Today really, truly, will be budget day here at Asymmetrical Information, the last one having been derailed by a five hour doctor's visit. One thing that struck home last night, as I was sitting on a dinner panel about the next four years, is that their huge majority, combined with budget constraints, actually poses one big problem for the Democrats: no one to torpedo their electoral promises for them.
The Democrats right now are divided into deficit hawks, who think that the nearly $1 trillion deficit headed down the pike means they can't afford any big programs, and the big spenders, who say to hell with the deficit, let's spend as much as we can to make it look like we're really doing something. More on this later. But one wrinkle that hadn't seemed as important as it now does is that the Democrats do not have the luxury of proposing unpassable legislation in order to look like they're doing something. They can't make good on Obama's electoral promises about global warming by putting up a program the Republicans hate enough to take down, because there aren't enough Republicans to credibly blame for the bill's destruction. So they either have to actually pass a carbon bill that will be massively unpopular when it raises energy prices, or explain why Obama didn't really mean it.
That almost certainly means, at least according to the crack political team on the panel with me, that we will not get any sort of cap and trade--an outcome that probably could have been predicted when gas hit $4. But it makes even potentially popular things like Obama's health care plan and middle class tax cuts problematic. The middle class tax cuts are, as far as I can tell, already stillborn; in today's revenue environment, even reversing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy probably wouldn't pay for them. But once the electorate finds out that the Democrats will not be handing out free money, not because the Republicans stopped them, but because they stopped themselves, they're going to find themselves mired in a very difficult discussion. Interest rates, sovereign debt problems, and the debt substitution effect do not make good sound bytes.
« Are there any adults left in the room? | Main | Spreading leprosy and joy wherever they go . . . » No one here but us chickens . . .06 Nov 2008 08:56 am Comments (109)
A prediction: Reversing Bush's tax cuts will be either revenue neutral or a net loss for revenue. 
The republicans will be able to take a backseat, which means all eyes are on the drivers now. No more "Bush's War". It's theirs now.
My hope is that most intelligent people will look at the $5-6 trillion dollars of debt added by the Repubican administration over the last 7.5 years and understand that the new administration will require a bit of time to reverse the situation not of their making. I believe most intelligent Americans would understand that the broken economy, the crumbling infrastructure and the foriegn policy deficit created by the Bush administration along with the money debt adds up to about $20 trillion dollars or more worth of "Blame credit" that the Democratic party can us to spend over the next 8 years with out any need to blame the new Republican minority for anything.
There will be middle class tax cuts. There are no changed circumstances. Obama made the promise last week, and said it would be among the first things done. The bigger question is what Obama will do about executive power. If, as Obama says, he can't, as president, hold Ali al-Marri because he lacks the constitutional power, well, he will lack that power on January 20, so there's no reason not to have the executive order releasing him signed that day. Similarly, Guantanamo can be closed with an order signed that day, and the Uighurs held there can be released into the US that day. Those with some criminal liability can be indicted, and those without can be released. Let's see what Obama does--will he live up to the rule of law, or not?
Obama's health care plan is already dead. Its original model is currently failing in Massachusetts, and plans even more similar to Obama's were rejected in Illinois and California by unions and other key elements of the Democratic party's base. Healthcare 'reform' might happen, but Obama's plan will likely never even make it out of committee.
Geez Louise, that kind of fiscal restraint on the Democratic side might move me over. (Currently I'm only planning on de-registering from Republican to independent.) I don't think you should assume that Obama voters were all baby chicks, mouths agape.
Budget Day isn't capitalized anymore? I'm already worried.
Are you seriously suggesting that the democrats could become fiscal conservatives? That they may propose programs to reduce the deficit? Even if higher taxes increase revenue, are you thinking that Democrats could forgo spending it all and more on new social programs? If they do that, fiscal conservatives of both parties will rally to their cause. But short term restraint to achieve long term goals doesn't seem to be a Democrat strong point.
zoot, let's not get carried away. They're talking about abandoning health care and middle class tax cuts, but they're still interested in running huge deficits. Anyone want to bet on the total debt that will be added in the next four years? I'm betting on $3.5 trillion.
Ok, the oil bubble popped the debt bubble. But did the housing and debt bubble cause the oil bubble? Did expectation of unreasonably high returns push up demand for oil and gas to unreasonably high levels?
Megan, it's almost as if you’re suggesting politics isn’t about the selfless advocacy of superior public policy. Or that people let their political beliefs become an extension of their self-image. The goal of politics, my dear, isn't about getting the trains to run on time. It's to stimulate that deep fissure in the brain that revels in the joy of the hunt. Who cares about being right? We'd rather be affirmed.
Ms. McArdle, I think you're being weirdly naive about how blame and political narratives work. Look, in 1992 the Democrats won an amazing sweep -- the Presidency, both houses of Congress, and a majority os state legislatures and governorships. Within two years Clinton's helath-care reform was dead, dead, dead. I've not yet heard anyone blame anyone but the Republicans for that. And narrative can be spun if it is spun well, and certainly people are (with good reason) so disgusted by the GWB administration that the Democrats can probably blame them for pretty much anything for a few years if they have to.
You are assuming way too many things there. President-elect Obama hasn't even taken office. You gave the Decider 6-7 years before you changed your mind. Obama deserves a couple of months at least, no? In practical terms I don't understand how major legislation could not be derailed in the Senate. The Democrats will not get to 60. Even if they did, the 60 would include Joementum and moderate Democrats. Since the Republicans control nothing, they will have every reason to filibuster every piece of major legislation that is deemed too "liberal". It is highly unlikely that a health care or energy bill would pass the Senate without a major fight. I think middle class tax cuts are very do-able if the economy does not tank (which seems... I hope... very remote). If we could reduce expenditure in Iraq by even half, then that combined with (partial?) reversal of the Bush tax cuts might be enough. Health care etc. will be a lot harder to do. Also maybe you could come up with some suggestions. Or can we expect snarking and ‘I told you so” from you for the next 4 years?
Sanjay:
That almost certainly means, at least according to the crack political team on the panel with me, that we will not get any sort of cap and trade--an outcome that probably could have been predicted when gas hit $4. Well, that "crack political team" is being contradicted by every player firm in DC right now, and they've been in the game since before you were born. Cap and trade is going to be a central part of Obama's renewable energy push, and that is his number 1 priority. Shockingly, not every Republican in Congress has been brainwashed by conservative conventional wisdom, and they recognize that this needs to happen now or it may as well never happen. That is why Waxman is going to replace Dingell on Energy and Commerce. You are dreaming if you don't think that cap and trade is coming within the next 8 years.
Thanks to Europe, we know how to institute a "cap and trade" system that requires almost no emission reductions. (Just hand out enough free permits to established players to cover their emissions. Bonus effect: barrier to entry.) We will undoubtedly get such a system, so that the politicians can claim to have done something, without (directly) increasing energy prices.
Ah, yes. The concern trolling continues. Why, I'm so very sure that the biggest problem for Democrats is that they'll have an actual opportunity to advance their agenda. What a calamity! How much better everything would be if, instead, we'd given Republicans majority control of Congress and the White House. Why, if we had only done that, I'm sure everything would be sunshine and roses! No more "Bush's War". It's theirs now. No, it's still pretty much Bush's war. I know Republicans are anxious to send a decade of incompetent governance down the memory hole, but let's not be ridiculous, ok?
