Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Miscellaneoue 129
1) President Bush 2 (as has been alleged by a certain partisan lunatic) never once targeted Iraqi civilians during the war. Yes, there were some unfortunate casualties due to collateral damage and all but these represented a tiny percentage of the entire death toll. The true fact of the matter is that 95-98% of all civilian deaths in this conflict came about from Iraqis killing other Iraqis. For certain people to try and equate this with FDR's intentional wholesale slaughter of innocents during WW2 is partisan idiocy at its absolute worst.............2) The progressives blather (demagogue, one might say) quite a bit about tax fairness. Mr. Obama has even decided to joined the fray. Unfortunately, they aren't very specific about what it means. I mean, yeah, they have in fact said that the top rates should go up and all but in terms of what percentage of the total tax burden that these wealthier individuals should pay, bubkas. Like, right now, for instance, the top 5% pay 59% of all Federal Income Taxes. Compared to the 32% of the total AGI that they make, that's a 1.8: 1 ratio. That's not fair?............3) And, yes, this is coming from a guy who thinks that we DO need to raise more in terms of revenue. I just don't like the divisive talk and the implication that these individuals aren't ALREADY kicking in a tremendous amount. I hate it in fact.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
52 comments:
Will: A minor point. FDR was no a war criminal. My dad was a bombadier in WWII...He flew his missions on B52 Liberators over Germany, Austria and Italy...close to a hundred sorties. In our conversations he NEVER said they targeted civilians....NEVER, always military objectives. I can appreciate that my dad was in one plane and I know what the history says...IMO the fire bombings you discribe were not typical and came later in the war. In the Pacific theater, the Japanese were fighting to the last man to defend tiny islands in the pacific...if we did it the "right" way, the war in Japan could have dragged on for another 4-5 years. As for Europe, Hitler would not sue for peace. At the very end he was using 8 year old boys to defend Berlin. I might also point out the Germans had no regard for innocents with their V12 rocket attacks on London...Forgive me...I'm just a bitter old man trying to perserve my father's memory.
Will: President Bush 2 (as has been alleged by a certain partisan lunatic) never once targeted Iraqi civilians during the war.
I've never heard anyone allege this. Yet civilians were killed by our bombs and our guns.
Will: The true fact of the matter is that 95-98% of all civilian deaths in this conflict came about from Iraqis killing other Iraqis.
It's a "true fact"? What, in your opinion? That percentage sounds a little high to me, although it could be accurate simply due to the huge number of civilians that were killed. In any case, the civil war was CAUSED by our invasion, and partitioning of the country could have cut down on the violence (and the bushies didn't even consider it). WE lit the match on that powder keg and are therefore responsible for the results.
Will: The progressives... demagogue... quite a bit about tax fairness. Mr. Obama has even decided to joined the fray. Unfortunately, they aren't very specific about what it means. ...they have in fact said that the top rates should go up and all but in terms of what percentage of the total tax burden that these wealthier individuals should pay, bubkas.
Then I guess you haven't been paying attention. As someone who HAS been paying attention I think it's very clear that the president thinks we should return to the Clinton rates. The current "plan" I've heard that the Democrats are considering is... to allow the bush tax cuts to expire on January 1, and then introduce a bill on Jan 2 that lowers the rates down to where they currently are... for everyone but those making more than 250k.
That way it would be a tax cut and the Republicans could vote for it without violating their pledge to Grover Norquist.
BTW, this is something you write about quite frequently on this blog... therefore I'm very surprised that you are as uninformed on the issue as you appear to be.
I say that tax fairness is:
1. Everyone pays the same percentage on the same income be it wages, dividends, or capital,gains.
2. Fairness is a progressive tax system like we currently have on wage income.
3. Fairness is businesses pay the same rates as people.
4. Fairness is taxes are high enough and expenses are low enough to balance the budget.
Much to my dismay Jerry makes a lot of sense,except for businesses...I'm presuming he means corporate tax.Right now our corporate tax is among the highest in the world....but,unfortunately a company like GE whose profits are in the billions and who outsources well over half of their employees pay,due to loop holes zero corporate tax.I might add GE has recieved hundreds of millions of dollars for "Green Energy" projects the past few years....with almost zero return on investment.But,thats another story.
