Sunday, January 08, 2006

Already on the Record: Prophets of Doom Run a "Fowl" of the Truth

In the Aesop’s fable of “The Goose That Laid the Golden Egg” we meet a farmer whose goose gives him every thing he could ever have dreamed of ; then the greedy farmer cuts the goose open to get at the eggs inside. Too late, the fool realizes that now he has nothing at all.

The coming of the New Year has prompted many to prognosticate the future of America, its President, its War in Iraq, and the failure of all. I am reminded of the prophets of gloom of the past whose confident doom saying only got them egg on the face.

Rush Limbaugh put me onto an article by the Historian Victor Davis Hanson from the National Review Online. Through the wonders of my classroom’s computer network hookup I had a hard copy in my hands within five minuets. All that computer training is paying off!!!

I will abridge it here and then supply some documentation to back up Hanson’s
wisdom.

THE PLAGUE OF SUCCESS http://www.nationalreview.co,/

“After September 11 national-security-minded Democratic politicians fell over each other, voting for all sorts of tough measures. . . Patriot Act. . . war in Afghanistan. . . the removal of Saddam. . . and nodded when they were briefed about Guantanamo or wire tap intercepts of phone calls . . .

Now the horror or 9/11 and the sight of the doomed diving into the street fade. . . The Democrats and the Left, in their amnesia, and as beneficiaries of the very policies they suddenly abhor, now mention al Qaeda very little and Islamic fascism hardly at all.

Apparently due to the success of George Bush at keeping the United States secure. . .

Afghanistan in October, 2001, conjured up almost immediately warnings of quagmire, expanding Holy War at Ramadan, unreliable allies, a trigger-happy nuclear Pakistan on the border, American corpses to join British and Russian bones in the high desert – not a seven week victory and a subsequent democracy in Kabul of all places.

Nothing in our era would have seemed more unlikely than democrats dethroning the Taliban and al Qaeda – hitherto missile-proof in their much ballyhooed cave complexes that maps in Newsweek assured us rivaled NORAD’s subterranean fortress. . .

Are we then basking in the unbelievable notion that the most diabolical government of the late 20th century is gone from Afghanistan, and in its place are schools, roads, and voting machines? Hardly. . .

The same paradox of success is true of Iraq. Before we went in, analysts and opponents forecasted burning oil wells, millions of refugees streaming into Jordan and the Gulf kingdoms, with thousand of Americans killed just taking Baghdad alone. Middle Eastern potentates warned us of chemical rockets that would shower our troops in Kuwait. On the eve of the war, had anyone predicted that Saddam would be toppled in three weeks, and two-and-a-half-years later, 11 million Iraqis would turn out to vote in their third election – at a cost of some 2100 war dead – he would have been dismissed as unhinged. . .

What explains this paradox of public disappointment over things that turnout better than anticipated? . . . (A bitterness of disappointment we are familiar with here in the Agora)

One cause is the demise of history. The past is either not taught enough, or presented wrongly as a therapeutic exercise to excise our purported sins. . .

Second, there is a sort of arrogant smugness that has taken hold in the West at large. Read the papers . . . in Washington D.C., Los Angeles, Detroit . . . The headlines are mostly the story of mayhem – murder, rape, arson, and theft, Yet, we think Afghanistan is failing or Iraq hopeless when we watch similar violence on television, as if they do such things and we surely do not. . .

A greater percentage of Iraqis participated in their elections after two years of consensual government than did Americans after nearly 230 years of practice. It is chic now to deprecate the Iraqi security forces, but they are doing a lot more to kill jihadists that the French or Germans who often either wire terrorists money, sell them weapons, or let them go.

Third, our affluent society is at a complete disconnect with hard physical work and appreciation of how tenuous life was for 2,500 years of civilization. . . The result of this juvenile boredom with good news and success? Few stop to reflect how different a Pakistan is as a neutral rather than as the embryo of the Taliban, or a Libya without a nuclear-weapons program, or a Lebanon with(out) Syrians in it, or an Iraq without Saddam and Afghanistan without Mullah Omar. . . .

Precisely because we are winning this war and have changed the contour of the Middle East, we expect even more – and ever more quickly, without cost in lives or treasure. So rather than stopping to praise and commemorate those who gave us our success, we can only rush ahead to destroy those who do not give us even more. (Sounds like Aesop' s fable to me!)

Had the farmer in the Aesop’s story been smart enough to truly look ahead he would never have murdered his goose. By way of evidence to Hanson’s exposition above I offer the following foolish farmers.

