Bush major policy address

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Damn educated rich people! To the reeducation camps with them! Divest them of their property!

 

Now you're getting it! You are describing the modus operandi of the neo-Marxist liberal elites to a tee! Excellent!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Don't be a jackass. Why are you limiting to lefties? I think we have to fear people on both ends of the spectrum. Give one extreme the power and you're screwing over half the country. The other extreme, the other way around. KK, you love to shit on the hard left point of view and blame everything on liberals. Do you think everything would be just peachy in this country if hard-line right wing conservatives were in power?

 

This is classic! Beautiful.

 

I'll respond in two words: equal time.

[mattp]

This has been an amusing thread. It is really about a very simple idea: before the war, the irrational left in this country, and the French, were saying that there was no clear and imminent danger from Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, that an Iraq invasion was not part of any War on Terrorism, and that it might even make things worse. Now it looks as if these "cowards" were right, but JayB and KK are sticking with Bush's obviously B.S. rhetoric: we were threatened and we responded and we're taking the fight to them before they bring it to us. That and the silly idea that we have made the world a better place by bringing democracy to Iraq. Good luck, boys - the more you beat that drum the sillier you look.

[Luna]

Don't you ever tire of this tatic? You're constantly throwing up lame analogies and trying to tie them around the neck of anyone who points out the ineptness of this administration.

 

Got a question for the Bush supporters - why do you hate America so much that you would but your blind support for this idiot in front of what is good for the country? One out of 3 think the country is on the right track - how could it be so high? What is this clown doing that rates even a D for a grade?

[mattp]

Where'd everybody go?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Now it looks as if these "cowards" were right, but JayB and KK are sticking with Bush's obviously B.S. rhetoric: we were threatened and we responded and we're taking the fight to them before they bring it to us. That and the silly idea that we have made the world a better place by bringing democracy to Iraq. Good luck, boys - the more you beat that drum the sillier you look.

 

WTF are you talking about? I never said anything of the sort. If I knew there were no WMDs in Iraq I certainly would not have supported the invasion. Now we've made a mess and cutting-and-running is not an option. As for the policy - it's not about "bringing democracy to Iraq", it's about a long-term geopolitical strategy, which would be nice if it works, but is certainly not guaranteed to. And I don't like Bush - nor did I like his father, but that doesn't mean I don't get annoyed by the constant Bush-hating liberals with their hyperbole, doom-and-gloom rhetoric, negativity, and self-loathing. Bush is in for 3 more years - deal with it, and start rooting for America and success in Iraq, rather than failure. Let's hear some solutions or STFU.

[EWolfe]

Let's hear some solutions or STFU.

 

Solution: Impeachment

 

New Problem: Dick Cheney.

 

Stalemate.

[sexual_chocolate]

So would you say that, on the whole, the Left's outpouring of condemnation directed at the administration and its supporters has been matched by an equaly energetic condemnation of the Taliban and the Jihadi's operating in Iraq?

 

The "left" was quite vocal in their opposition to the Taliban, even back when the Bushies were inviting the Taliban to Texas for the latest business conference on a pipeline through Afghanistan.

And certainly the "jihadi" has never been a favorite of the "left", even before Bush's war allowed them to appear for the first time in Iraq.

 

It's just that the Taliban and the jihadi have been replaced with a threat much greater in scale, but an apologist for our current administration would fail to see this.

 

 

Just for the record, it would seem that you were a supporter of our Iraqi invasion; is this true, or am I projecting assumptions based on your hubristic arguments and reductio ad absurdums?

 

 

 

Edited October 8, 2005 by sexual_chocolate

[mattp]

The solution, KK, starts with the American public waking up and seeing that they've been taken for a ride by a bunch of crooks. Then they (we) might resolve to pay attention and we might also ask the Press to do its job and report honestly and actually hold our leaders accountable whey they lie to us. Only if we do this will democracy have a chance in this country.

[ivan]

all solutions are painful. ultimately, leaving very soon (within the next 12 months) is the least bad, IMHO. our prestige will suffer, iraq may well slide into total chaos, terrorists may still well attack us. we've wailed on the tar-baby and gotten 2 fists good and stuck - might as well hack'em off and save the feet - they'll regrown in time.

 

and yes, i'd have to be a fool to think that we'll actually leave in that time. we're there for 3 years more for sure - according to our last election, that's what the people want, in addition to keeping boys from kissing too, of course.

 

the success of democracy in the middle east will have nothing to do with US soldiers standing in the firing line. the participation of outside forces in a civil war will only prolong the violence and confuse the post-war relationship. we've already stirred the pot good n' hard by removing saddam - it's time to get our stick out and hope it all settles for the best...

[ivan]

oh wait, i thought of a good solution!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The solution, KK, starts with the American public waking up and seeing that they've been taken for a ride by a bunch of crooks. Then they (we) might resolve to pay attention and we might also ask the Press to do its job and report honestly and actually hold our leaders accountable whey they lie to us. Only if we do this will democracy have a chance in this country.

 

The loony left.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Let's hear some solutions or STFU.

 

Solution: Impeachment

 

New Problem: Dick Cheney.