As for Federal Income Tax....I'm in favor of a flat 15% income tax for everyone regardless of income.
10% Capital gaines and 10% corporate tax on all regardless of profits.
Fairness is subjective and realty means anything anyone wants it to mean under any given situation at any given point in time. And when it is determined by "rulers" it quickly becomes whatever whim they may be experiencing on a particular day, week, month, etc.
Will someone pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee tell Michelle Bachmann to STFU.
If it was'nt for people like her and those two twits in Navada and Deleware the party of growth would control the Senate and we would'nt have to suffer through another Dingy Harry news conference.
The party of growth DOES control the Senate. Hopefully they will regain control of the House in November and retain the presidency. We're in serious trouble if they don't.
Rusty,
This seems to be our day of agreement. I agree, someone should tell Bachmann to STFU!
Perhaps this will help Rusty and Jerry:
http://rationalnationusa.blogspot.com/2012/07/bachmann-and-her-cohorts-dangerous.html
http://rationalnationusa.blogspot.com/2012/07/toons-continued.html
WD said: "In any case, the civil war was CAUSED by our invasion"
Actually, Iraqis were killing Iraqis in much greater numbers in the years before our invasion compared to after.
Of course, this wasn't a civil war, it was Saddam Hussein slaughtering several tens of thousands of his people per year.
"WE lit the match on that powder keg and are therefore responsible for the results."
We are not responsible for the fact that depraved Iraqi terrorists who are our enemies; people we have spent most of our time fighting have done horrible things.
Also, WD's outrageous blaming of the US and allies for atrocities committed by our terrorist enemies reminds me of a column I read by Pat Buchahan a few years ago.
Buchanan blamed the Holocaust on the Western allies. Because, according to him, the military efforts against Hitler forced him to step up the Holocaust.
Comparing the illegal invasion of Iraq and slaughter of innocents there to the Holocaust... and then linking me to controversial remarks made by Pat Buchanan? Shame on you dmarks.
Iraq did not, nor did they have plans to wage war against the rest of the world, despite bush's lies about smoking guns and mushroom clouds.
This just shows you the outrageous lengths dmarks is willing to go in defending the war criminal bush. I find it quite loathsome.
WD said: "Comparing the illegal invasion of Iraq..."
There was no illegal invasion of Iraq by the US. You are referring to an event that exists in your imagination and not actual history.
"and then linking me to controversial remarks made by Pat Buchanan? Shame on you dmarks."
I have no need to be "ashamed". But you do for crazy logic blaming innocent people for the wrongdoing of others. Just as Buchanan did.
"Iraq did not, nor did they have plans to wage war against the rest of the world".
Nor did Nazi Germany. But both Nazi Germany and Saddam's Iraq attacked many other nations in their region, had exterminating Jews as a major foreign policy goal, and regarded separate but nearby sovereign nations as part of their "homeland" to be annexed.
"despite bush's lies about smoking guns and mushroom clouds."
There were no lies from Bush on these matters.
"This just shows you the outrageous lengths dmarks is willing to go in defending the war criminal bush. I find it quite loathsome."
I ROFL at another "Bush war criminal" joke.
You'd better be careful with your hatred of Bush that has included calling for his murder. Or the next time the former President comes within 60 miles of you the Secret Service might lock you in a basement for several days out of fear that you might act on your delusions. Seriously, man, your nutty obsession is scary at times.