We begin with the war in Afghanistan. Before the seven weeks of war brought Liberty to Afghanistan many sought to kill the effort with demoralizing claims. Note how all have proven false. There is much disappointment in the anti-Bush crowd now. Disappointment sparked by the bitterness of having ones predictions made lie by events. Please observe the dates of the quotations presented. I will be doing a lot of quoting now. We have all heard these silly claims before, but I would implore you to read them so you can stand witness to the RECORD. My words are “bolded” to help you discriminate them from the quotes.

Maureen Dowd (NYT) October 28, 2001 “Liberties; Can Bush Bushkazi? (I had to pay for this one, what a waste!)

The terrorists and Taliban have the psychological edge on three fronts: military, propaganda and bioterror. . . President Bush has been lured through the high-altitude maze to the minotaur’s lair, or as it’s know in the novel “Flasman,” “the catastrophe of Afghanistan.” Now, like the British and Russians before him, he is facing the most brutish, corrupt, wily and patient warriors in the world, nicknamed dukhi, or ghosts, by flayed Russian soldiers who saw them melt away. (No!! I'm not making this up, Maureen actually wrote this. I wonder if she even knows what in means to flay someone. Her stupidity cooked her own goose!) . . . Are we quagmiring ourselves again? “Yes, it may be a quagmire,” President Musharraf of Pakistan said to Peter Jennings. (Now he tells us.) . . . Just as terrorists, American or foreign, cunningly used our own planes and mailboxes against us, so they used our own morality against us. We were stumbling over scruples against a foe with no scruples. (Interesting this from a woman who now condemns Bush’s lack of scruples. I guess one should just pay for her comments and not follow her advice.). . . With Muslims, the media-savvy troglodytes in a cave were still out spinning Ari Fleischer at a podium. And even as Rear Adm. Stufflebeem denied we were getting bogged down over there - - always a sure sign we’re getting bogged down over there - - the pentagon issued a disconcerting plea. . .” (I guess Stufflebeem, then chair of the Joint Chiefs, was right after all. Not so, Maureen.)

From Stars and Stripes (Of all places. It shows the courage of our military to tell their “students” ANYTHING), Tuesday, September 26, 2001, “Chorus grows against military intervention in Afghanistan”, by Tom Jensen,

RAF MIKDENHALL, England – American cruise missiles and ground troops are not useful weapons in a war on terrorism, some people have stated saying about any military intervention in Afghanistan. “you can go in and rearrange a hell of a lot of sand and rock [with bombs and missiles], but what is accomplished?” asked retired Rear Adm. Eugene Carroll, . . . .Carroll cautioned, too, against any ground force. Not only will land mines be a major factor, he said, but the Afghan Taliban fighter have the advantage of the terrain, which they know intimately. . . Historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr . joined the chorus Sunday . . . “It would only demonstrate once again the impotence of the American superpower,” the double Pulitzer Prize winner wrote. Such an attack, he wrote, would push moderate Muslims toward hatred of the U.S. and produce a new generation of suicide bombers. The historian and former adviser to President Kennedy said Afghanistan is “Famous for its unconquerability,” a lesson learned by the British Empire and the Soviet Union. (I guess Schlesinger failed to note that the British Empire and the Soviet Union, had learned the same lesson about the unconquerability of the United States, and now so have the Taliban! I wonder if Schlesinger has?) . . “American troops in Afghanistan would be even more baffled and beset than they were a third of a century ago in Vietnam,” Schlesinger wrote. . . . To allow the situation to become a clash of civilizations, he wrote, would be a catastrophe. “Bin Laden has set a trap for the United States,” He wrote. “Let us not walk into it.” Jay Farrar, an analyst for the Center for Strategic and international Studies in London [said] “. . . there is very little a conventional military force can do.”

(I found Schlesinger invoked again on) : “Radtimes resist@bes.com for Sun, 04 Nov. 2001.

