Originally Posted By Mr X EVERYONE should PLEASE check out that link, kindly provided by Doug. Seriously...subterfuge at it's FINEST!! What a bunch of buttholes we have running the country! "well, because we're all freaked out by the HORRORS of September 11th...we should therefore attack IRAQ...an unrelated situation". nice.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj There's even more subterfuge right now with Bush crowing about the economy, while he's simultaneously destroying it with more deficit spending. U.S. GDP figures were released last week. The healine figure was a 3.5% gain -- sounds great right? Then you dig into the details and find out that the only positive contributors to GDP were an 11% spike in defense spending, continued consumer spending on credit cards and home equity loans with the savings rate continue to be negative, and a bump in exports caused by the falling dollar. All the other categories -- manufacturing, construction, and investment showed declines. Is it any wonder Bush wants another 1/4 trillion dollars for Iraq? He know that the only way to keep the economy propped up is to print more money at the Treasury and spend it as fast as possible since all the other underlying elements of the economy are pointing to recession. We are headed for a painful hangover once this administration's orgy of spending runs its course.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Yet our friend, who can hardly defend that policy, falls back on "well, the Democrats would be worse." Right.>> <Can you actually point to any examples of Democrats being more fiscally responsible than Republicans? When have they ever proposed cutting any spending except the military?> As several people pointed out, fiscal responsibility isn't limited to cutting spending. It's in finding a balance between spending and revenues. And at that, any number of Democratic administrations have done far better than the current one. <<No, the chief Democrat complaint against it was that it was a giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies, resulting in a modest benefit with a huge price tag.>> <That's not the way I remember the issue being reported> Perhaps you rely too heavily on biased right-wing organs such as Opinion Journal and the others you typically link to for your reporting. Because the chief Democratic problem with the bill was the one I said it was. And the proof is in the pudding. After gaining control of congress, the Democrats moved not to spend more on it, but to fix its most glaring defect. And Bush threatened to veto it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Talk about subterfuge!!!! THANKS Doug, you've given me yet more reason to hate the liar Bush and his regime!> There's no lies in the document. There are some statements about WMD's that turned out not to be true, but that was because of faulty intelligence, not a plan to deceive.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <We are headed for a painful hangover once this administration's orgy of spending runs its course.> Or not.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <As several people pointed out, fiscal responsibility isn't limited to cutting spending. It's in finding a balance between spending and revenues.> So, in answer to my questions, the answer is no, you can't. <Perhaps you rely too heavily on biased right-wing organs such as Opinion Journal and the others you typically link to for your reporting.> Perhaps. Or perhaps you're just revising history. Again.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<As several people pointed out, fiscal responsibility isn't limited to cutting spending. It's in finding a balance between spending and revenues.>> <So, in answer to my questions, the answer is no, you can't.> No, the answer is I can, and I did. You don't get to define "fiscally responsible" as merely meaning cuts in spending. A government that raises spending in some areas, but has a better balance between spending and revenues is more fiscally responsible than one that does not raise spending, but lacks that balance. Of course, the Bush/GOP Congress combo of the 00's didn't even cut spending. But you knew that. <<Perhaps you rely too heavily on biased right-wing organs such as Opinion Journal and the others you typically link to for your reporting.>> <Perhaps. Or perhaps you're just revising history. Again.> Or perhaps, since it was you who got this one wrong, you're projecting on who tends to revise history. Nope, no perhaps about it. It's you, again.
Originally Posted By DAR <<You are one gigantic idiot, to say such crap!!>> Was that really necessary? Doug never engages in personal name calling unlike other banned Republican posters. I expect more of you Mr. X.
Originally Posted By thenurmis a quarter trillion eh... I got a joke for you ' how many zero's does it take to fill the white house? Do you think George picked the word trillion cuz he thought it sounded better than gazillion?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No, the answer is I can, and I did.> You provided an example of Democrats being more fiscally responsible than Republicans? You provided an example of Democrats proposing cutting something other than the military? When? Who? What? <You don't get to define "fiscally responsible" as merely meaning cuts in spending.> You didn't provide any examples under any definition. <Or perhaps, since it was you who got this one wrong, you're projecting on who tends to revise history. Nope, no perhaps about it. It's you, again.> Again, repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. If you want to claim you have proven me wrong, you need to present evidence. Otherwise, my recollection is as likely to be correct as yours. Probably more so.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>There's no lies in the document. There are some statements about WMD's that turned out not to be true, but that was because of faulty intelligence, not a plan to deceive.<<< What makes you SO CERTAIN that it MUST be faulty intelligence, and not a plan to deceive? Seriously. Why are you so confident to state that? How can you differenciate between "lies" and "faulty intelligence"? Do you have any proof? The real question is, are the "witnesses" in this case credible, or not? YOU seem to think so, but are you entirely sure? Your statement leaves no room for the possibility that this WAS a deceptive plan...the evidence seems intriguing though, leaving open the possibility. But not for you, of course. Why not?