In the ongoing pissing contest about the Iraq war, BOTH WD and and Dmarks miss some obvious questions...Dmarks: Yes WMD was found in Iraq and the VAST majority of it was degraded ordinance from the Iran-Iraq wars...this never approached "the reconstituted programs" the Bush administration claimed...But lets say I'm wrong ( And I'm not.), who supplied Saddam with WMD??? This is what should concern you Mr Dervish...The answer to this simple question should point you in the direction of the real "war criminals"...Other worthwhile questions might be: Who gave Iraq the "green light" to attack Iran? Who provided Logistical and Military advice to Iraq during the those conflicts? WD say what you want about "Dubya" but he was not the "war criminal" you claim...Do some more research.
Marcus: Yes, WMD were found. And due to that, "Iraq had no WMD" is a flat-out lie.
Dmarks: The "WMD" that was found had the the strength of common cleaners found under most peoples kitchen sinks...If thats sufficient for you so be it. Truth is what was found never lived up to the hype...The Intelligence we had was faulty...even "Dubya' said that and I am willing to give him at least a partial pass...Again this all begs the question: Where did Saddam get the WMD?? (I suspect some people would not like the answer...)
dmarks respondiding to Marcus: Yes, WMD were found. And due to that, "Iraq had no WMD" is a flat-out lie.
Not an "outright lie", but the truth. Marcus was correct when he said that "the VAST majority of [the "WMD"] was degraded ordinance from the Iran-Iraq wars [which] never approached the reconstituted programs the Bush administration claimed..."
bush used scare tatics to gin up support for his illegal war and what was found did not rise to the level of what bush was claiming.
People referring to these degraded ordinance and using this to claim that bush was telling the truth... these people are the flat out liars. They are grasping at straws in order to justify bush's illegal and unnecessary invasion.
Given the high cost in lives on both sides... and the high cost in borrowed dollars... these lies make me quite angry. And I get even angrier when these liars refer to war crimes as a "joke" and say they're "rolling around on the floor laughing".
WD: Our European Aliies also had hand in supplying Saddam with WMD....Moreover, our involvement with Iraq dates back to JFK. Given the complexity of the issue, claiming Dubya is solely responsible as the lone "war criminal" in your crusade is well...over the top...
WD said: "The UN Charter (international law) says otherwise."
No, it is just you, and your imaginary interpretation of the charter. The charter, and the UN itself, disagree with you.
WD "I'm blaming bush for the illegal invasion of Iraq."
This is an event that never happened.
"He did it and is therefore not "innocent".
The UN and the ICC disagree with you. You are making entirely false accusations.
"Nazi Germany actually did have plans to invade other countries and carried them out."
As did Saddam's Iraq. So what, you have added a similarity.
"Iraq was threatening no other country when bush ordered the invasion"
Did Saddam pay you $200,000 to lie like he did Scott Ritter?
1) Saddam's Iraq had openly declared its intent to destroy Israel, and they were funding terrorist groups to accomplish this right up until the invasion.
2) Saddam's Iraq was still ciaiming Kuwait as a colony.
3) Terrorists funded and encouraged by Saddam attacked other countries as well.
4) Saddam's forces attacked innocent Americans and Brits in the "no fly zones", each attack being an act of war and a breaking of the cease-fire.
"they were in fact complying with the UN's resolutions calling for them to disarm"
They were not even doing this. The UN report a month or two before the invasion detailed how Saddam was still blocking inspections that were supposed to have been completed a year before.
"Iraq didn't have the technology to produce nukes. You know this."
But they had the will, intent, and effort.
"I made no joke"
You did.
"so what you are laughing at is the mere mention of war crimes."
The imaginary war crimes you refer to can't be sick. Just silly.
'I find that quite sick."
What is sick is your slandering of Bush every chance you get.
"I've never called for bush's murder. I'm calling for a trial. I believe in the rule of law. I'm suffering from zero delusions."
When you last called for his murder, you said he should be hanged.
Also, you made clear what you find acceptible as a "trial", when you approved of the idea of Bin Laden being turned over to a tribunal of terrorists.
Marcus: I re-researched the origin of the WMD, as you suggested, and it is pretty much as you say.
