Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
There were no BIG terrorist attack on the U.S. soil before Bush either. In fact a few were prevented under Clinton. The whole argument that we have had no terrorist attack since 9/1 and are safer to justify Bush's failure's is just bull shit. Our invasion of Iraq had not made us safer, but created more enemies in the middle east. Iraq is now run by religious zeolots. Under Sadman it was once a secular government that kept Iran at bay. The majority of middle & upper middle class, educated have left Iraq country and will to be returning. We blew their country apart for no good reason.
Presidents never give up power. Never, ever. The power of the Office of President only grows. So it will be interesting to see what Obama does with all that power.
"The three trillion number, does that account for the gross cost of warfare or the net. All those deployed would be pulling a paycheck just being on active duty here in the 'safe' confines of the USA. i safely assume they would have been training here at home for future battlefield excursions, using ammunition, fuel, etc.., is that money deducted from the 3 trillion? It was going to be spent either way, here or in Iraq."
Are you really that anxious to be an apoligst for the war? The bulk of it is NOT money that was going to be spent if the troops stayed in garrison. And that three trillion accounts for little of the cost to rebuild the property damage done in Iraq. Do we need to even mention that it doesn't attach a dollar value to the human (American and Iraqi) cost, other than a little (compared to the real cost) for VA hospitals?
And fear mongering?? The whole justification for the war was the basis of something we told we should FEAR was going to happen if Saddam wasn't removed. It was immoral to invade another country on the basis of what we FEARED might happen, and to use as justification our indignation that stemmed from the unwillingness of the U.N. to take stronger action.
"John Edwards and Hillary Clinton engaged in political rhetoric intended to free them from the trap of having been duped by George Bush and Dick Cheney in 2002."
The problem with that claim is that there is actually a record of the Clinton administration saying the same things about Iraq. They left office in January 2001 claiming that Saddam had WMD and, thus, was "a clear and present danger at all times."
Here's that record in there own words:
http://www.sinsofthehusband.com/iraqthreat.html
Bill Clinton and Al Gore's words were also consistent with the Bush administration's in 2002 and early 2003.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Former Vice President Al Gore (9/23/02)
"Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Former Vice President Al Gore (9/23/02)
"But Saddam Hussein, for 12 years, has defied the will of the United Nations and we contained him effectively, but I think it’s fair to say that after what happened on September the 11th the will of the international community has stiffened, as represented by this last U.N. resolution which said, clearly, that the penalty for noncompliance is no longer sanctions. It can be your removal from office." - Bill Clinton, Larry King Live (2/9/03)
"It still would be much better if this could be done without violence. But the man needs to get rid of his chemical and biological weapon stocks and..." - Bill Clinton, Larry King Live (2/9/03)
"But I think the fact that Colin Powell demonstrated persuasively that they’re moving the weapons, or the weapon stocks in this case, which—and it would be easier to move the much smaller quantities of anthrax or aphrotoxin or they may have a little smallpox. But we’re pretty sure they’ve got a botulism and the chemical agents, VX and ricin." - Bill Clinton, Larry King Live (2/9/03)
So, again, did the Clinton administration also lie about Saddam's WMD?
Yet,
"I didn't inhale" made headlines.
And,
Millions were spent on a blue dress.
Speaking to another Father didn't stop four MORE years?
Ahem, May we please move on now?
If you note the footnotes to the present crisis, all the economic forecasters from Barney Frank to Hank Paulson (from Frank to Hank ... a C&W song) are predicting a market and economic resurgence in, oh, late 2009 or 2010.
This is what you call optimism without a factual basis. Others call it faith. So I'd love to see the plan, as John Lennon once sang.
Perhaps there is another analysis, and that is that the present model is broken. Both Parties refuse to look at this. A debt-based economy is no longer possible when debt grows too large. And that is where we are at. Making things, and not just consuming things, will have to become our model. And it will take YEARS to rebuild the productive infrastructure in the U.S., even on a capitalist basis. We've been running on debt since the productive economy was began to be destroyed under Reagan. The damage done - by global warming, the wars, the oil peak, the debt bubble economy - is too great to expect a 'normal' recovery.
Of course, happy talk works because people want to believe. "I do believe, I DO believe, I DO Believe" as the Lion said in The Wizard of Oz.
How about letting the professional soldiers fight the war in Afghanistan? You know, the ones about whom "conservatives" love to say, "They knew the risk when they took it!" and "They volunteered didn't they?!" By that logic those manly soldiers are expendable, right? So why send us pathetic, limp-wristed liberals?
AND Groenhagen, you have made some valid points, so stick to the facts and don't get smarmy about Obama just because your candidate and his idiot sidekick weren't elected!
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