Arthur Schlesinger: Are we trapped in another Vietnam? . . . Today the enemy is in the shadows; he strikes in cities well know to every American; and he turns the most familiar conveniences, the airplane and the letter into vicious weapons – and ordinary people are the target. . . Remember the optimistic remarks a couple of weeks back about the way American bombs were evisceration the enemy? (Something the bombs did do.) This has given way to somber comment about the Taliban’s dogged resistance. . . . Perhaps they should have reflected on Vietnam. We dropped more tons of explosives on that hapless country than we dropped on all fronts during the Second World War, and still we could not stop the Vietcong. (“Thanks” to a politically motivated and constantly interfering Democrat controlled Congress.) Vietnam should have reminded our generals that bombing has only a limited impact on decentralized, undeveloped, rural societies. (I guess that limited impact was all it took to undo the invincible Taliban.) . . . we may have to send in our own ground forces. Do we do that next month in face of the grim Afghan winter, Moslem religious holidays and unexploded land mines? (Which of course America did.) Or do we wait for spring? In any even , a quagmire looms ahead. As for the post -Taliban regime, this has vanished into a gruesome tangle of tribal feuds and rivalries. (Oh YA?) . . . Nearly every day newspapers carry stories about new and mysterious instances of anthrax poising. Behind anthrax looms the specter of smallpox, which, unlike anthrax poisoning, is contagious. . . If terrorists can find ways of unleashing a smallpox plague, it might be like the Black Death, which ravaged Europe in the 14th century.”

Arthur Schlesinger Jr him self wrote on 9/24/01 at http://www.digitalnpq.org/global_services/global%20viewpoint/09-24-01schlesinger.html

Bombing is not likely to eliminate Bin Laden and his crowd, who have well prepared hide-outs. It would only demonstrate once again the impotence of the American superpower. . . . The only thing that would probably please Bin Laden more would be an invasion by American ground forces. Afghanistan is famous for its unconquerability. The British Empire and the Soviet Union failed in their efforts to dominate the country, and they at least knew the rocky terrain and had people who spoke the languages. American troops in Afghanistan would be even more baffled and beset than they were a third of a century ago in Vietnam. There is, in addition, the land-mine problem. According to Robert Fisk, Middle Eastern correspondent for the Independent in London, Afghanistan contains one-tenth - - more the 10 million - - of the world’s unexploded land mines, laid by the Soviet Red Army. . . Moreover, by November, freezing weather will arrive, and the Pentagon has no hope of dispatching troops and winning the war in the six weeks remaining before winter come to Afghanistan. Nor could an invading American army count on serious assistance from the internal anti-Taliban resistance their most effective leader, Ahmed Shah Masoud, having been assassinated shortly before the assault of America. . . (I guess Schlesinger didn’t know about Hamit Karzai) Bin Laden has set a tarp for the United States, let us not walk into it . . . The quest for a knock-out blow is an illusion. (NO! it was Schlesinger who was crafting illusions!)

(Here are some great “Mistaken Wartime Predictions from the Punditry" collected by Glenn Reynolds posted on the Free Republic December 11, 2001, sixties@lists,village.virgnia.edu )

Richard Cohen, Washington Post, 11/6/01: “Whatever the case, this war appears to be behind schedule.:

Jacob Heilbrunn, Los Angeles Times, 11/4/01: The United States is not headed into a quagmire; it’s already in one. The U.S. is not losing the first round against the Taliban; it has already lost it.

Sen. Joe Biden: Los Angeles Times (news story0, 10/26/01: Sen. Joseph Biden, Jr. (D-Del.) warned that unless the air attacks end “sooner rather than later,” the U.S. risks appearing to be a “high-tech bully. Every moment it goes on, it makes the aftermath problem more severe . . .”

Cokie Roberts, ABC News, 10/28/01 (to Donald Rumsfeld): “the perception is that this war the last three weeks is not going very well.”

(And my favorite from the NPR)

Daniel Schorr, NPR, 10/27/01: “Well, I don’t know how long this was supposed to take, but it’s certainly going a lot wore than was expected . . .”

(Here are two more I dug out of Newsweek)

MSMBC.com Newsweek, “Letter from Afghanistan: Ragtag Army by Owen Matthews, Sept. 28, 2001: The grim reminders are everywhere in this hostile terrain. Every road, every ditch and field from Afghanistan’s capital of Kabul up to the Hindu Kush 80 miles to the north, is littered with the rusting and twisted remains of Soviet tanks and armored personnel carriers. . . a boy-soldier carries a Martini-Henry rifle of 1880’s vintage. That’s a souvenir of an even earlier incursion; the British attempt to subdue the tribes of Afghanistan.. . . Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance . . . rolled out its crack troops . . . The intention was probably to show that the alliance is willing and ready to topple the Taliban regime. It ended up looking more like something out of the Keystone Cops. . . ( It turned out that these “cops” were very effective after all, in spite of News Week’s scorn.) But the display did more to illustrate why the alliance has over the last five years lost some 95 percent of the territory of Afghanistan to the Taliban. . . “Without our help the Americans will not be able to do anything.” Says Quayum, a native of the nearby Salang district. “It is difficult for me to imagine how Americans can fight here.” (We don’t have to imagine it now, we know they fought very well. And then this on Bagram airport) . . . the base is now a wasteland of shattered concrete barracks and the littered wreckage of MiG-21 jets. A forlorn memorial to Soviet war dead stand among the debris, and the base's gates with their red star motif swing free.” (Now Afghanistan is free!)