Thanks Dmarks: The larger point I was trying to make is that the US and Europe both "created" the Saddam Hussien that we took out...Our involvlement in Iraq started in the early 60's when the Ba'athists overthrew the monarchy...some have suggested the CIA was somehow involved in that...JFK was very concerned about expanding Soviet influence in the Middle East. Saddam Hussien "evolved" over the course of the next several US presidents, not one as WD suggests. I understand his passion, sympathize with his anger (including the possible supply of WMD.)but disagree with his ultimate conclusion. IMO Dubya was at heart a decent guy who was swayed by both 9/11 and NeoConservative zealots in the defense department...they got things wrong. The world IS probrably a better place without Saddam but maybe we would have been better served by focusing on Bin Laden.
dmarks: No, it is just you, and your imaginary interpretation of the charter. The charter, and the UN itself, disagree with you.
The Secretary General of the UN agreed. I previously provided the quote. He said that ACCORDING TO the Charter the invasion was illegal. There was no "imagining" by me. He really did say this.
This is an event that never happened.
It did happen. bush tried, but failed to get the UN to sign off on his invasion. He also lied about Iraq refusing to disarm. The IAEA said he was complying (dragging his feet, but reluctantly complying). In any case, it was up to the UN to determine what was to be done if Iraq failed to comply with UN resolutions, not the US acting unilaterally.
The UN and the ICC disagree with you. You are making entirely false accusations.
You are making entirely false accusations. The UN and the ICC never said they "disagreed".
dmarks: As did Saddam's Iraq. So what, you have added a similarity.
Saddam's army was expelled from Kuwait years prior to GWb's invasion. There is no similarity.
Did Saddam pay you $200,000 to lie like he did Scott Ritter?
Saddam paid neither of us to lie for him. You suggesting Saddam would pay me shows how ludicrous your claims of a payoff to Scott Ritter are. Also, Saddam is dead. He could not have paid me. Besides, I'm telling the truth.
I'll assume you're making a bad joke. That can be the only explaination.
dmarks: Saddam's Iraq had openly declared its intent to destroy Israel, and they were funding terrorist groups to accomplish this right up until the invasion.
They had zero ability to do this.
dmarks: Saddam's Iraq was still claiming Kuwait as a colony.
They were expelled from Kuwait.
dmarks: Terrorists funded and encouraged by Saddam attacked other countries as well.
They weren't and he didn't.
dmarks: Saddam's forces attacked innocent Americans and Brits in the "no fly zones", each attack being an act of war and a breaking of the cease-fire.
The UN had jurisdiction. The cease-fire was UN negotiated.
dmarks: They were not even doing this. The UN report a month or two before the invasion detailed how Saddam was still blocking inspections that were supposed to have been completed a year before.
They were (even though they were dragging their feet). Hans Blix of the IAEA confirmed it.
dmarks: But they had the will, intent, and effort.
The inspections thwarted this completely.
Marcus: Thanks for a sane criticism, that I might not agree completely with, but I can see where you are coming from. Proving as Will does that it is possible to criticize Bush for what he is, and what he did, without throwing in completely unfounded accusations.
dmarks: You did [make a joke]
This is an arrogant lie. I know when I'm joking and when I'm serious. I've never joked about bush's war crimes... only you have.
dmarks: What is sick is your slandering of Bush every chance you get.
I'm telling the truth about bush. It's only slander to you because you supported the illegal invasion.
dmarks: When you last called for his murder, you said he should be hanged.
I never called for his murder. I said he should be executed after being convicted of war crimes.
dmarks: Also, you made clear what you find acceptible as a "trial", when you approved of the idea of Bin Laden being turned over to a tribunal of terrorists.
I did not not approve of this. I said we should have accepted the Taliban's offer to turn him over to a moderate Islamic group. But only because I was in favor of getting bin Laden any way we could. Your way resulted in an additional 10 years of freedom for bin Laden.
I side with those who wished to bring bin Laden to justice and dmarks sides with those who wanted him to remain free. That's quite chilling.
dmarks responding to Marcus: I re-researched the origin of the WMD, as you suggested, and it is pretty much as you say.