Megan, George and Karl are in an antique store. They see a pretty vase and they struggle over who gets to hold it. It drops and shatters into pieces. Another kid (Barry) walks in and they point to him and say if you can't fix this vase you broke to like new condition it's your fault and you can't blame us because we're leaving.
And one other thing. Have you ever heard of something called the filibuster? Republicans in the last congress smashed all records on the number of filibusters during a 2 year term.
...in today's revenue environment, even reversing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy probably wouldn't pay for them. Actually, the 'wealthy' mostly have piles of realized capital losses. The carry forwards will cause them not to pay any tax for several years. You can set the cap gains rate anywhere you want to and it won't increase revenue. Even 95% of zero is still zero. You can cause them not to reinvest in any risk though. They may think that triple exempt munis are just the right amount of risk this environment. Then guess what happens to new startups and seed economic activity. I do hope there is someone in the new administration who understands how things work.
Why is it that when we do a one-time flat-rate check it is called a "stimulus package", but when we propose a yearly flat-rate check it is called a "tax cut"? Put in these terms, I don't see why there should be any problem in getting these "tax cuts" through. After all, we need it more than ever in a recession, don't we? I would be less optimistic that we'd be able to stick it to those slimy capitalists who got us into this mess, except that we can do that by just letting the Bush cuts expire, without having to actually take responsibility for it. So I would predict that Robin Hood...errr...Obama will manage to rob from the rich and give to the poor...err...middle class. You may infer that I am less than optimistic about how this will work out for the economy as a whole. The one possible side-effect that may come out of it that could be positive is if he fails to pass any legislation raising taxes explicitly. In that case the capital gains tax would stay the same. Combine that with the higher income tax and you create a bigger incentive to make money through investing rather than producing. This could help the stock market, or it could just lead to another bubble caused by skewed incentives. But hey, the real estate bubble softened the dot-com bubble bursting, so we obviously need an even bigger bubble to soften the real estate bubble bursting. I nominate green energy.
Because new technology is so important to Obama, he should create a White House level official "Director of Inventions" whose task is to invent these things in the first 100 days.
So they either have to actually pass a carbon bill that will be massively unpopular when it raises energy prices, or explain why Obama didn't really mean it. Nah, they can take a page out of the EU playbook by passing a cap and trade but making so many credits available that the cost will be next to zero. Claim credit for cap and trade but no pain (and no effect either, but never mind).
Others have beat me to it, but climate change legislation can be passed that actually has no effect other than employing a few more bureaucrats with CO2 monitors and accounting degrees. What you will not see is a carbon tax. There are too many hoops to jump through to make that painless.
Yancy has it right. That why I'm alright with an Obama presidency and leaned toward voting for him (though I didn't). I expect his global warming actions to be pretty much symbolic, I feared McCain would actually cap and trade.
JKconscience: I quite agree! I'm just sayin' that I have heard the failure of Clinton's healthcare plans laid, time and again, at the feet of the Republicans, not Clinton. (Granted, the answer to "where have you been" is, quite seriously, Cambridge and Berkeley: so not quite Palin's cave....)
Some of the commenters are missing the point. Now that the Democrats can't blame the Republicans anymore for the way things work out, they will have to pay attention to reality and not keep spouting their pie in the sky dreams. This will be a HUGE restraint on the Democrats and likely to provide a lot of heartburn among their supporters. Unless they are like some of the commenters here who actually believe that the pie in the sky dreams are actually achievable. Me, I'm more sceptical. For me, the difference between Dems and Repubs has never been their goals, but how they hope or plan to achieve those goals. Having spent 28 years in the Marines, I know that the vast majority of military people are for peace. But we are under few illusions, and we know that peace is best achieved through a position of strength and not appeasement. ("Peace Through Fire Superiority!") I also know that the Biblical injunction not to bind the mouths of the kine who tread the grain works in practice--you need to provide incentives for people to take risks to start businesses and become successfull. Excessively high taxation simply restrains the economy. Class envy works for the Democrats, but causes more problems. A lot of people actually believe that wealth is inherited or given and not earned. Sure, there some who only have inherited their wealth, but out of the top 1% of income earners, only 10% of them inherited their wealth. The other 90% have worked their asses off to become wealthy. Keep on telling people that hard work will really not be rewarded and you just might get people who are not willing to work so hard. Then where will the jobs and tax money come from?
A prediction: You mean like the WSJ and its ilk predicted in 1993? And how have the Bush tax cuts done so far? Disastrously is the full credit answer.
No more "Bush's War". It's theirs now. Nice try, Sparky. But the Iraq Invasion belongs to Dick Cheney. And Megan, obviously.
ed, What world do you live in? Can't you let your BDS just go yet? I don't think there is any question but that the Bush tax cuts did stimulate the economy and bring us out of the recession that hit during the end of Clinton's term. As for the war in Iraq, at the time it was started, over 80% of the country and over 90% of the politicians were behind it. Like it or not, it's America's war, not Bush's war, and it will still be America's war after Obama assumes the reins, and not Obama's war. I know you're a recent reader here, but you should do a little homework before asserting opinions as facts.
Nah, they can take a page out of the EU playbook by passing a cap and trade but making so many credits available that the cost will be next to zero. Claim credit for cap and trade but no pain (and no effect either, but never mind).>/em> Sure there's an effect. You've privileged the companies you've awarded credits to, and locked out newcomers. Wanna bet GM & Ford get more credits than Honda & Toyota?
#1 - the Demcorats employ spin doctors every bit as good as the Republicans (frankly, better. #2 I didn't vote for the guy either, and expect (based on his campaign rhetoric) to oppose almost everything he proposes - like I did with Bush - but let's give everyone a cooling off period and
"The Democrats right now are divided into deficit hawks, who think that the nearly $1 trillion deficit headed down the pike means they can't afford any big programs, and the big spenders, who say to hell with the deficit, let's spend as much as we can to make it look like we're really doing something." Who are these Democratic deficit hawks? That's a bird that I predict will be on the endangered list for the next few years, at least. Democrats are lucky that the press is in their corner, because under Obama we are probably going to see some ugly deficit, unemployment, and, eventually, inflation and interest rate numbers. On top of that, Democratic energy policies will invariably make energy more expensive. Good news for left-leaning green energy venture capitalists such as Kleiner Perkins partner Al Gore, but bad news for Joe Sixpack who will have to pay more to fill is car and keep the lights on in his house.
Shit.... I would have hoped that getting rid of Bush would help. But the country got rid of Bush and we're still blaiming Bush. I see people on here rationalizing how things will be Bush's fault when Obama takes over. WTF? Why did we elect a guy who is going to claim from day 1, "the odds were stacked against me by Bush." I hope he actually won't say that. But really. If you're going to claim what Obama has is Bush's fault, then what Bush had is Clinton's fault and what Clinton had is Bush's fault and so on. So I take it the prosperity under Clinton was the result of Bush I, and the bad times under Bush were the result of Clinton? Or how about you just man-up and take responsibility and claim that this is what your guy was elected for. To look at a tough situation and confront it head on and not look for reasons to blaim his failure on before he even gets started?