MSNBC.com Newsweek, “Ultimate Fighters” Sept 28, 2001 – Tom Carew look to history for proof of the fighting qualities of the Afghans. “The last time they were conquered was by Alexander the Great in the forth century B.C.” (Something I pointed out to my student at the time; by way of giving lie to the much touted claim that Afghanistan had never been conquered.). . . And his conclusion may be unwelcome to military planners in Washington. “They are the ultimate fighters in their own terrain.” (Until American soldiers came!) . . . the nature of the country produces a super tough breed of warriors adept at using the terrain to their own advantage, says Carew. “They know the land like a Welsh sheep farmer know his hillsides.” (Isn’t it wonderful that far better fighters can be produced right here in American classrooms and training camps were students and soldiers are taught to deal with ANYTHING?) If crude, their [the Taliban] tactics were adapted to their strengths. “they will only attack when they want to . Otherwise you just won’t see(m) them. They will hide like foxes. “supplies are buried in dumps across the country, known only to the guerrillas. . . They are very hard and ferocious fighters. . . That ferocity can show itself as barbarism, especially in the treatment of prisoners, Carew has told of how mujahedeen slashed open the stomachs of captured Russians and left them to die in the baking heat. Indeed, the brutality is one reason why Carew is convinced that Afghanistan will be no place for conventional troops. . . the technology of modern warfare may be ill-suited to Afghanistan. Armored vehicles may be bogged down; misty valleys add one more hazard to helicopter flying.” (Where is Carew’s retraction of all this silliness?)

I know this is getting long, but my efforts have not even scratched the surface of the inanity presented just before and during the first weeks of the Afghan War. Of course reality was completely contrary to the dire predictions. The weekly news magazines couldn’t even get their “doom and gloom” warnings of American defeat onto the news stands before the war was over and Afghanistan on its way to democracy!

I had thought to present the same "quantity" of shameful doom saying by the know-it-alls on the left pertaining to the Iraq War. We all know that the results were the same. Even as weekly new magazines and Sunday talk shows joined Baghdad Bob to line up and bewail American defeat before the walls of Babylon, the liberated Iraqis were dancing in the streets and pulling down the statues of Saddam. Perhaps, if any kind of discussion ensues, I can post some for consideration, for now I will present only the two most telling “quality” misstatements by Senatorial Prognosticators. I’m sure both of these Democrat prophets of doom would like to hide their silly fears. They will not retract, but it's ALREADY ON THE RECORD!

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002, to the School of Advanced International Studies:

. . . Some who advocate military action against Iraq, however, assert that air strikes will do the job quickly and decisively, and that the operation will be complete in 72 hours. But there is again no persuasive evidence that air strikes alone (Never the Bush plan.) over the course of several days will incapacitate Saddam and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Experts have informed us that we do not have sufficient intelligence about military targets in Iraq. Saddam may well hide his most lethal weapons in mosques, schools and hospitals, If our forces attempt to strike such targets, untold number of Iraqi civilians could be killed. (But they were not.)

In the Gulf War, many of Saddam’s soldiers quickly retreated because they did not believe the invasion of Kuwait was justified. But when Iraq’s survival is at stake, it is more likely that they will fight to the end. (In fact they saw Saddam’s cause as no more just this time around; because it was not.) Saddam and his military may well abandon the desert, retreat to Baghdad, and engage in urban, guerilla warfare.

In our September 23 hearing, General Clark told the Committee that we would need a large military force and a plan for urban warfare. General Hoar said that our military would have to be prepared to fight block by block in Baghdad, and that we could lose a battalion of soldiers a day in casualties. Urban fighting would, he said, look like the last brutal 15 minutes of the movie “Saving Private Ryan.”

Senator Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, in a floor Speech on Oct 11, 2002, Under:

THE DANGERS OF BATTLE IN BAGHDAD

Third, an invasion of Iraq for the purpose of regime change would necessitate a march on Baghdad. Such a course would expose our forces on the ground to serious risks, in hand-to-hand, street-by-street urban warfare in a foreign capital. We would lose much of our advantage in superior air power and technology. The military and civilian casualties could be substantial.