So? He pointed out they were degraded and not the threat bush was hyping. Are you're admitting you've been lying and that the "WMD" that was found didn't justify bush's invasion?
Marcus: claiming Dubya is solely responsible...
bush isn't solely responsible. Others in his administration should also be tried for war crimes. As for the chemical weapons, I believe who supplied them should be exposed. Read the blog post I authored on the topic (the one I linked to in my previous comment).
Marcus: ...not one as WD suggests...
I didn't suggest this. I'm aware of the history you mention.
Marcus: IMO Dubya was at heart a decent guy...
IMO he was (and still is) not. He most likely considers himself to be "a decent guy", but those who do evil often don't see themselves that way.
WD: "The Secretary General of the UN agreed."
He did an off-the-cuff interview, which relected no UN resolutions or proceedings of any kind. Saying that this represents the UN is completely ignorant of how that body works.
It is just like saying that if Harry Reid says something, it is a result of a Senate vote.
"I previously provided the quote. He said that ACCORDING TO the Charter the invasion was illegal."
His opinion. The UN as a body disagreed.
"There was no "imagining" by me. He really did say this."
Your imagination is in your complete ignorance how the UN works, where you think that apparently it runs by decree of the Sec. Gen instead of by votes on resolutions.
If you disagree, show me the relevant UN resolution.
"He also lied about Iraq refusing to disarm."
He told the truth on this.
"The IAEA said he was complying (dragging his feet, but reluctantly complying)."
Dragging your feet is not complying. And as a result, Saddam had not actually complied. He was still blocking inspections.
"In any case, it was up to the UN to determine what was to be done if Iraq failed to comply with UN resolutions, not the US acting unilaterally."
Then you should have no problem, since the US acted with a large number of allies, not unilaterally.
"The UN and the ICC never said they "disagreed"."
They don't have to waste their time directly discussing every bogus claim that they choose to reject. Their rejection and silence is a message in itself.
"Saddam paid neither of us to lie for him."
Convicted child rapist Scott Ritter was paid $200,000 by Saddam, after which he lied and defended Saddam's regime.
"You suggesting Saddam would pay me"
Saddam can't: he is dead. Regardless, you are quite willing to lie on his behalf anyway.
"shows how ludicrous your claims of a payoff to Scott Ritter are."
This is part of historic fact. Ritter got the payment, and made a pro-Saddam documentary, and form then on was Saddam's PR representative in the US.
"Also, Saddam is dead. He could not have paid me. Besides, I'm telling the truth."
In all of this exchange, the only "truth" from you is found in the immediately previous sentence, about Saddam not being able to pay you.
"They had zero ability to do this.
In direct violation of the cease fire, Saddam Hussein was hosting and funding numerous terrorist groups, mostly antisemitic ones. While it might be acceptible to you that they killed Jews for Saddam short of completely wiping them out, terrorism is not acceptible to me.
"They were expelled from Kuwait."
But Saddam was STILL announcing his intent to conquer Kuwait again.
"They weren't and he didn't."
Do you want a list of the terrorist groups which Saddam hosted in Iraq? You really have no idea what you are talking about.
"The UN had jurisdiction. The cease-fire was UN negotiated."
At least you acknowledge finally that the war was on, even if you screw up international law to claim that the US had no right to fight back.
WD: "They were (even though they were dragging their feet). Hans Blix of the IAEA confirmed it."
They were not complying, since they were dragging their feet. The cease-fire requirements required complete unfettered inspections... a decade ago. And as you admit, they were "dragging their feet" and still blocking them.
You are being completely illogical and nonsensical: claiming that someone who is dragging their feet and refusing inspections has actually complied.
"This is an arrogant lie. I know when I'm joking and when I'm serious. I've never joked about bush's war crimes... only you have."
The facts are clear. There is no excuse for ignorance and making fake claims. Unless you are joking, or smoking crack.