The sane solution would be a middle-class income tax cut, financed by a carbon tax. One would think that a politician as talented as Obama could convince people to accept higher energy prices if that money was then directly coming back to them (at least, coming back to those who don't produce too much carbon). Maybe each taxpayer should receive a check in the mail every 3 months with their share of the carbon tax revenue. Common wisdom: politically impossible! But economically, isn't it a slam drunk-- increase incentives to work and decrease incentives to emit carbon?
The Democrats right now are divided into deficit hawks, who think that the nearly $1 trillion deficit headed down the pike means they can't afford any big programs, and the big spenders, who say to hell with the deficit, let's spend as much as we can to make it look like we're really doing something. Well actually, any of the "big spenders" think that doing so is an important way of reducing the impact of this recession, more important than balancing the budget. Like Paul Krugman for example. But of course, you'd have to actually read people who are saying this to know that. Look, I'm mostly new here; are basic errors about other people's motivations really that common on this blog?
ed, You need to put it into context. For one, there was no rush to war. I remeber in the summer expecting to go in in the fall. It was done ridiculously slowly. The Iraq war was a no brainer. Saddam had been a threat to the region which prevented growth and development throughout, he used the implied threat to bully neighboring countries, al qaeda types and other small minded anti-americans saw allowing Saddam’s apparent (real or not) threat and transgressions as taking face from America, and Saddam’s large army and the uncertainty of WMD made taking on Iran impractical. We had pocket Aces, the flop was two Aces and a King. Saddam was bidding up the pot and bullying his neighbors suggesting he had a full house. What are we supposed to do, fold? We have 4 aces, it doesn’t matter whether or not Saddam has the boat. If he wants to go all in, you take him all in. This, when the economy was stagnant and people were willing to lend to us for practically free. For every al qaeda recruited, we trained thousands and got experience is cultures AQ operates in or are similar to. You can question how we played after that hand and whether we should have kept financing the following games. But the decision was the right one. What we did after we finished major combat opertions is questionable and Obama has to deal with those questions.
ps - as an addendum, it's almost as if Obama supporters know the problem is systemic and insurmountable and are already looking for excuses when it fails. But no doubt, if through some cyclical business miracle things turn around it will be because Obama. Get that? If things fail it's because Bush ruined the system by such a large margin. Things succeed it's because our wise Leader. Here's the truth. We're in trouble as a nation and neither candidate this time around has the answers. Our people are greedy, they ask too much and don't want to give up anything -- but they are perfectly willing to ask their neighbors down the street to give up. We are getting exactly the government we deserve, and it's not a good thing. Our government is a reflection of our screwed up sense of the world that we haven't been able to shun completely since childhood. That is: we want it all and we don't want to pay for it and if we see someone with something we want, we have to have it too, and it's not fair if we don't get it. That pretty much sums of the simple state of affairs with all of us Americans and the way our politics work. We're screwed...
Saddam’s large army and the uncertainty of WMD Let me stop you right there, there was little uncertainty about WMD. He had been inspected thoroughly and inspections were continuing to be done as well. Nothing was found to even remotely suggest an active WMD program. Surprise, when we went in, we found exactly what the UN weapon inspectors had told us. Saddam was not a threat to the US, but we attacked him anyways. He wasn't even a credible threat to Iran.
JordanT, What are you talking about? A lot of people suspected he had weapons based on how he was hiding things. I read several reports that showed Saddam even thought he had weapons. His engineers were hiding things about their own capability FROM Saddam.
It doesn't matter if he was a threat to Iran, he was a threat to us in Iran.
Sanjay wrote: I've not yet heard anyone blame anyone but the Republicans for that. You were not paying attention back then. The HillaryCare proposal died for a couple of reasons:
You don't remember the weapons inspectors complaining that every time they wanted to deviate from the planned inspection schedule, the Iraqis delayed for hours and then let them into the facility? Even the inspectors were suspicious--they said they hadn't found anything yet, but that Saddam wouldn't let them check anything but what he approved. Don't forget that Bush specifically said that Iraq's WMD program wasn't an imminent threat yet, but he felt it prudent to ensure that it wouldn't become one. Another point to keep in mind is that the old WMD's that were actually found in the last four years were WMD's that Saddam claimed not to have. And finally, WMD's were only one of six reasons for going into Iraq. It might have been the only reason for about 20% of the people, but the rest of us in favor of going into Iraq had plenty of reasons other than the WMD's.
b-b-b-but Rex, bush lied, people died. I saw it on a bumper sticker.
@JordanT: He had been inspected thoroughly and inspections were continuing to be done as well. Nothing was found to even remotely suggest an active WMD program. Um. There were many areas, such as the "presidential palaces", that were never inspected, or were only inspected after long delay. In at least one case, traces of WMD research was found during an inspection. In any case, the issue was not just "Did Saddam have WMD development programs?", but "Where are all the WMDs we know you had but didn't destroy?" There still isn't a full accounting of the destruction, and there may well be some caches out there. It's believed that Saddam played a shell game - compartmenting off the destruction of chemical weapons so that nobody in his army knew that the other units had destroyed their chemical weapons. (i.e. 1st divison RG didn't know 2nd division had destroyed their shells, and vice versa)Everyone thought that the other units had the remaining weapons and were amazed when they weren't used against the coalition.
"Maybe each taxpayer should receive a check in the mail every 3 months with their share of the carbon tax revenue." I am all in favor of a plan that taxes automakers and farmers and redistributes the money to carless urban knowledge workers like Ms. McArdle and me, but somehow I doubt that the rest of the country is going to share that enthusiasm.
As for the war in Iraq, at the time it was started, over 80% of the country and over 90% of the politicians were behind it. Not true Rexy. Just before the war, support was about split (remember those massive demonstrations against invading Iraq which we reality-based marched in? Sure you do). Just after it got underway, the percentage shot way up because speaking out against the war meant you hated America and its Dear Leader. How'd that work out, by the way?
I don't think there is any question but that the Bush tax cuts did stimulate the economy and bring us out of the recession that hit during the end of Clinton's term. Do you have any evidence for this, or are you playing by Megan's AFAIK rules. Alan Greenspan, for one, thinks the tax cuts were a disaster. Well, he does now. So does Nobel Laurette Dr. Shrilly McShrillster, who, in spite of his America-hating shrillness, keeps getting [stuff] right. You know, like the tax cuts and Iraq Invasion.
The Obama campaign is best remembered for three "policy" proposals: hope, change, and "95% of Americans will get a tax cut (and no tax raises for those making less than $250/k per year)". It is the only concrete, specific policy proposal made by Obama that will stick in the minds of the electorate 6 months from now. There will be enormous political consequences if/when this "promise" is reneged on.
@y81 Those carless urban knowledge workers-- they often use airplanes.
The Iraq war was a no brainer. Indeed, what with it being well established that Sandman Insane aided and abetted the 9-11 attacks and had tried to acquire yellowcake uranium for a nuclear bomb (from Africa!). Oh, and there were also balsa wood planes which could deliver Mr. Sandman's new nukular weapon. For one, there was no rush to war. Indeed, you don't roll out a new product in August. Everyone knows that, silly. Why, even Dear Leader waited until September 12, 2001 (one whole day after 9-11!) to ask, and re-ask Richard Clarke if Iraq was tied to the attacks.