The former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Central Command, retired Marine Corps General Joseph Hoar, testified before Congress, and I quote, “In urban warfare you could run through battalions a day at a time. All our advantage of command and control, technology, mobility . . are in part given up.” Those are sobering words, Mr. President: “Battalions a day at a time.”

Consider how silly the facts made all these predictions. With the beginning of 2006 we have a host of predictors, fans of catastrophe, and politicians invested in defeat; who prophesy disaster for American, and for Iraq, Afghanistan, and the West. They are fools so greedy for power or determinedto force their views on all, that they have decided to kill the goose and take all the golden eggs. History will hold them to account because their words are ALREADY ON THE RECORD!


117 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am happy to be on the record with my predictions. We must ask the questions that we did not before, we must realize that we can do better and that we should.

I am also happy to see that Anonymous makes enough of an impact to get "quoted" in your blog topic. Hopefully the Anonytachi will be enough of a gadfly in your ear to get to you post about something important, like how the U.S. effort in Iraq can be made better.

P.S. Since you paid for the Maureen Dowd article it would be nice if you would post it in its entireity. I quite like her column and I am sure that all others would find it amusing for their own purposes - plus, you save the rest of us a few bucks to boot.

Anonymous said...

Now I'm confused. Are you trying to say that the war in Iraq is not being fought anymore and that it is already over? I thought President Bush already said Mission Accomplished in May 2003. Boy, how silly THAT prediction looks now in 2006. You left out some other willful lies, I mean predictions. How about Cheney's prediction on Larry King Live from June 2003, "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." Wait, it gets better, how about his March 16, 2003 prediction on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." Did they suicide bomb the liberators in France after WWII? Or what about Wolfowitz's testimony to congress in March of 2003 that "we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." That one still makes me laugh! But it hurts my pocket book in taxes! Rumsfeld predicted in October of 2002 that a war in Iraq would last "weeks, not months." In March 2003, former Joint Chief of Staff Richard Meyers predicted at a press breakfast a "short, short conflict." YEARS later we are still waiting for the conflict to be over. Those two got it wrong also. Bush's Secretary of State Colin Powell predicted that WMD's would be found in Iraq after unsuccessfully trying to convince the UN in February of 2003 with his "proof of continuing nuclear and biological weapons programs in Iraq." He has since said that was the "low point" of his career and "blot" on his public service record. Or how about Bush's pre-war Golden Boy, Ahmed Chalabi, promised the U.S. invasion of Iraq would be "a cakewalk" and that Bush would be greeted with "flowers and sweets." Neither of the two men are taking eachother's calls anymore, such is the way with torrid affairs based on dreams and not reality.

I guess my real confusion Liesis is why you are so eager to hold some to account, op-ed columnists and reporters whose words mean little, but you show no interest in holding others accountable like the administration whose words sent us on the first preemptive war of our history, killed thousands, and committed us to years of occupation in a foreign land? It must be because of your bias. Well, if you can see beyond it for just a moment, read back over the last paragraph of Whitehouse promises; "consider how silly the facts made all these predictions."

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

Anonymous, it is obvious you don’t understand, so let me help you. Saddam is out of power. That mission was accomplished long ago, as was proudly proclaimed by the Navy Aircraft Carrier which returned to California having completed its mission. President Bush, always eager to support the troops, flew out to greet and thank them on behalf of a grateful nation. Sorry you missed it.

I guess you missed the President’s Prime time speech last mounth, it was one of five he gave on the war in Iraq. He took full responsibility for sending troops to war and explained why it was the right thing to do, even though there have been no WMD discovered yet. That’s what one calls courage and honesty. That is how a great leader takes responsibility for his the mistakes and even the mistakes of others. He did the same thing with the failures of the Katrina hurricane, and then he did as he has done with Iraq; went on to make things better.

They did “suicide bomb” the liberators in France during WWII and even more attacks were carried out against them in Germany after the official surrender of Germany’s regular army. The most shocking such continued hostility after the “mission was accomplished” was in Guam, were the last Japanese solider surrendered 30 years after the signing of the treaty on the decks of the Missouri. After the Civil War, whole armies refuse to surrender, and murder and terror dragged on for decades. Still the Union did not fall, the Emperor of Japan ceased to be a God, and the Nazis did not come back to power in Europe. See how much you learn Anonymous when you ask the right questions.

Iraq can not yet pay for its own defense, but the progress is in that direction. The economy has surpassed pre-liberation levels and continues to grow. In the mean time we see Saddam being tried for murder and genocide, not leading troops to ultimate victory before the walls of Baghdad.