"I'm telling the truth about bush."
Yet, when compared to objective fact and the proceedings of actual authorities, you come across like someone on crack.
"It's only slander to you because you supported the illegal invasion."
Good example of a false accusation. I have supported no illegal invasions.
"I never called for his murder. I said he should be executed after being convicted of war crimes."
Which is rather dubious since he has committed none. The ICC, the top authority, has rejected the silly claims of war crimes. So it won't be a real court that will c
"I did not not approve of this."
You did many times. Will also argued with you about the Taliban's offer to turn Bin Laden to a group of radical theocratic terrorists. No moderate Islamic group was considered. Not that it would have been valid: religious courts have no place in justice at all.
"Your way resulted in an additional 10 years of freedom for bin Laden."
He would have been freed in days if we had turned Bin Laden over to your beloved radical terrorist kangaroo court.
"I side with those who wished to bring bin Laden to justice and dmarks sides with those who wanted him to remain free. That's quite chilling."
It's not true at all, as you wanted Saddam to be "judged" by fellow religious extremists and terrorist leaders.
"So? He pointed out they we redegraded and not the threat bush was hyping. Are you're admitting you've been lying and that the "WMD" that was found didn't justify bush's invasion?"
I've been telling the truth on this. Saddam was stockpiling WMD. A large number, in fact. And you believe that a proportion were not degraded. And it is a fact that possessing any WMD was a significant cease-fire violation. The presence of any undeclared WMD at all also proved that the inspection process had failed
"IMO he was (and still is) not."
Marcus, like Will, has a reality-based picture of George W. Bush. His heart is not twisted with illogical and emotional hate over things Bush never did.
"He most likely considers himself to be "a decent guy", but those who do evil often don't see themselves that way."
You remind me of that cartoon character played by Ernest Borgnine who was always wailing "Evil!".
The rest of us are in the real world.
dmarks: The facts are clear. There is no excuse... Unless you are joking, or smoking crack.
I only make fact-based claims... and I've never used illegal drugs. Not even once.
dmarks: Yet... you come across like someone on crack.
I've never used illegal drugs. Not even once. You must be thinking of yourself... because you speak of "objective fact" yet this is something you ignore when you illogically claim I'm "interpreting" the text of the UN Charter that clearly states bush's invasion was illegal.
dmarks: ...a false accusation. I have supported no illegal invasions.
The UN Charter and international law say otherwise.
dmarks: Which is rather dubious since he has committed none. The ICC... has rejected the silly claims of war crimes.
The ICC has issued no such statement.
dmarks: You did many times.... No moderate Islamic group was considered. ...religious courts have no place in justice at all. He would have been freed in days if we had turned Bin Laden over to your beloved radical terrorist kangaroo court.
Regarding the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC), investigative journalist and historian specializing in US national security policy Gareth Porter, said the OIC "...is a moderate Islamic organization". And, regarding OBL being tried by this group he said, "I believe it is a fair presumption that bin Laden being tried by an OIC international panel of jurors would certainly result in a guilty verdict for the 9/11 attacks".
And there is no radical Islamic court that is "beloved" by me. I only believe it would have been better to bring Bin Laden to justice 10 years earlier. Obviously you disagree.
dmarks: It's not true at all, as you wanted Saddam to be "judged" by fellow religious extremists and terrorist leaders.
I did not. That would have been a bad idea.
dmarks: I've been telling the truth on this. Saddam was stockpiling WMD. ...The presence of any undeclared WMD at all also proved that the inspection process had failed.
Containment and inspections were extremely successful, this despite the fact that Saddam was resisting and dragging his feet the whole time.
A Foreign Affairs article says, "Sanctions Worked". According to the article, "...intelligence agencies and policymakers disregarded considerable evidence of the destruction and deterioration of Iraq's weapons programs, the result of a successful strategy of containment in place for a dozen years..."
Marcus, like Will, has a reality-based picture of George W. Bush. His heart is not twisted with illogical and emotional hate over things Bush never did.