There still isn't a full accounting of the destruction, and there may well be some caches out there. It's believed that Saddam played a shell game - compartmenting off the destruction of chemical weapons so that nobody in his army knew that the other units had destroyed their chemical weapons. ech, who are the people advancing this Shell Game Theory? Are any of them not wingnut crackpots? Any citations for me? And since you truly feel that we need a full accounting of the mysterious WsMD, why don't you go over there and make it happen. Now hop to it. The sooner you do this accounting, the sooner we'll have fully functioning Jeffersonian Democracy in Iraq. Thanks again for all your hard work on this very important mission; you're a true American hero. Huzzah!
And finally, WMD's were only one of six reasons for going into Iraq. It might have been the only reason for about 20% of the people, but the rest of us in favor of going into Iraq had plenty of reasons other than the WMD's. That's some revisionist history there. It is a completely obvious truth that most Americans were sold on the war in Iraq by the fear of WMDs. This is so obviously true that it brooks no dissent. Now, there may have been a substantial group of Americans who though it might be a good idea to invade Iraq for those "six other reasons" that you mention, but would not finally agree to it until Iraq appeared to be a legitimate threat to our safety. There may also be a minority of people, such as yourself, who were really, really ready to invade Iraq for reasons that have nothing to do with WMDs. But most Americans didn't give a rat's ass about Iraq except to the extent that it could hurt us, and only then thanks to 9/11.
And finally, WMD's were only one of six reasons for going into Iraq. It might have been the only reason for about 20% of the people, but the rest of us in favor of going into Iraq had plenty of reasons other than the WMD's. Refresh my memory. What were they? And were they trumpeted by any Non-Chickenhawks? Just wondering.
ed, There really was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, and more to the point, Bush never claimed there was. As for the yellowcake, there was evidence that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake--read Wilson's report. Plus the Brits claimed (and still do) that they had proof of the attempt of Iraq to buy yellowcake. But so what? We never went to war with Iraq based on yellowcake or 9/11. Weren't you around then? Or was BDS blinding you even then? You know, most of the "points" you think you are making have been thoroughly debunked over the years, and most of us are just not going to go through the effort one more time. Why not talk about the future? Exactly what do you think Obama is going to do? Pick an area: taxes, the economy, foreign affairs, war in Iraq, war in Afganistan, global warming, etc.
I hope Bush gets to keep "his" war. Because we've won it, and I doubt the Democrats will be willing do anything at this point to lose it.
ed, you're missing the point on WMD. I doesn't matter whether or not they existed, Saddam acted as if they did. He could wreak havoc beyond what actual use of WMD could. He bullied his neighbors and supressed their economies.
Brian is spot on. I have never in my life seen any political commercial as often as I saw Obama's commercial promising tax cuts to the middle class, and more importantly, no tax raises for anybody making less than $250K. That's pretty amazing considering that I started recording and skipping most commercials since the last election. In the battleground states it was a constant. You literally could not watch TV and not see an Obama commercial with this promise. In the last few days before the election, I saw that Obama "tax cut calculator" commercial at least a dozen times.
Really, YM? So if Obama fails to keep his promises it's because of our tough economy (what a surprise!!) and not that he made promises knowing full well he'd be unable to keep them? What is the basis for your graciously bestowed credits? Simply having good intentions? We cannot let the liberal illuminati get away with brushing off their promises because of tough times. The times are the very reasons they made their promises, and why they were so appealing to the American public.
There really was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, and more to the point, Bush never claimed there was. I'm sorry, but it's pretty well confirmed that President Cheney did say there was. Plus the Brits claimed (and still do) that they had proof of the attempt of Iraq to buy yellowcake. Dude, you should tell Former Totally Qualified National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice and Dear Leader, since they for some reason felt the need to walk back that claim. You should totally do this in the next 74 or so days. You know, most of the "points" you think you are making have been thoroughly debunked over the years, and most of us are just not going to go through the effort one more time. Fine. Justgive me a link. From a Non-Chickenhawk if possible. Why not talk about the future? Exactly what do you think Obama is going to do? Pick an area: taxes, the economy, foreign affairs, war in Iraq, war in Afganistan, global warming, etc. I think President Obama will: --Not send American troops into a completely unnecessary war (invasion) sold on a bunch of bulljive. --Speak in complete, coherent sentences. --Restore honor and dignity to the White House.
So they either have to actually pass a carbon bill that will be massively unpopular when it raises energy prices, or explain why Obama didn't really mean it. If they're smart, they'll pass a carbon bill that will only gradually raise energy prices, and that won't really kick in in a serious way for another 5-7 years. Modest rises in energy prices in the short term will not prove to be "massively unpopular" and more substantive increases -- while no doubt not exactly something the public will love -- will be tolerated if the economy as a whole is once again growing briskly, and median income is once again increasing, and people see real progress in developing the kind of infrastructure that helps them deal with said higher energy prices.
He bullied his neighbors and supressed their economies. Thank goodness President Action Hero George Bush, Jr. put a stop to that!
@Aaron... So let me get this straight: You and I are neighbors. You believe I have a bomb in my house and I'm a threat to you so you stand on your porch and repeatedly ask me if I have a bomb. In response I repeatedly flip you the bird and say, "Stay away from my house." You go around and state your case to the rest of the neighborhood, who doesn't quite believe you, but based on your continued ranting asks if they may send a representative to inspect my basement. In reply, I say "Let me think about it," and go inside. Two days later, I emerge and say "Okay, you can inspect every room but the bedroom. Stay out of there." An hour later, the neighborhood rep leaves and announces to everyone "No bomb here." Your next course of action is to destroy my house and kill me - telling the rest of the neighborhood that you know I have a bomb and you'll find it and show them. You spend a month digging through the rubble, find nothing, and you offer up the following in your defense: "He was acting like he had a bomb and that's just as bad." You're serious about this?
Since Stephen den Beste is much better at writing than I am, I am borrowing his words from 2004: To directly reduce support for terrorist groups by eliminating one government which had been providing such support. To place us in a physical and logistical position to be able to apply substantial pressure on the rest of the major governments of the region. To force them to stop protecting and supporting terrorist groups. To force them to begin implementing political and social reforms. To convince the governments and other leaders of the region that it was no longer fashionable to blame us for their failure, so that they would stop using us as scapegoats. To make clear to everyone in the world that reform is coming, whether they like it or not, and that the old policy of stability-for-the-sake-of-stability is dead. To make clear to local leaders that they may only choose between reforming voluntarily or having reform forced on them. To make a significant long term change in the psychology of the "Arab Street." To prove to the "Arab Street" that we were willing to fight, and that our reputation for cowardice was undeserved. To prove that we are extraordinarily dangerous when we do fight, and that it is extremely unwise to provoke us. To defeat the spirit of the "Arab Street". To force them to face their own failure, so that they would become willing to consider the idea that reform could lead them to success. No one can solve a problem until they acknowledge that they have a problem, and until now the "Arab Street" has been hiding from theirs, in part aided by government propaganda eager to blame others elsewhere (especially the Jews). To "nation build." After making the "Arab Street" truly face its own failure, to show the "Arab Street" a better way by creating a secularized, liberated, cosmopolitan society in a core Arab nation. To create a place where Arabs were free, safe, unafraid, happy and successful. To show that this could be done without dictators or monarchs.
ed, From your own link: Cheny: "Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue." Note that Cheney never claimed that Iraq had a connection with 9/11. What he did say was that they were looking into it.