 

Stalemate.

 

[Stonehead]

The loony left.

 

The sensible right:

McCain's Statement:

 

Mr. President, war is an awful business. I know that. I don't think I'm naïve about how severe are the wages of war, and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it successfully. It is a grim, dark business, and no matter how noble the cause for which it is fought, no matter how valiant the service, many veterans spend much of their subsequent lives trying to forget not only what was done to them and their comrades, but some of what had to be done by their hand to prevail.

 

 

I don't mourn the loss of any terrorist's life nor do I care if in the course of serving their ignoble cause they suffer great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next.

 

 

What I do regret, what I do mourn, and what I do care very much about is what we lose, what we -- the American serviceman and woman and the great nation they defend at the risk of their lives - what we lose when by official policy or by official negligence - we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of ourselves, our greatest strength - that we are different and better than our enemies; that we fight for an idea - not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion - but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.

 

 

I have been asked before where did the brave men I was privileged to serve with in Vietnam draw the strength to resist to the best of their ability the cruelties inflicted on them by our enemies. Well, we drew strength from our faith in each other, from our faith in God, and from our faith in our country. Our enemies didn't adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But everyone of us knew, every single one of us knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them. That faith was indispensable not only to our survival, but to our attempts to return home with honor. Many of the men I served with would have preferred death to such dishonor.

 

 

The enemies we fight today hold such liberal notions in contempt, as they hold the international conventions that enshrine them such as the Geneva Conventions and the treaty on torture in contempt. I know that. But we're better than them, and we are the stronger for our faith. And we will prevail. I submit to my colleagues that it is indispensable to our success in this war that our servicemen and women know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans, the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others - even our enemies.

 

 

Those who return to us and those who give their lives for us are entitled to that honor. And those of us who have given them this onerous duty are obliged by our history, and by the sacrifices - the many terrible sacrifices -- that have been made in our defense - we are obliged to make clear to them that they need not risk their or their country's honor to prevail; that they are always, always - through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss - they are always, always Americans, and different, better, and stronger than those who would destroy us.

 

 

God bless them as he has blessed us with their service.

[Stonehead]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defying President George W. Bush, the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to regulate the Pentagon's treatment of military detainees in the wake of abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere.

 

The Senate voted 90-9 for a bipartisan amendment to establish rules for detainee interrogation and treatment, even though the Republican administration said the measure would tie its hands as it fights terrorism and threatened to veto a $440 billion bill to fund the Pentagon if it contained them.

 

The amendment from Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, a prisoner of war in Vietnam, would establish the U.S. Army field manual as the standard for interrogations and bar degrading and inhumane treatment of anyone in U.S. military custody.

 

Another amendment to the defense bill the Senate was expected to consider this week would clarify the legal status of enemy combatants at the Guantanamo Bay military prison and increase congressional oversight of their detention and release.

 

McCain said the rules would help U.S. soldiers, who are under intense pressure to extract intelligence from prisoners but blamed when there are excesses. ...

 

Jabbing at the administration in which he served, retired four-star general and former Secretary of State Colin Powell backed McCain's amendment, which he said in a letter would "help deal with the terrible public diplomacy crisis created by Abu Ghraib."

[Stonehead]

The Bush Administration and its supporters have all along walked a funny line of simultaneously defending unsavory interrogation practices as necessary while denying that the same practices are actually happening, and so the Bush Administration is pretty unhappy about this amendment. In fact, as of yesterday morning, Bush was threatening that he would veto McCain's amendment if it passed, even though it's attached to a huge and crucial military appropriations bill, and even though in his five years in office Bush hasn't vetoed a single bill yet. (Bush is, in fact, the first president since James A. Garfield not to veto anything, and Garfield spent over three years of his one term in office dead.) Considering that the show of support for McCain's amendment turned out considerably higher than the estimates yesterday were pegging it at-- 91 senators out of 100 is easily more than one would need to override a veto-- it seems extremely improbable that Bush would actually follow through on this threat now, since at this point there seems to be nothing to gain from doing so except bad publicity. So what does Bush do next? So far the amendment has only been accepted by the Senate, not yet the House; can the administration bully the House into rejecting something 91 senators voted for? And once the amendment goes through, with or without Bush's support, does Bush's military implement it?

 

 

Well, in any case, we'll see what happens next.

-- source

[mattp]

The solution, KK, starts with the American public waking up and seeing that they've been taken for a ride by a bunch of crooks. Then they (we) might resolve to pay attention and we might also ask the Press to do its job and report honestly and actually hold our leaders accountable whey they lie to us. Only if we do this will democracy have a chance in this country.

 

The loony left.

 

That's no jive, KK. Bush and his buddies lie as a matter of course whether it is the effect/intent of tax breaks, the war, the need to make it easier for oil and gas development, whatever and somebody in the press occasionally points some of it out in a little blurb here and there but never have their feet been held to the fire.

 

I bet if you took a poll, you would find that a very large number of Americans have forgotten about the Downing Street memo, and many don't remember or never heard that the big justifications for the war like the uranium purchase or the centrifuge were known to be false at the time the President cited them. I bet half of Americans still think Iraq was responsible for 9/11 because nobody at FOX news bothers to point out with any real clarity that this was wrong.