My heart is not "twisted with illogical and emotional hate over things Bush never did". I'm discussing things bush actually did. You are the one presenting illogical arguments concerning things that never happened. Like your argument that the UN Charter can be "interpreted" to support bush's invasion and the ICC issuing no statements is the same as them declaring bush innocent. I think dmarks must be joking or on crack.
dmarks: You remind me of that cartoon character played by Ernest Borgnine who was always wailing "Evil!".
I don't know what character you're talking about, but I do know that evil exists in the world, and I think illegally invading a country that posed no treat which resulted in thousands of deaths... all for political gain... I say that fits the bill.
As brutal and bad an actor as Saddam was he none the less provided a balance of power in the region; ie: Iran.
Further, it has not been proven that Saddam in fact has WMD, although everyone knew he gassed the Kurds.
Additionally the internal affairs of a country are really none of our concern unless their is an act of direct aggression against our people and nation. I realize the existence of allies and to that extent you could extend the statement to include... or our allies. But alliances are often the result of world wars.
wd is way off base with his obsessions Over GWB ans his allegations of war crimes. However I'll give him this much, we should not have engaged in Iraq. The world is likely a much more dangerous place today because of our decision to do so.
Yes, even the Democrats in congress supported the action. And yes, they were privy to the same intelligence the White House was.
Now wd, can you give it a rest? Or are you really as obsessed and delusional as some believe?
Actually it is dmarks and Will who are obsessed with bush's war crimes. Denying and defending them, that is (dmarks: both, and Will just the first). Also, many Democrats didn't support the action or have access to the same intelligence.
Dianne Feinstein, US Senator (D-CA), in a 12/15/2005 announcement titled "Senator Feinstein Releases Nonpartisan CRS Report That Concludes Congress Did Not Have Access to Full Scope of Prewar Intelligence", stated: "When the Senate voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2002, it was based on a more limited scope of prewar intelligence than was available to the Administration".
Bob Kerrey, former US Senator (D-NE), on the 10/8/2004 edition of CNN's American Morning, stated: "The president has much more access to intelligence than members of Congress does. Ask any member of Congress. Ask a Republican member of Congress, do you get the same access to intelligence that the president does? ... The president has much more access to intelligence than any member of Congress".
wd, you have conclusively just answered my question. Thank you.
RN
What is your basis for saying the White House had the same information as Congress? I suspect they had more than was shared with Congress.
Information on the fire-bombing of Japan and Germany during WW2. General LeMay, one of the architects behind this strategy, essentially admitted that had in fact Japan won the war, he and his colleagues would have been tried and convicted for war crimes....... http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.10.5.03.HTM
Jerry, back in September of 2002, every member of the House and Senate was granted full access to the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and WMD. It was a 92 page document and it was fully loaded with doubts, ambiguities, and disagreements with Mr. Bush's assertions. The problem? Well, according to Thomas Ricks's stellar book, "Fiasco", not even a handful of these Congressman and Senators even bothered to read the 5-page summary of it. Nope, they apparently didn't have the time nor the inclination for it.......Kudos to the 23 Senators who voted no.
Will said: "The problem? Well, according to Thomas Ricks's stellar book, "Fiasco", not even a handful of these Congressman and Senators even bothered to read the 5-page summary of it."
It fits in with the modus operandi of Rep. John Conyers, who has admitted that is too lazy to bother to read even the legislation he votes for.
So, you think that the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and WMD was the only information that the White House had? No private briefings? No private communications with any members of the intelligence community?
I agree, Jerry, that there was probably more information that the White House had than the Congress. But there was plenty in that NIE report that clearly suggested caution. In my opinion, those 29 Democrats made what was quite possibly a political vote (the fact that they got it wrong the first time, the fact that some of them ere planning on running for President, etc.). And like dmarks said, on a lot of occasions, they (both sides) don't even read the legislation.
I guess that's what we get for electing them.