"Dude, you should tell Former Totally Qualified National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice and Dear Leader, since they for some reason felt the need to walk back that claim. You should totally do this in the next 74 or so days." Exactly what do you mean, walk back that claim? Maybe you should read that State of the Union address again before reading all the blather that followed it. Bush referred directly to the fact that the Brits had the intelligence, and the blather afterwords had Bush stating the intel directly, which he didn't do. That is, in the SotU address, Bush never claimed that Iraq sought yellowcake, but did state that the Brits had such intel. But you wouldn't have known that from the demagoguery that followed.
"--Not send American troops into a completely unnecessary war (invasion) sold on a bunch of bulljive. --Speak in complete, coherent sentences. --Restore honor and dignity to the White House." Oh thank god. But I don't understand why you are counting on Obama to overcome what Clinton did? Although as far as I recall, Clinton did use complete sentences.
@Rex Of all the reasons you list, the only one that could possibly ever be used as an excuse to initiate force would be the "protecting and supporting terrorist groups" and without evidence of significant weight - And by "significant" I mean more than just the fact that Saddam wrote a few checks to the families of some suicide bombers - that reason is worthless. The rest of your list is crap and none of the reasons either combined or alone rise to a level that justfies the complete destruction and rebuilding of a sovereign country into what *we* believe it should be. In fact, reading the rest of the list I believe the whole thing can be eliminated and restated as simply: "Because we could." Which is wrong on so many levels that it pains me to know there are those around me who believe it was, and is, okay. And regarding the last sentence in the last "justification" - If these are the reasons we did it, we would in effect *be* the "dictator" they supposedly don't need.
Not to be pedantic Nick, but these are the reasons, officially: Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq; Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism; Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998; Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens; Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994); Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1), Congress has authorized the President ‘‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’’; Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1),’’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ‘‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’’ and that Congress, ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’’; Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ‘‘work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’’ posed by Iraq and to ‘‘work for the necessary resolutions,’’ while also making clear that ‘‘the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’’; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary; Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40); and Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region All of this was agreed to by 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the senate. Now there is the argument that the data they were basing this off of was faulty / selective, but I've seen no evidence of that and the Rockefeller report said so.
Sam is so right. Bottom line: we as a society believe we are entitled to something for nothing, and the other guy has to pay for it. Right now the "other guy" is our children who will be servicing the debt we adults are racking up now. The mature candidate in this election, the one this country really needed, would have campaigned on Social Security, Medicare, and corporate welfare reform while holding off on new spending until we had our current finances in order. Unfortunately, both candidates knowingly campaigned on plans to grow the debt even faster, but only because we would have collectively murdered them at the ballot box if they hadn't. We do indeed deserve the government we have.
Nick, Evidently you don't support the war on terror, or GWOT as it finally was called. I do support it, but I was really surprised when GWB declared the war on terror when he did. Having followed U.S. military affairs from Vietnam through Cambodia & Laos, then to Nicaragua, Panama, Beirut, Somalia, Afganistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Afganistan again, and then Iraq again, not to mention the smaller stuff such as the Khobar Towers, the first WTC bombing, the Achille Laura (sp?) etc., all because of my military service, I never thought that we would have the gumption to stand up to our enemies who want to destroy us. I really thought it would take nuking one of our cities, which was on the inevitable agenda, before we, asw a nation, grew enough of a backbone to finally fight back. But there was enough public favor after the WTC destruction for Bush to take a courageous stance and decide that the American people would support a war on terror BEFORE we lost a city to a nuke. I admire him for that. Take another look at the list of reasons, thinking that the Islamist terrorists would end up nuking one of our cities at some point in time, and then decide if the reasons are sufficient. If you are one of those peace at any price people, you will never think that the GWOT was justified. If you can at least admit that those of us who are professionals at this have what we believe to be valid reasons to avoid a nuked city, then you can begin to understand why we invaded Iraq for the reasons I set forth above. If you don't believe that we would have eventually have a nuked city, then I can see where you would be against the GWOT from the start. Beleive me, when I make an analysis about going to war, it is a very personal analysis: is the national security interest at stake worth my life and/or the life of my son? (He's currently on active duty; I'm retired now.) Having that personal stake in the issue enforces a bit of clarity and saves me from what ed calls the chickenhawk syndrome. I truly believe we are doing the right thing in fighting the GWOT, and interestingly enough, 80% of those men and women fighting in Iraq and Afganistan agree with me--it's worth the chance of their getting killed to fight this war.
If you are one of those peace at any price people, you will never think that the GWOT was justified. Not supporting what we did in Iraq is not the same as saying we should hunt terrorists down. In fact, it's because I'm serious about this is why I oppose the Iraq war. When we decided to go into Iraq there really weren't any terrorists there. If we wanted to kill terrorists, we should have stuck to Afghanistan and also invaded Pakistan, who do have nuclear weapons. In fact, our invasion of Iraq took out a major enemy of Iran, who's a larger threat. Now that Iraq and Iran are friends, we've just created an even larger enemy. Bush visits Iraq under cover of night, Ahmadinajab visits to kisses and open arms. What pisses me off about your post, is that you conflate the Iraq war with a bumper sticker slogan. The problem with the slogan GWOT, is that any opposition to any part of our actions in the ME is framed as being for the terrorists. You can be for hunting terrorists down, and against Bush incompetence on full display in Iraq.
We do indeed deserve the government we have. Really? Cause I don't recall raping any retarded nuns. (h/t The Onion)
JordanT, I don't see how Iran is in a better position because of this and how Iraq treats it's crazy neighbor is it's business. Basically the only good thing for Iran is that it probably has Iraq as economic partner. In the mean time it also has us at both it's borders. I also don't see why fighting AQ in Afghanistan would be better than fighting them in Iraq. When we went into Iraq, there wasn't really anything for more military in Afghanistan to do. And now that they have given up on Iraq and stepped activity in Kosovo/Serbia and Afghanistan again, it's becoming quite clear that operating in those areas is a bit of an ordeal.
Oh, that Steven den Beste. Yes, well, when you drag him up, what can one say? After all, after Saddam Hussein was pretty well confirmed by Dick Cheney to be behind 9-11 and they got all those nukes, the den Beste, the mensch, immediately signed up for the Marines and fought to defend us from the imminent threat that was Iraq. A lesser man would have given up and succumbed to fetishizing obscure Japanese animation.