 

Take taxes: how many people realize that Bush's child care credit is unavailable to something approaching half of the families with children because they don't pay enough in taxes to benefit? How many people realize that the supporters of eliminating the "death tax" could not cite a single example of where a family farm had to be paid to pay the tax -- not one? It goes on and on.

 

Or the favors and subsidy for the oil companies. Don't let me get started...

 

You can say "well, the Dem's lie too" but that doesn't really help solve the problem: our politics are based in large degree on distortions and lies and the public has no idea what is really going on or what might be at stake. This means that we really have no idea who we are voting for and what they actually stand for. PP was right when he said the abortion debate has been a very successful smokescreen, but the lies behind so much of our politics are a far worse threat.

 

As long as these guys have no fear that they will ever be held accountable or even asked tough questions in a press conference, we will see no better.

[Peter_Puget]

That's no jive, KK. Bush and his buddies lie as a matter of course whether it is the effect/intent of tax breaks, the war, the need to make it easier for oil and gas development, whatever and somebody in the press occasionally points some of it out in a little blurb here and there but never have their feet been held to the fire.

.....

 

Take taxes: how many people realize that Bush's child care credit is unavailable to something approaching half of the families with children because they don't pay enough in taxes to benefit?

 

 

....

As long as these guys have no fear that they will ever be held accountable or even asked tough questions in a press conference, we will see no better.

 

Matt -

 

Are you tellign a lie? link If so it is sad that we will see no better.....

[Stonehead]

What gets me, is that the Republican Playbook says that Bush won against Kerry because Bush had resolve and credibility. Resolve, yes. But, credibility???

 

I think it's telling that the Republicans appear divided between what I term the Radicals Repubs and the Sensible Repubs. The Radicals appear to be self imploding, e.g., Delay indicted, Frist under investigation, Rove called to testify and possibly facing indictment or being fired, etc.

 

Look, if the public perception remains as it is concerning the Iraqi situation and Bush's anemic domestic response, then the Republicans could be in danger, just as the Democrats were in '94. If there is an actual housing bubble, then that'll be the final nail in the Bush Administration (even though it's the non-partisan Fed chief's responsibility, i.e., Greenspan or his successor).

[mattp]

Peter-

the article I saw broke it down a little differentl, and discussed differences between rates for whites, blacks and hispanics. I don't think it reported the overall rate -- at least I didn't remember it. THus I wrote "something approaching 50%" to clearly indicate I didn't know what the actual number was. So, no, I wasn't lying. But your article tends to support my argument that Bush, when he cites that tax credit as an example of how his tax breaks favor rich and poor, certainly IS lying. He has a staff of people who fact-check stuff for him - or at least when it is to his perceived advantage to do so.

[JayB]

Hey Matt:

 

Since you are in favor of a progressive taxation scheme, would you be in favor of eliminating the tax-deduction on mortgage interest?

 

Seems like a no-brainer from the progressive taxation side, as it clearly favors those with enough wealth to own a home over those who are too poor to do so. It also inflates the value of housing by an amount proportional to the tax-subsidy, and contributes to a massive missallocation of capital to an unproductive sector.

[mattp]

Jay,

I certainly tend toward favoring progressive tax rates but if you are talking about simple minor tweaks to the current system, I'm not real clear on how your elimination of the mortgage decuction would help anything. It would hit the middle class, that's for sure, but would it cause rich people to pay proportionately more in taxes? How significant in their tax burden is a mortgage interest deduction?

[Peter_Puget]

Peter-

the article I saw broke it down a little differentl, and discussed differences between rates for whites, blacks and hispanics. I don't think it reported the overall rate -- at least I didn't remember it. THus I wrote "something approaching 50%" to clearly indicate I didn't know what the actual number was. So, no, I wasn't lying. But your article tends to support my argument that Bush, when he cites that tax credit as an example of how his tax breaks favor rich and poor, certainly IS lying.He has a staff of people who fact-check stuff for him - or at least when it is to his perceived advantage to do so.

 

Hmm......

 

You quite clearly stated that the number was, and I quote, "approaching 50%." It turns out that it was closer to 25%. Funny how something fairly specific like "approaching 50%" is meant to "clearly indicate" that the writer has no clue as to the exact number.

 

I will admit it is hard to argue against logic like that.

Edited October 10, 2005 by Peter_Puget

[mattp]

I clearly stated that I didn't know the number, and I bet that is why you went looking for it -- 'cause I tipped you off that you might find I was wrong. Now -- care to address my point that it makes no difference whether it was 25% or "something approaching half" -- in terms of the significance of the fact that Bush uses that tax credit as an example of how he is giving tax breaks to the poor?

 

By the way, in this thread YOU are doing what I would like the Press to do when our politicians lie to us or make mistakes of fact. Thanks for holding my feet to the fire here, so I can clarify your misconception that I was "lying."

[cj001f]

I will admit it is hard to argue against logic like that.

So where the fuck are the WMD's Peter?

 

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."