like Herodotus did: "I know because I heard it from some townspeople.
Has Bush confirmed this report or do you just believe anything that is critical of those you don't like because you don't like them?
The doofus whom the story is critial of is going to confirm his administration's failure?
Richard Clark confirmed it. Are you calling him a liar just because believing the truth -- a truth that is critial of bush -- would damage your cred as a "reasonable Liberal"?
So, let me get this straight... Time Magazine printed a story based on a lie presented to them by a delusional Richard Clark concerning a fabricated/non-existent plan of the Clinton adminstration to take the fight to al Qaeda? THAT'S you comeback? Really??
If so, then don't expect me to take anything you say in the future seriously.
Dervish,
I didn't call anyone a liar. I simply pointed out that you don't know. You have faith in the stories you need to have faith in.
As for taking anything someone says seriously based on their rejection of your faith, that is flaw in your logic, not mine, and I will not consider it a personal demerit.
Things stand or fall on their own recognizance, not on whose is saying them (or whom they are against).
This has nothing to do with Time Magazine, your purported Bible. It has to do wiht a claim you like, so embrace. If had the time to waste, I would go find claims I would know you wouldn't like and quote them in rebuttal. However, it is silly and I don't have the time, so I will point out your nutty thinking and just leave it at that.
I am offended by your use of the word "faith" to describe my political beliefs.
My only "faith" is my belief in God. "Faith" isn't a word I'd use to describe my understanding of politics, which is based on gathering information from sources I believe are reputable... People and organizations that fact check their stories and present only truthful information (and issue corrections when they're wrong).
If you think the Time Magazine story is false then you're calling Richard Clark a liar. I don't know how you get around that.
The writers at Time Magazine are a bunch of liars that fabricate stories to make Conservatives look bad and Liberals look good? I guess you're entitled to your nutty faith-based opinions, but from what I've heard my conclusion is that they are a reputable news source.
I would not describe Time Magazine as my "bible". I'm not a regular reader. I wouldn't even call myself an occasional reader.
Gentlemen, if the charge is that Mr. Bush failed to connect the dots and/or be aggressive enough to track down and kill al Qaeda in the months leading up to 9/11, I would totally agree with that. But, if the charge is (and I'm saying that Mr. Clarke - who I respect - is alleging this) that Mr. Bush knew that a catastrophic event (one that could have easily have killed 30-40,000 people had the evacuation not gone as well as it did) was going to happen and ALLOWED it to happen, just so he could invade Iraq (a topic that, according to Thomas Ricks's masterpiece, "Fiasco", wasn't even on the table in the months prior to 9/11), then, no, that would be a bridge too far for me.
Lot’s of people in politics say lots of things with lots of motives in mind. If Richard Clark makes a claim, Time Magazine will report it. You know this, so I should not have to state it. The fact that Time Magazine did report it, therefore, means Richard Clark made a claim, and that is all it means. Your Appeal to Tim Magazine really proves that Richard Clark made a claim. Unfortunately, no one disputed that, so you got caught committing an Appeal to Time Magazine and were awarded nothing in return, I am sorry to say.
If you think the Time Magazine story is false then you're calling Richard Clark a liar. I don't know how you get around that.
You made up that claim, therefore it is incumbent upon you to figure out how to get around what you perceive as a error in your claim.
My claim was that I don’t know what really happened because I don’t have enough information, and you don’t either. This claim does not call Mr. Clark a liar. It simply states that Mr. Clark has not proven anything by declaring it, just as you have not.
From this, you decide that I am calling Richard Clark a liar, which would be an impossible claim for me to make while maintaining I don’t have the data to know what really happened or why.
You then feverishly try to rebut the assumption that Richard Clark is a liar, an assumption you made up.
Then you said you would not describe “Time Magazine” as your Bible. Good, neither would I.
You then claimed that you don’t read Time Magazine. I knew this already. You heard something that could be taken as an indictment of Bush and immediately had faith you had found some “truth.” You Googled to find support. You were not looking for facts. You would looking for support of your conspiracy theorist tendencies. Again, if I had more time, I would find some documented claims of other things that you wouldn’t like and I would report that they are facts. I don’t have the time and besides, I would hate to annoy you.