@Yancey - "First, I never took Obama's proposal seriously, and I don't think he will suffer politically when they are not enacted." We're used to being lied to by politicians. And Obama has already contradicted himself enough that he can pick something he's said in the past, and say, "See?" @muirgeo - "Blame credit" History shows us that the public as a whole does not have a long memory. The old joke about Stalin and the three letters applies. As Stalin was leaving in favor of Kruschev, he handed him three letters, and said "open one letter each time you face a crisis". The first letter said "blame me". The second letter said "blame the capitalists". The third letter said "prepare three letters". @Tyler - "Healthcare 'reform' might happen, but Obama's plan will likely never even make it out of committee." I expect a similar fate for much of the rest of his agenda. Nobody in Congress owes him anything... @zoot - "Are you seriously suggesting that the democrats could become fiscal conservatives?" Even the remaining handful of budget balancers in Washington are hiding out this year. The deficit is going to explode, but was already exploding under Bush. We're not ready to face the pain of putting our house in order. @Tootat - "Since the Republicans control nothing, they will have every reason to filibuster every piece of major legislation that is deemed too "liberal". We'll get to see how good a salesman Obama is. If Reps become pure naysayers, they'll pay for it. The key issue is how well they articulate their alternative. In a crisis, there is a strong tendency to go with the guy who at least seems to have a plan. @Peter - "Cap and trade is going to be a central part of Obama's renewable energy push, and that is his number 1 priority." I think the economy is his #1 priority. But I also think a lot of people are projecting their own views onto the relatively blank slate he offers, and I don't exclude myself. @David Wright - "we know how to institute a "cap and trade" system that requires almost no emission reductions." I think this is Megan's point. "Have you ever heard of something called the filibuster? Republicans in the last congress smashed all records on the number of filibusters during a 2 year term." And it cost them on Tuesday. @wGraves - "Actually, the 'wealthy' mostly have piles of realized capital losses. The carry forwards will cause them not to pay any tax for several years." There are limits on writing off such losses...They'll still pay taxes. But we'll find out just how dependent we were on their taxes along the way. @sol vason - "Because new technology is so important to Obama, he should create a White House level official "Director of Inventions" whose task is to invent these things in the first 100 days." He's already announced that he will do so, although with a different title. @Rex - "I don't think there is any question but that the Bush tax cuts did stimulate the economy and bring us out of the recession that hit during the end of Clinton's term." They did, but we need a different formula. We can't rely on expanding deficits forever. There will always be another disruption of some kind, but we have to achieve a better, more durable balance. @Justin - "The sane solution would be a middle-class income tax cut, financed by a carbon tax. One would think that a politician as talented as Obama could convince people to accept higher energy prices if that money was then directly coming back to them (at least, coming back to those who don't produce too much carbon)." He has promised cap-and-trade which can produce as much revenue as desired. Unfortunately, Obama wants to spend it rather than returning it to the people. @sam - "Here's the truth. We're in trouble as a nation and neither candidate this time around has the answers. Our people are greedy, they ask too much and don't want to give up anything -- but they are perfectly willing to ask their neighbors down the street to give up." Don't give up so easily. Even the Depression eventually ended... @Brian - "95% of Americans will get a tax cut (and no tax raises for those making less than $250/k per year)...is the only concrete, specific policy proposal made by Obama that will stick in the minds of the electorate 6 months from now. There will be enormous political consequences if/when this "promise" is reneged on." If things are looking bad, he'll get a pass. @Jasper - "If they're smart, they'll pass a carbon bill that will only gradually raise energy prices, and that won't really kick in in a serious way for another 5-7 years. Modest rises in energy prices in the short term will not prove to be "massively unpopular" and more substantive increases -- while no doubt not exactly something the public will love -- will be tolerated if the economy as a whole is once again growing briskly, and median income is once again increasing, and people see real progress in developing the kind of infrastructure that helps them deal with said higher energy prices." If he does, won't the next Republican campaign on the promise of cutting energy prices?
Old style of argument, so old that the Romans had a name for it: ad hominem. When you can't attack the facts and/or logic, attack the man.
When we went into Iraq, there wasn't really anything for more military in Afghanistan to do. Like finish off the Taliban and catch Osama? There also weren't terrorists in Iraq until we invaded. If there isn't anything to do in Afghanistan then why are we still there? Why has the Taliban come back in full force? Is it because we made a big mistake going into Iraq, that distracted us from the true danger? JordanT, I don't see how Iran is in a better position because of this and how Iraq treats it's crazy neighbor is it's business. Iraq was an enemy of Iran, they certainly spent more time being afraid of each other and killing each other than doing the same to anyone else. Iraq was certainly more likely to nuke Iran than the US. Now, we have bolstered Iran's influence in the ME and given them another ally. Iraq isn't our ally and their leadership wants us out of their country.
aaron: You don't see how Iran is in a better position? What about the absence of a mortal, Sunni-governed enemy that conducted an eight year war against it, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars? What about the fact that Iraq's majority Shia population is now free to exert control over the country and unite in sympathy and cause with the Shia majority of Iran? These outcomes seem to have been discounted by Bush and company, if they were considered at all.
JordanT, Hunting down terrorists is not the same as a war on terror. For a war on terror, you have to root out the breeding grounds for terrorism. This is why the analysts compare the GHWB & Clinton approach of treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem with the war approach of GWB. They are two different things. They each have advantages and disadvantages. As for the connection between Iraq and the war on terror, this might sound a bit strange to you, but as soon as I heard GWB declare a war on terror, my immediate thought was, I wonder how soon we will invade Iraq. You see, Iraq was the perfect geopolitical target for a war on terror. It's geographical location astride the historical trade routes from Europe to Asia, coupled with the political climate in Iraq at the time, all led to the reasoned conclusion that that was the place to begin. But as I said earlier, if one doesn't accept the war on terror as a concept, one can't possibly attacking Iraq.
With all due respect to Miss McArdle, this is the new meme that is being pushed and I am somewhat, though not entirely, surprised to hear her on it. It basically goes "If the Democrats want to get anything accomplished they need to put forward legislation that the Republicans like because if they don't and the Republicans block it, it's still the Democrats fault because they didn't present legislation that the Republicans could agree on."
Adam, No, that's not her argument. Her argument is if you tout your ideas and plans as better than the other party's, and the public sweeps you into power based on those assertions, then you better produce. No excuses. How pathetically weak will the D's appear to be if they can't pass their legislative agenda while occupying the White House with strong majorities in the House and Senate? That's like saying my five year old brother kept me from doing my homework. The Dems asked for the job and now have the authority. They will also take it in the pants if things get worse (as they can take the credit if things get better). It's called accountability.
You see, Iraq was the perfect geopolitical target for a war on terror. It's geographical location astride the historical trade routes from Europe to Asia, coupled with the political climate in Iraq at the time, all led to the reasoned conclusion that that was the place to begin. Rex, you are a geo-political tactician without peer! Your brilliant talents are wasted on blog comments. The White House needs you in their employ at your earliest convenience. Move now boy; time is of the essence! Country first and all that! But as I said earlier, if one doesn't accept the war on terror as a concept, one can't possibly attacking Iraq. Also, if you're, you know, like opposed to invading other countries which bear no imminent threat whatsoever at all, and who's conceivable non-imminent threat could be contained as it had for years, well, I guess that would also rule out attacking Iraq. But what's done is done. We haven't spilled so much American blood, Iraqi blood, Iraqi livelihood, and countless U.S. dollars (Blackwater! Haliburton! Heckofa job, boys!) in vain.