There were flowers and dancing in the streets of Iraq. We all saw them on the TV during the liberation, and again on the December 15, Election Day. So I guess Chalabi was right on that one. I haven’t seen you point out one instance where any of the naysayers I have quoted above was proven right.

I agree with you that the generals, admirals, and Senators, especially Kennedy, I quote above, are really just media hacks. I am glad to hold them and their masters in the media accountable for the disinformation they spread and continue to spew. As for the administration’s successes, I refer you to Victor Davis Hanson’s assessment:

Nothing in our era would have seemed more unlikely than democrats dethroning the Taliban and al Qaeda . . . we basks . . . in the unbelievable notion that the most diabolical government of the late 20th century is gone from Afghanistan, and in its place are schools, roads, and voting machines. . . Before we went in [to Iraq] analysts and opponents forecasted burning oil wells, millions of refugees streaming into Jordan and the Gulf Kingdoms, with thousands of Americans killed just taking Baghdad alone. Middle Eastern potentates warned us of chemical rockets that would shower our troops in Kuwait. . . .

Now, Saddam (has been) toppled in three weeks, and two-and-a-half-years later, 11 million Iraqis would turn out to vote in their third election . . .

Like Hanson I remember when Democrats politicians and the rest of us lived in terror. I remember 9/11. I was with my students. We watched the doomed diving into the streets. I remember when the sound of an airplane sent shivers of fear up everyone’s spine, when ever morning we turned on the T.V. fearing a city destroyed and countless dead. President Bush stood on the ruins of the Twin Towers and promised to remake the world a safer place. He has done so. Precisely because America is winning this war and has changed the contour of the Middle East, many American are free and safe to criticize the leader and policies that have returned our freedoms.

I have heard plenty of admissions from the President and his crew. I have yet to hear the truth from Danny Schoor, Teddy Kennedy, or the host of others sighted above.

So you will not be confused, Anonymous, President Bush told the nation on “Day One” that the path to victory would be generations long, that the war would be hard, that the sacrifices would be great. We cheered him then, when we needed his leadership. We need it still, but politics as usual have returned because of Bush’s success. Once again we see those who abandon the difficult and enduring for the quick fix of power. To help us from being seduced by these deceptions, to keep us from killing the goose that lays our golden eggs of safety and freedom, we need to remember all the fact that are ALREADY ON THE RECORD

Aeneas said...

Lysis,

Thank you again for an informative post.

Anonymous,

Bush did not make the statement, "mission accomplished", in fact it was printed on a banner set behind the President when he spoke to the service men and women on an aircraft carrier and made by the same service men and women before he arrived. Despite this fact, the banner was correct, the mission of defeating Saddam's government forces had been accomplished and in an astonishingly short time frame, as Rumsfeld and other predicted. Again as Bush predicted, the war on terror continues and will take years to accomplish. Also note, one of the last attacks against U.S. forces in Japan after WWII was approx. 9 years after the peace treaty was signed. (Lysis, in addition to a lack of historical understanding, arrogant smugness, and a disconnect to physical labor, you can also add to the list a sever lack of patience.)

Its easy to play Monday morning quarterback, its harder to identify mistakes and to move on and try to fix them as Bush is doing and has done.

As a member of the military, I don't feel betrayed by my President, but honored to call him my Commander-and-Chief.

Anonymous said...

The people of France really did suicide bomb the American G.I's after liberation in WWII? This is another example of your special brand of classroom teaching. Tell us that story. And please post the whole Maureen Dowd article. Thanx.

Anonymous said...

June 5, 2003, Doha, Qatar, President Bush to U.S. troops: "America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished." Good thing the Iraqi people are not feeling oppressed by a great threat anymore. Now if they could just do something about all of those secret torture prisons ran by the Ministry of Information, Shiite death squads, suicide bombers, beheadings, kidnappings, organized criminals, open warfare in the streets, chronic sabotage of public works, rogue contractors and U.S. air bombings of civilian weddings and homes. Yep, Baghdad is a real sweet place to live ever since Bush said the Mission was Accomplished.

Think operators might start offering "Streets of Baghdad" tours anytime soon with complimentary flowers and sweets as the crowds of Iraqis greet the Westerners as hero-liberators? I guess making a prediction like that would just be silly.

Aeneas, sorry to hear about your situation. The Seattle Times is already taking applications now for this year's "Worst Boss in the World Contest" if you want to send in a letter on yours. Results will be announced in Nov.

Aeneas said...