As for your “idiocy of moderation,” you have been a consistent voice in support of moderation. Not intentionally, but I have to tell you, it is people like you that push moderates toward the conservative camp. Everyone is repulsed by a nut unless they are the same kind of nut. I am not implying you are a not, but only that true moderates would believe you are.
In case you don’t realize it, I will tell you, Bush, did not want the Twin Towers to be attacked by a bunch of terrorists. He was not pleased when it happened. He did try to seek out and punish those who did it. That is the rational position to take unless you have proof to the contrary. I don’t know this. It is my best guess. He did some things he should not have done, and he is criticized for other things he probably should have been criticized for. From our cabs, it is easy to say how it all should work, and we have the added benefit of lacking most of the real data on which decisions are actually made and having misinformation pumped in from every side, which some of us desperately want.
Some of us will even pick a side based primarily on our politics, call that truth, believe all information and misinformation that supports that truth, and argue against a moderate skepticism. Some of those will even call the moderate view, the one that recognizes the inherent difficulty in determining A. what the truth is, and B. what is actually the right thing to do, idiocy. These wise detectors of idiocy exist on both sides of the aisle, and they are equally wise, regardless where they reside.
WD said: "I already addressed this falsehood with my last comment."
Actually, you stated falsehoods. Your interpretation ignores facts, and the allegations of illegality or war crimes hold no water, and have been rejected by the people who know about these kind of things. Actual authorities.
WD said: "Nancy Pelosi is a hypocrite for not hiring union workers,"
But I don't blame here.
As a business owner, she wants to:
1) pay a fair wage
2) be able to fire bad workers
3) let actual qualified managers make management decisions.
Unions get in the way of all of this.
dmarks: Actually, you stated falsehoods.
The UN charter isn't a "falsehood". Zero "actual authorities" have rejected the fact that bush violated the UN charter. I "interpreted" nothing.
bush's invasions violated the UN charter. This is an undeniable fact. Failure to prosecute is not an deceleration of innocence.
It is your argument, dmarks, that holds no water.
dmarks: WD said Nancy Pelosi is a hypocrite for not hiring union workers...
I did NOT say Nancy Pelosi is a hypocrite; Peter Schweitzer did... but he lied.
Also, unions don't get in the way of owners paying a fair wage, they get in the way of owners paying an UNFAIR wage... which is why you object. Paying fair wages lowers profits for the wealthy elites, which is something dmarks cannot abide.
Nancy Pelosi is the most powerful government official in California. She could have given the heads-up to the United Farm Workers union and NOBODY would have made a peep. I mean, really, who in the hell would have filed the complaint? HER? It was her damned fucking business! Pelosi didn't give them the heads-up because she didn't want to deal with the unions - purely and simply.
Will: Pelosi didn't give them the heads-up because she didn't want to deal with the unions - purely and simply.
This isn't the argument that Peter Schweitzer made. He said, "It's not my responsibility to go and find out how every single particular circumstance is handled on the Pelosi vineyard.
He gave this weasely answer because he knew he was caught in a lie.
It is the worker's decision to have or not have a union. If Nancy Pelosi's workers don't want to unionize that is their right.
Your argument is ridiculous... even Peter Schweitzer knows it, which is why he didn't make that argument!
WD said: "It is the worker's decision to have or not have a union."
I truly believe this. You do not. That is why I support "Right to Work", in which this decision is protected.
WD said: "Zero "actual authorities" have rejected the fact that bush violated the UN charter. I "interpreted" nothing."
The ICC has reject Boyle's wild-eyed claims. That's the actual authority.
WD: "bush's invasions violated the UN charter."
Armchair attorneys and cranks think so. The UN does not. I tend to believe the people that know what is going on, when it comes to matters like this.
"This is an undeniable fact."
Actually, it's a flat out lie. Every bit as true as claiming that OBama is not a legal President because he is foreign-born. Like with the 'war criminal' slander, the adults also reject this slander about Obama.
dmarks: Actually, it's a flat out lie.
The UN Charter has not been retroactively rewritten. dmarks is the one who is lying.
dmarks: Armchair attorneys and cranks think so. The UN does not.
The UN never issued a statement declaring bush innocent of violating it's Charter. But dmarks disagrees... therefore I challenge dmarks to produce a link to such a statement. Until I see this (nonexistent) statement I will continue to call dmarks out for his lies.