Originally Posted By SuperDry X, I would guess you haven't seen the 60 Minutes interview with the President that aired a couple of weeks ago. Here's a link to the full video: <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/13/60minutes/main2358754.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories /2007/01/13/60minutes/main2358754.shtml</a> I would encourage everyone to watch this. The whole thing is very interesting, but in particular to what you ask above, watch for a couple of minutes starting at time index 10:00. When I first saw what the President had to say about WMD and lack thereof and the intelligence failure, I immediately thought of DouglasDubh. It was as if he was sitting in the President's chair. Not only was the message the same, but even the tone of delivery and attitude was the same. The talking point on WMD and intelligence failure has been decided, and it's being delivered far and wide, all the way from the President on national television down to individuals doing their part by posting on message boards. And I think there's a common thread among all the people that have bought into the talking point: the enormity of what it would mean to have been wrong from the beginning might just be too much to accept. What's fascination about the notion of there having been an "intelligence failure" is that the failure was caused by the administration (or factions within it) that orchestrated the selective use of and stovepiping of intelligence that matched the pre-determined agenda and marginalized any that did not. There have been countless people that are familiar with the process that have confirmed that this is the case. What's particularly fascinating about this is that it was accomplished without direct fabrication of evidence by the administration, but just by selective use of intelligence. It's very much like what happens with the Bible: think of the wide variety of stances different denominations of Christians have about the Bible, including either extreme of the spectrum: all of them can (literally in this case) cite chapter and verse that "proves" their point based on material from the Bible, and can even convince themselves that they're right based on doing so. The same thing is true of intelligence: if instead of looking at the entire body of intelligence and trying to figure out what it's telling you, you can instead go into it with an agenda and pre-determined outcome and amplify those pieces that help your case and sideline those that don't. It reminds me of the old saying: "It's like how a drunk uses a lamppost: for support rather than illumination." And that's exactly what happened.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<No, the answer is I can, and I did.>> <You provided an example of Democrats being more fiscally responsible than Republicans? You provided an example of Democrats proposing cutting something other than the military? When? Who? What?> Are you really that obtuse? Wow. One would think that when I talked about previous adminstrations who had a better balance between revenues and spending than the current one, you would know that there were any number of administrations where this was the case - it is, in fact, pretty much common knowledge. However, just for you, Mr. Obtuse. <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/5-22-06bud.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cbpp.org/5-22-06bud .htm</a> "The Administration may claim that a deficit of 2.3 is low by historical standards, implying that the deficit constitutes no problem or cause for complaint. This is not so. Over the course of U.S. history, deficits averaged 1.2 percent of GDP, and that average includes the large deficits during the Civil War, the First and Second World Wars, and the Great Depression.[2] Excluding those three wars and the Great Depression, deficits averaged only 0.3 percent of GDP. During the Clinton Administration, they averaged only 0.1 percent of GDP." So take your pick. Just about every administration in our history - GOP president with Dem. congress, Dem. President with GOP congress, GOP/GOP and Dem/Dem alike have done a better job balancing the budget than then Bush II/DeLay bunch. <<You don't get to define "fiscally responsible" as merely meaning cuts in spending.>> <You didn't provide any examples under any definition.> See above. <<Or perhaps, since it was you who got this one wrong, you're projecting on who tends to revise history. Nope, no perhaps about it. It's you, again.>> <Again, repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. If you want to claim you have proven me wrong, you need to present evidence. Otherwise, my recollection is as likely to be correct as yours. Probably more so.> Nice try. And arrogant to boot. But although it's easy for you to say "well, we just remember things differently" (on what the Democrats' major problem was with the prescription drug bill), I DID present evidence that my recollection of their problem with it is more accurate than yours - what they've done since regaining power to fix it. Did they simply try to add more money too it - as your contention that their main problem was that it didn't spend enough would dictate? No, they changed the process so that the government could negotiate for bulk rates with the pharmaceutical companies (as the VA already does), which fits MY recollection of their major problem with it. But don't let the facts get in the way of what you'd like to believe - you rarely do.
Originally Posted By DAR <<What's fascination about the notion of there having been an "intelligence failure" is that the failure was caused by the administration (or factions within it) that orchestrated the selective use of and stovepiping of intelligence that matched the pre-determined agenda and marginalized any that did not. There have been countless people that are familiar with the process that have confirmed that this is the case. >> Let's not forget that this many intelligence agencies throughout the world got this wrong.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Let's not forget that this many intelligence agencies throughout the world got this wrong. >>> And how many of those intelligence agencies concluded that matters had risen to the point where a pre-emptive war was warranted?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What makes you SO CERTAIN that it MUST be faulty intelligence, and not a plan to deceive?> Because the previous administration made the same claims. It's unlikely that Saddam had WMD's all through the Clinton administration, then suddenly got rid of them as soon as Bush took over. And of course, there's the fact that almost every branch of every intelligence agency in this country and almost every other country believed the same thing. Finally, there's no evidence that there was a plan to deceive. These charges have been investigated and the evidence isn't there.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Are you really that obtuse? Wow.> Are your facts so faulty that you must resort to pejoratives? Wow. <One would think that when I talked about previous adminstrations who had a better balance between revenues and spending than the current one, you would know that there were any number of administrations where this was the case - it is, in fact, pretty much common knowledge.> Such a statement would be relevant if administrations alone had the power to balance revenues and spending. Since they don't, your statement is non-responsive to my question. <Just about every administration in our history - GOP president with Dem. congress, Dem. President with GOP congress, GOP/GOP and Dem/Dem alike have done a better job balancing the budget than then Bush II/DeLay bunch.> What nonsense. Here's a site that actually notes what the deficit (or surplus) was for each year, and what the GDP was. In 26 of the 60 years from 1941 to 2000, we had a Democrat controlled Congress and a Democrat President. The average deficit for those years, as a percentage of GDP, was 4.3%. In the 28 years amongst those 60 that we had a Republican President and a Democrat Congress, the average deficit was 2.35%. The average with a Republican Congress and a Democrat President is .12%. <I DID present evidence that my recollection of their problem with it is more accurate than yours - what they've done since regaining power to fix it.> Or it's evidence that you're changing your recollection of what their criticism was to match what their criticism is now. <But don't let the facts get in the way of what you'd like to believe - you rarely do.> I believe facts, not your opinions or recollections.