FYI -- There was a post-war German insurgency. Google "Operation Werewolf" to find out more. It was never as large as the current Iraqi insurgency, but there were loose cells of insurgents from various groups, including remnants of the SS. They assassinated some post-war local leaders and committed acts of sabotage. After a period of about two years, the German people realized that the allies were going to help them rebuild. This was essentially "winning of the hearts and minds" of the German people. The insurgency then faded away.

Interestingly, the New York Times had stories about dire consequences that would supposedly result due to the insurgency and disappointing news about the feelings of Germans for the occupation forces.

Quote from the Times, 1945: The "attitude toward the American occupation forces has swung from apathy and surface friendliness to active dislike. According to a military government official, this is finding expression in the organization of numerous local anti-American organizations throughout the zone and in a rapid increase in the number of attacks on American soldiers. There were more such attacks in the first week of October than in the preceding five months of the occupation, this source declared." [www.answerbag.com]

Anonymous said...

Don't forget my personal favorite Bush prediction: May, 1, 2003, "My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended." Oops!

He preceded that gaff with some seriously tough talk: in 2001, "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority" right after we take care of Cheney's request for an Iraq invasion for his buddies at Haliburton. Then he said "there's an old poster out West that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" Or maybe not at all. It took less than a year for Bush to consider his prediction as silly, "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." March 13, 2002. Oops again! That silly lug-head.

"Nineteen months ago I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient justice of the United States." Well he made that promise 32 months ago now. I would like to think that Bush keeps his word but can already see what that means from his promises above.

Anonymous said...

51 months and counting, in all. Too bad we didn't put all of our resources into the real threat to U.S. citizens instead of the made up one in Iraq. Now that threat - bin Laden, Zawahiri - still plot, still hate, still inspire, still recruit. Bush still makes hollow, flag draped speeches.

Lysis said...

Thank you Aenies, for providing the references for Anonymous. I mistakenly supposed he had been taught these things in his 10th Grade History Class. I am afraid that Anonymous had teachers determined to engrave his mind with a narrow biased view of history. More likely still, the teachers he had in high school were taught by college professors who used the influence of their Post Graduate degrees to engrave the minds of Anonymous’ teachers. They in turn, careful never to provide anything that might spark though in Anonymous’ own mind, engraved him in the image of their professor’s prejudices.

Anonymous, do you know that Mussolini’s fascists followers still give trouble, including acts of “terror and murder” in Italy today? I didn’t think so. But as I’ve said before, ask the right questions and you will get answers.

Anonymous, “American sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished.” The Grave threat removed, Saddam, the PROOF of liberty, a democratic constitution, insuring all civil and human rights, and free and open democratic elections in Iraq. Anonymous, do you deny the accomplishments of our heroes? Or are you still reciting the programming of you “masters” without thinking for yourself.

As I told you, the Dowd article was not worth the money, nor is it worth even your time. Consider defending Miss Dowd’s miss statements quoted above. Realize that the streets of Baghdad will be made safe, and giving hope to terrorists by accepting their “predictions” does not show true support for the troops whose sacrifice will make that possible.

Dan Simpson said...

I still find it interesting that so many people equate the 'insurgents' with the people who were liberated from Saddam's rule.

Of course there are people who want to kill the Americans that are there, we deposed a dictator, that tends to piss of those in power.

Interestingly enough, if one takes the time to actually read their own posts, we can see that the majority of people killed by the 'insurgents' are Iraqi civilians.

Now what does this teach us. Perhaps it points to the fact that the U.S. is not the ultimate target, but that a free Iraq is the target. If the 'insurgents' were so patriotic, 'get out of Iraq you stupid Americans and let us do our own thing', why would they be murdering hundreds of Iraqis and tens of American soldiers?

It is also interesting that the same people who talk about the Iraqi people rising up in 'insurgency', also speak of terrorists 'pouring' across the border into Iraq.

So, which is it, are the people of Iraq standing strongly against us, and to prove they are serious they will kill themselves until we leave (reminiscent of Monty Python's 'the Life of Bryan', "Suicide squad, attack")

Or is it that terrorists are pouring across the borders making Iraq a haven to terrorists?

The people doing the bombings and suicide attacks are obviously not interested in helping their country. Why does the fact that there are people willing to kill, either their own countrymen (if there really is this huge Iraqi insurgency), or willing to kill Iraqis to prove a point against the U.S. (if the terrorists pouring over the borders is true), show that what we are doing is wrong?

Terrorists existing does not equal U.S. foreign policy being wrong.

If you want to prove a decision wrong, don't point to the fact that there are people who disagree, show why it is wrong on its own.

Anonymous said...