"The UN never issued a statement declaring bush innocent of violating it's Charter"
Not has it issued a statement declaring WD innocent of war crimes. So ... wow, you are as guilty as George W. Bush!
That's how it works in your bass ackwards "guilty of any wild accusation until proven innocent" world.
dmarks: Nor has it issued a statement declaring WD innocent of war crimes.
I didn't violate the UN Charter, bush did. The UN didn't take action, so that means bush somehow didn't violate the UN charter?
If they aren't going to act regarding a CLEAR violation of the charter the very least which should be expected is a statement explaining why what bush did is now OK. The charter hasn't been changed.
Clearly it is dmarks' logic that is bass ackwards.
I think dmarks is a crank.
Mr. Schweizer said that Nancy Pelosi didn't hire union pickers. Nancy Pelosi didn't hire union pickers. No lie.......As for that far-left radio idiot who tried his best spin for the hypocritical Pelosi, he tried to say that Pelosi legally couldn't start a union on her own. Duh. SHE DIDN'T FRIGGING HAVE TO. All that the smarmy little biotch would have had to have done was to make a phone call. She didn't. Case closed - textbook hypocrisy (the workers at her restaurants, resorts, and golf clubs aren't unionized, either - da ya see a frigging trend here?).
And if Mr. Bush's initial actions (the blowing up of the terrorist compounds, I'm saying, not the rest of it) in Afghanistan were of such an illegal nature, why in the hell wasn't there more outrage about it? The way that I remember it, the entire country (save, of course, for such lunatics as Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, etc.) and Western hemisphere were firmly behind the action. IN FACT, the Democratic Party subsequently criticized Mr. Bush FOR NOT BEING AGGRESSIVE ENOUGH!! It was the frigging good war - don't you remember?
They didn't want a union because they were poor, uneducated immigrants who didn't know the first thing about starting a union. If Pelosi had any integrity whatsoever, she would have called the UFW and they could have sent in an agitator. She didn't. She's a hypocrite.
Will: ...were of such an illegal nature, why in the hell wasn't there more outrage about it?
This is like dmarks' argument that because bush hasn't been charged he is innocent. bush violated the UN Charter... a lack of it outrage does not change that fact.
The "Western hemisphere" was firmly behind the action? That's a pretty bold statement that I find highly dubious. Please provide some proof that this was so.
No, I do not recall anyone saying Afghanistan was the "good war", despite that fact that you've used that phrase numerous times. What those on the Democratic side meant when they pointed to Afghanistan and said we weren't doing enough there was that Iraq was the wrong war.
bin Laden and al Qaeda weren't in Iraq, they were in Afghanistan... but I don't think anyone said the Afghanistan war is (or was) "good"... only now, given that we are ALREADY THERE, concentrating our efforts there makes some sense... while Iraq never made any sense.
If you can provide a link to a specific quote... please do so.
I'm offended by your reference to Nancy Pelosi as a "smarmy little biotch". She was (and will be again, hopefully) one of the most effective speakers the House has ever had. I've got nothing but respect for her. She pays her employees more than the industry average.
She could NOT have "called the UFW and they could have sent in an agitator"... because she is forbidden by law. Nancy Pelosi is an honest and good woman with integrity and not a hypocrite.
It's Peter Schweitzer who is the smarmy little (son of a) biotch. He lied. His lies were exposed. You can tell from his response (when he was called on his lie) that he knew he was caught... which explains his incredibly lame response...
"It's not my responsibility to go and find out how every single particular circumstance is handled on the Pelosi vineyard".
It was your book. Therefore it was your responsibility to properly research it. What a (lying) dumbass.
.
It does appear that some here are having a great bit of fun in their personal pi$$ing match. But at least one fact is clear. It is against the law for the USA government to listen to conversations of USA citizen without a warrant.
Constitution of USA -
"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Then President Bush admitted to authorizing the government's unwarranted listening to electronic conversations of USA citizens in USA. This action was and is still against the law; no matters who does it.
"... conservatives, give the guy at least a modicum of a pat on the back once in a while."
The hate-filled neo-con would rather sh!t and fall back in it than to admit Mr Obama is not the devil.
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
WD: "This is like dmarks' argument that because bush hasn't been charged he is innocent. bush violated the UN Charter."