Will said: "And like dmarks said, on a lot of occasions, they (both sides) don't even read the legislation."
Exactly. And after Conyers admitted he was too lazy to bother to read what he signs, I am not "arrogant" in saying that the Detroit area voters are fools for re-electing him.
Aside from the fact that
Conyers is a completely corrupt scumbag.
dmarks: I am not "arrogant" in saying that the Detroit area voters are fools for re-electing him.
You're extremley arrogant according to your own "rules" regarding judging people's votes. They know their lives and what is in their interest and dmarks does not. This also makes you a hypocrite.
dmarks: Conyers is a completely corrupt scumbag.
Your link is to a story regarding Conyers' wife. John Conyers has been convicted of no wrongdoing and still holds his seat. Using dmarks' own rules regarding guilt when crimes are alleged... John Conyers is completely innocent of these "corrupt scumbag" charges. The real authorities reject and laugh at these allegations put forward by crank armchair attorneys like dmarks.
If I lived in Detroit I'd vote for him.
You are right about my "arrogance". Because it got you to argue against the exact same sort of arrogance you display profusely, and deny and defend.
"If I lived in Detroit I'd vote for him."
What is it that attracts you to him? The fast that he is a waste of skin who is too lazy to read legislation, or the fact that political corruption crime goes on in his house and he is fine with it?
You should visit Detroit. It is an eye opener of what unionization has done.
I've displayed zero arrogance. And how could I defend something I'm denying? If I wanted to defend something I'd have to admit it first. Your insults don't even make any sense. And unionization has absolutely nothing to do with Detroit's problems. Unions are good for workers... it's the reason they exist... to represent and fight for workers.
Question, wd. Have you ever actually dealt with a union before? I have, many times, and I can tell you, they aren't always these knights in shining armor coming in to save you. Very far from it.
And unions only represent and act in the interest of some workers.
Even in states with high membership because most of the union members are in fact forced to join against their will, half the people want out.
Unions represent and act in the interest of ALL workers.
The workers, who, unlike you, know their own life and situation and work.. and have intense first-hand knowledge of union operations, strongly disagree. I side with them rather than a distant uninvolved arrogant know-it-all like you.
And for exact figures on how many workers whose interests are really represented by unions? Something between 3$ and 9%.
Consider that we have about 11% or so who are in unions in the US, and of these, most are forced to be in unions. When workers are given the choice (the balance of power tipped away from union bosses and toward workers), half will flee the union.
In some states where workers are entirely free to join a union or quit one at will, union membership is as low as 3%.
I wonder how many of those that chose not to join a union would still do so if they had to give up the benefits that unions have got for them over the years, like the 40 hr work week, paid vacations, health and retirement benefits, etc.?
"I wonder how many of those that chose not to join a union would still do so if they had to give up the benefits that unions have got for them over the years, like the 40 hr work week, paid vacations, health and retirement benefits, etc.?"
They get those by earning them: which is why so many workers have these in sectors that aren't unionized and have never been.
You forgot to mention the other 'benefits' that they give up:
1) Thousands of dollars each year extorted from each and every union member and given to politicians who represent the interests of only half of these members.
2) Long years on the unemployment line because the union forced the company to locate the factory to North Carolina or even Mexico.
3) An unsafe workplace because the of union support for workers who assault other workers.
-----------------------
I am sure that the workers weigh your factor, mine, and others in the decision of whether or not to be in a union. I respect this choice entirely.
The question is, do you? Probably not. It is a near universal view on the Left/Democrats that the choice lies with union bosses, and not workers. An anti-worker view.
The union bosses are elected by the union members so the members get the leaders they chose, just like we get the leaders we chose. If enough people don't like them, union bosses or our leaders, all they or we have to do is elect new ones.
If you don't like union bosses, join one and work to elect new leadership.
Thr far better solution is to put the power in workers' hands: make union membership their choice. Why are you so opposed to this? Is this because you realize how unpopular unions are, and if workers aren't bullied into joining the membership would plummet?
Post a Comment