That's like saying my five year old brother kept me from doing my homework. Your five-year-old brother broke all the Senate records for use of the filibuster between 2006 and 2008?
chet, Can you explain to me the acceptable number of filibusters? Can you point me a cite for this? Maybe the top 5/10 congresses for filibusters? How do these compare to the 2000, 2002, and 2004 congresses? Also, I remember hearing in 2004-2006 that the filibuster was an essential tool of the minority. Has this changed? Is legislation less important than Supreme Court or Federal Court appointments?
But.... but... WMD WERE found in Iraq.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swBcf...rch=WMD%20iraq Of course this might be a lie, so is that the argument, that all these weapons were faked for the stupid TV people. Or don't chemical weapons count if they are politically embarrassing?
Doctorpat, So that's what we invaded for? And we've lost 8 soldiers for each shell of "degraded" mustard and sarin gas we recovered? One would think we could've just BOUGHT them from Saddam for $500 billion and at least saved the lives of our soldiers.
Take another look at the list of reasons, thinking that the Islamist terrorists would end up nuking one of our cities at some point in time, and then decide if the reasons are sufficient. I don't really understand how it's possible for people to go back and pat themselves on the back for their support of the war based on things that they believed at the time that we now know to be utterly false. I for one did not think Saddam had a significant cache of weapons, nor did I think he would use them on us even if he did, nor did I think the minor threat that he might justified an invasion whose outcome we could not possibly know. I was right about all of these things, in foresight not hindsight, but you get a pass because you really, really thought you were right at the time? How does that work? How does your wrongness not cause you to go back and question some fundamental assumptions you made? Truly, it is amazing. When confronted with the fact that our primary motivation for invading was a whiff of smoke, the war supporter's response is either "but there WERE WMDS!" or "but we acted based on what we knew at the time!" or "well, that's all water under the bridge there are no lessons to be learned except TERRORISTS MUST BE KILLED!" Honestly guys....some modest amount of introspection is appropriate at this point.
Can you explain to me the acceptable number of filibusters? If Republicans are using it to block a progressive, liberal agenda? Absolutely zero filibusters are acceptable. Look, I'm a partisan guy. I think liberalism is better than conservativism, and I say that as a former conservative. I don't know what you want from me. Also, I remember hearing in 2004-2006 that the filibuster was an essential tool of the minority. Has this changed? Of course. Majority control of congress changed from Republicans to Democrats. I mean, duh. We're Democrats. We're supposed to allow Republicans to do whatever they want? Why elect Democrats, then?
Sounds like you just explained it for them.
Chet, Here is how the legislative process will play out. Dems will propose some grandiose program for energy, health care, or taxes. Repubs will make their case against it, throw up a few filibuster trial balloons, and then take a look at the polls. If the electorate sides with them, they'll go for a full court press on the filibuster. If not, they'll vote against but not hold it up. Then it's just a waiting game to see the results.
Repubs will make their case against it, throw up a few filibuster trial balloons, and then take a look at the polls. I think you're drastically overestimating the capacity of congressional Republicans to alter their own behavior. Terri Schiavo? Social Security privatization? Hello? All incredibly unpopular with the American people; all pursued to the bitter end by congressional Republicans. I don't see any reason at all why they would discontinue the obstructionism they raised to an art form in 2006-2009.
I agree, Chet. The people who are left on that side of the aisle have very little to lose by filibustering; better to just hunker down until the long knives are sheathed. There is also something to be said about the order in which legislation is to be presented. This is me, not Obama, but among my very first presidential actions, I would close Guantanamo and give some sort of timetable for leaving Iraq (and going into Afghanistan). On issues like these, it should be easy to pick off the three or four senators needed to pass the requisite legislation. Once you've got these legislators cut out of the pack, work with them and reward them. The carrot as well as the stick, something Republicans for whatever reason weren't particularly hip to.
Chet, The bitter end? I must have missed the SS privatization ads and Terri Schiavo spots this election cycle. The truth is the Dems have the presidential bully pulpit and gavels in both bodies of the federal legislature. They drive the agenda which means they can bring up issues favorable to their own party. If they fumble, it's their fault. If Republicans are on this political suicide run as you state, just how much worse does it have to get for them before you hold the Dems accountable? They already have the White House, a solid House, 57 seats in the Senate, plus a Susan Collins and a Chuck Hagel to boot. Just how much more do they need to before you hold them accountable? When they have 101 seats in the Senate?
If Republicans are using it to block a progressive, liberal agenda? Absolutely zero filibusters are acceptable.
Riiiiiight. Because, Tommer, everyone knows that all the Republicans have to do is hold on to the bitter end; that guarantees they get what they want. Always. Everyone knows that. How stupid of me to forget it. You wanna maybe amend that statement, make it into something that's not so outrageously stupid?
xanthippas, "I for one did not think Saddam had a significant cache of weapons, nor did I think he would use them on us even if he did, nor did I think the minor threat that he might justified an invasion whose outcome we could not possibly know." I totally agree except last part. He wasn't major direct threat to us, but everything can't always be just about us). And I still supported the war for all the reasons I mentioned before, for the reasons in the resolution to go to war, and I was right on my assumptions.
@Skullberg You're not going to make me refute that point-by-point are you? Too many people have already done it. It would take too long to repeat the work and I don't feel like it. In essence, it says exactly the same thing as what Rex posted as written by Stephen de Beste only he used half the space - go figure. Couching it in official terminology and dressing it up with terms like "the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" doesn't change the fact that it's just one long list that says "because we can". It also doesn't change the fact that we removed one dictator and put ourselves in his place. Because we wanted to "give them freedom". @Rex Not that it has anything to do with Iraq, but I'll tell you what I think of the GWOT and all it's trappings: I belive it is nothing more than an attempt by statists to seize even more power. Megan made fun of it earlier, but war is, in fact, the health of the state. Government is force. It is force that lives and grows, consuming freedom for the energy it needs. It's driven by egotistical, self-serving megalomaniacs who populate not only the offices of elected officials, but those of the bureaucrats and the gun-toting storm-troopers. One can see it in the way you make the statement "If you can at least admit that those of us who are professionals at this...." People who think like this permeate every far-reaching tentacle of the state. Sycophantic suckups so sure of themselves and so proud to be leading the rest of us to safety because we're all too stupid to even think for ourselves. I mean, let's face it - if we didn't have people who know so much more than us, we'd all just sit around and drool on ourselves as we slowly starved to death in a puddle of our own excrement becuase we're obviously too stupid to find our own food or even wipe our own asses. And your military credentials mean very little to me. I did my time as well. For five years I traipsed around some of the shittiest places on this planet chasing people who wanted nothing more than for me to leave them alone to live the way they wanted - in peace. I knew what I was doing was wrong at the time. It was obvious to me that there was nothing sacred about it. There was no duty, no honor, no nothing. I wasn't protecting the right of any American to do anything - It was naked force plain and simple. You live our way or we'll just hound you until you do. I did my time because I signed a contract, but I had no illusions about the reality of my actions. It's something I have to live with now. As for your son or any of the other people in the military - I can't concern myself with them. They've made a choice. To me, it's not the right choice, but it's theirs and I won't stop them. If they can't see the contradictions in what they're doing then perhaps they never will. In any case, it's their cross to bear and I won't waste a bunch of time trying to change their mind. Having said all of that, make no mistake - I'm not a pacifist by any stretch. If you come after me you better pack a lunch. Invade my country and threaten my home or family and I'll be the first one with his boots on the ground and his rifle in hand. Iraq did none of these things. They had nothing to do with 9/11 no matter how you or anyone else tries to spin it. Will we ever have terrorists nuke a city? Who knows? There's a chance you could die from a terrorist act just like there's a chance you could die in a car accident driving to work. I don't spend a large amount of my day worrying about either of these things - and before you or anyone else asks: NO, my opinion wouldn't change if my mom or dad had been in the WTC. Freedom is messy. In fact, it's downright frightening. We can stand up to that fear and deal with it as free people, or we can succumb to it and kneel in front of it as slaves.