No, he did not. The ICC does not believe he did. The UN does not believe he did. They are the authorities. Not you, not me.
WD said: "I think dmarks is a crank."
And as such, my opinions about Bush being a war criminal or not have no less weight than those of you or Francis Boyle.
But unlike you two, I know where I am qualified, and where I am not. I defer to the actual authorities and rule of law.
Which reminds me. It's interesting how you seem to be a stickler for international law. But you insist that the opinion of the ICC does not matter, and instead tout theocratic terrorist courts as the place to have international trials.
dmarks is a crank and his last comment is definitive proof of this. First he attacks me for a supposed typo (he says I typed "Frances" instead of "Francis", even though this alleged typo does not appear anywhere in this comment thread).
He's obviously quite desperate, and clearly knows his defense of bush is total bullshit. Who else would think pointing out a typo is a defense of war crimes?
And this attack regarding a supposed typo comes from an individual who thought Francis was a woman instead of a man when I first brought his name up!
Next he lies about Francis Boyle "demanding" ethnic cleansing of Israel. Francis Boyle is a critic of Israel. He has never called for "ethnic cleansing". Also, as I've already pointed out, Boyle's opinions regarding Israel have nothing to do with the fact that bush violated the UN Charter... and your insistence that they do is another example of how desperate you are.
Then dmarks makes up "opinions" of the ICC and claims that I've said these opinions don't matter. But the fact is the ICC has never issued an opinion on this subject. I challenged dmarks to produce a link to this opinion by the ICC (which doesn't exist) and he refused.
His defense was that an absence of an opinion is EXACTLY the same as if there was one... and it said, "we hereby declare George W bush completely innocent of violating the UN Charter". All reasonable intelligent people realize (of course) that this is no defense at all... and not an opinion of the ICC either.
Finally he brings up two individuals I never mentioned... Ward Churchill and Noam Chomsky (as if that, somehow, also proves bush's innocence). And he lies about one of them, saying everyone remembers how he "cheered on Pol Pot in the Killing Fields".
How can "everyone" remember something that did not happen? Also, WTF does this false accusation have to do with bush violating the UN Charter?
These are clearly the ravings of a mentally unstable crank.
wd, you don't even know what the word lie means at this point. A lie is when you KNOWINGLY say something that is false and try to pawn it off as true. AT THE VERY WORST, Mr. Schweizer (a respected conservative whose vast works have appeared in many NONPARTISAN publications - as opposed to Mr. Olbermann who only appears in trash like the Daily Kos) left out one measly mildly mitigating factor. But you slander him and call him a liar. Pathetic.............As for the slimy Pelosi, I ask you again, WHO would have filed a complaint against her? Her? LOL
wd, show me just one mainstream Democratic politician and/or commentator who initially voiced ANY opposition to the mission in Afghanistan. ONE! I'll be waiting.
Keith Olbermann LIES about Major Garrett; youtube.com/watch?v=BpPesCigGzM
Keith Olbermann LIES about Chris Wallace; youtube.com/watch?v=xmIHHCQKUSY This one is actually quite hilarious.
Ema, welcome back. I can't tell if you're a conservative or a liberal and I like it. Enough already with these damned hard-cores.
Will: Keith Olbermann LIES about Major Garrett.
Youtube: The video you have requested is not available.
Will: Keith Olbermann LIES about Chris Wallace. This one is actually quite hilarious.
This video was actually there. This youtube doesn't prove Keith Olbermann "lies". It's Chris Wallace denying he said what Keith Olbermann says he did.
And then a bunch of insults you've repeated just about verbatim on this blog... which actually WAS quite hilarious... to hear Chris Wallace say what you passed off as your thoughts on this blog... all that crap about Keith thinking he is Edward R. Murrow.
But I don't know what the hell this has to do with Petey Schweitzer's lies about Nancy Pelosi.
Olbermann lied about Major Garret. He said that Mr. Garret didn't report a denial by Paul Begala that Mr. Begala would be working for Obama. Not only did Mr. Garret report the Begala denial, he reported it twice!!!
The fact that Keith Olbermann actually thinks that he's Edward R. Murrow is probably something that's dawned on a lot of people. Though, yes, I did use Mr. Wallace's example of Murrow covering the blitz and Mr. Olbermann rarely if ever leaving the studio. I doubt that he'd mind.
Post a Comment