No, the statement is correct. Who asserted the R's are to get what they want? They bumbled through the last eight years and are paying for it. I never denied that nor do I assert they shouldn't be held accountable. If they want to look at who is responsible for their removal out of power, they can rightfully look in the mirror. The argument is IF the Dems can't pass their agenda, who is to blame? I'm simply saying along with Megan that they can't blame the opposition this time since they now have clear majorities in Congress and hold the White House. They will have a much harder time holding their liberal and moderate members together than bringing on Republicans. Taking Chet's argument to it's logical conclusion means that since the R's won't learn from their mistakes and take issues "to the bitter end", they'll filibuster popular legislation in the only place where they have leverage (Senate). It stands to reason that they'll then lose a whopping three more seats in the 2010 cycle and give the Dems a filibuster proof majority. Then who are you going to blame for any potential or unpopular shortcomings?
Right. You didn't say this then? The bitter end? I must have missed the SS privatization ads and Terri Schiavo spots this election cycle. Or is your definition of 'bitter end' significantly at variance with everyone else? And since we're going this route, I'm guessing that not running spots about how the U.S. 'really' would have won in Viet Nam counts in your book as not holding out until the bitter end.
Nick, As I said before, if you don't accept the GWOT, you'll never accept our war in Iraq. From your tone, you never believed in what you were doing in the military, which is why you got out when you could. On the other hand, I believed in what I was doing, whether it was supporting combat ops in Vietnam, Laos, and the Cambodia; and later on during DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM. So we're just on opposite sides of this issue. Xanthippe, I've re-examined all my assumptions and the facts, and nothing changes. But then, the probability (at least then it was a probability; after all, Saddam himself thought he had WMD's, so why should we have thought differently?) of WMD's was never the primary reason for me, and as I recall, wasn't advanced by the Bush administration until well into the discussion. I think that due to the GWOT that the odds of one of our cities getting nuked within the next 20 years has been reduced from 90% to 40%. I'd still like to see it get down to around 10%.
Nick, I just re-read your post, and it sounds like you think I am part of government or was in a position to influence government types. Sorry, but that's not the case. Being a professional means working in a field and gaining significant experience in that field. Sometimes you can gain significant experience in a couple of years and sometimes it takes a lot longer. In my case, my military experience was enlisted Marine, Regular Marine Officer, and then Reserve Marine Officer. Total time period, 28 years. Since then I have tried to keep abrest of major developments. I also have legal experience lasting over 25 years. I first voted (when the voting age was still 21) for Richard Nixon because he promised to get us out of the Vietnam War with honor. Hard to believe that one of his campaign planks was to get us out of Vietnam, but it was, and he did. Then Congress cut off ALL aid to South Vietnam and the domino theory was proven, not to mention millions of lives of Vietnamese and Cambodians being lost. So I am also well aware of how history becomes perverted by partisans intent on promoting their own viewpoint regardless of facts. You say, "It's [government] driven by egotistical, self-serving megalomaniacs who populate not only the offices of elected officials, but those of the bureaucrats and the gun-toting storm-troopers." I would have thought that with my military experience I would have seen at least one such type, but the truth is I never saw ANYONE in the military meeting that description. In Congress, sure, lots of them, but except for the occasional Trent Lott, they've all been Democrats.
I would not define the 'bitter end' of as a four month blip in 2005 where Bush tried to gain support for his plan of social security reform. It gained no traction so he put it back on the shelf for the party to pick up another day, another time. I just wonder how in 2012 the Dems will still try to blame the country's problems on Halliburton.
Try and get the numbers right, folks. During Vietnam, we lost a bit over 58K souls total. That was about equal to the aggregate annual US highway fatalities at the time. Now, driving twice as much, we lose less than 45K per year driving. Air bags and seat belts. In Iraq, we have lost a bit North of 4K of our soldiers. For comparison, Civil War: 623K, WWI: 116K, WWII: 407K. If a nuclear weapon exploded in NYC, you would lose over a million people, maybe even ten times that many if you include indirect casualties and assume a large weapon. Everyone in the country would personally know somebody who lost a family member. Many would have lost one themselves. There's no comparison to the risk of driving. I suspect that, as a nation, we would become as aggressive as we did during WWII. That would mean public proclamations that the only good blank is a dead blank, you fill in the blanks, depending upon who the public believes caused the problem. Fighting without quarter would become possible. The Presidential policy would become hostage to the circumstances. Failure to pursue a sufficiently aggressive policy might result in immediate impeachment for a public official. Many would have pretty bad deaths. That's why it's important not to let it happen.
The financial meltdown ushered in (!) by the Gramm-Rubin lack of regulation of both derivatives and the GSE's (all dereg bills signed by President Clinton) will soon become the "Republican meltdown". Everything will be blamed on the Bush meltdown. Then, every bill proposed by either side will be labeled a "Recovery" act. This will last 2 years. Maybe 4. If it is eventually found that the whole meltdown was really caused by software bugs, or even commie hackers from the FSU, I will not be totally surprised.
Yes! Actually, he has a point; Nuclear war is a terrible idea. To prevent it we'd probably have to separate the Iranians from their oil income.
Try and get the numbers right, folks. we're not that good with numbers anymore. Instead of math, writing and reading the right has refocused the schools on creationism and the left on "social justice". If you want someone who can do basic math, you'll have to go to Asia, where they can't spare the time for nonsense.
Then Congress cut off ALL aid to South Vietnam and the domino theory was proven Which explains Communist Okinawa, Communist Thailand, Communist Singapore, Communist Australia, and Communist Pretty Much Everywhere in Southeast Asia and Oceania. , not to mention millions of lives of Vietnamese and Cambodians being lost. I'm sure Kissinger's plan to bomb the living shit out of Cambodia didn't cost any lives. I also have legal experience lasting over 25 years. Yeah, well I have 18 years experience as a mechanic. I'm the best! (I can bench 350!) In Congress, sure, lots of them, but except for the occasional Trent Lott, they've all been Democrats. Why do Democrats hate America so, yet no Non-Trent Lott Republicans love it so? Can Science* explain this? *i.e., The Bible
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
 Should I call myself a feminist? Series III Tivo
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
On the middle class tax cuts:
First, I never took Obama's proposal seriously, and I don't think he will suffer politically when they are not enacted. Americans, I hope, are smart enough to know that the fiscal constraints mean tax cuts for no one, and if Obama changes his mind on this, he will get a credit with me.
Posted by Yancey Ward | November 6, 2008 9:18 AM