Dear Aeneas,

I could not get the scholarly reference you provided "answerbag.com" to open on my computer so I took your advice and googled "Operation Werewolf." I also encourage everyone to do the same, what you will find is probably not what Aeneas anticipated. Intrigued, I did further research. This is what I found.

First we have the U.S. militaries own record of the events that seems to undermine your whole premise. The U.S. Army's official history, The U.S. Army in the Occupation of Germany 1944-1946, points out, the killing of one German mayor before the war had even ended was 'probably the Werwolf's most sensational achievement.'" The Werewolf's had no other accomplishments or even any real existence after the war. "The Army put bars on jeeps to prevent decapitation by wires, but that was the only action taken by the Army" to fight that resistance said [Lt. Col. Kevin] Farrell [a historian at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas]. "There's very little evidence of the Werewolves offering effective resistance." Moreover, the Army historians say, the comparison between postwar Germany and postwar Iraq is questionable because of the scale of events taking place now in Iraq.

Next we have Daniel Benjamin, a former member of the U.S. Security Council and head of U.S. Transnational Threats now a senior fellow a the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who in March of 2003 wrote, "This 'guerrilla unit' assassinating a officials, most notably a German official occurred on March 25, 1945 -- nearly two months before the war in Europe ended. Werwolf tales have been a favorite of schlock novels, but the reality bore no resemblance to Iraq today. . . . In practice, Werwolf amounted to next to nothing. The mayor of Aachen [a Germany city] was assassinated on March 25, 1945, on [SS Chief Heinrich] Himmler's orders. This was not a nice thing to do, but it happened before the May 7 Nazi surrender at Reims. It's hardly surprising that Berlin sought to undermine the American occupation before the war was over.

The Canadian Free Press investigated the German post WWII resistance in August of 2005 - after more bone-headed ultra-wing conservatives raised the comparison - and their conclusion was "Tactics were varied, and typically…petty. The truth was that Werwolf attacks were largely ineffectual. Typical operations included pouring sand into the gas tanks of allied vehicles, poisoning food and water, petty vandalism and stringing decapitation wires across the roads. Most of these nusance attacks occured before the war was officially over."

Finally, Perry Biddiscombe wrote a book about the Werewolves in 1998, from where most of these fairy-tales seem to eminate. In it even he acknowledges that the Werewolves were not created to be an underground movement after a German defeat. "After the end of the war there's a lot more ambiguity" as to how long they survived or what they did. He even attacks Rumsfeld for making the comparison between the resistance of the Werewolves and that in Iraq. "By implying that the catalog of sabotage he recited occurred after the German surrender of May 8, 1945, Mr. Rumsfeld's speech was misleading, said Mr. Biddiscombe, a professor at the University of Victoria in British Columbia. Almost all incidents of the sort Mr. Rumsfeld described occurred before the war ended, as Allied forces fought their way across Germany, and Werwolf quickly fell apart [within months] after the surrender, Mr. Biddiscombe explained.


I am glad that I looked into this made up matter and brought it to the attention as the Wily Mass Destraction from the real insurgency and resistance to Bush's personal crusade that it is. These were just some of the hilights of how laughable the comparison is but I am sure you can see that, especially from the Army's own historians. Interestingly, I do not see the dire consequences predicted in the quote you provide from the New York Times, Aeneas. Rather, I read a report on growing frustration. The horrendous "consequences that would result" that you read into the article must be a case of "if I didn't believe it then I wouldn't have seen it." It appears that your grasp on reality in is about as reliable as Liesis', not very.

Speaking of which, you seriously mean to point to fascist skin-heads committing acts of hate-crime in Italy today as proof that they are still fighting the Dulce's resistance fighters!? Perhaps you see the neo-Nazi march in Ohio that sparked rioting in October as evidence that Hitler conquered the U.S. too. You see enemies everywhere, and lies as truth. Get real.

And please print the Dowd article as others have requested. I would hate to think after your vigorous defense of education in the blog before this that you would now presume to shelter us from things you do not think we should read in the Agora. Please give us the whole article and let us debate all of the accusations that she makes in full. It may be the first time I find your posts really worth reading.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and tell the truth, there were no suicide bombers attacking Allied Troops in France after liberation were there. I'll chalk this up to more of your loose grip on reality Liesis.

mostly just listening said...

Anonymous, Aeneas pointed out in his original post re: Werewolf, that the German insurgency didn't compare in size or stature to that in Iraq. The point was more that there was one. He also stated that they assassinated a local leader or two and participated in acts of local sabotage. No attempt to mislead anyone just to point out that the presence of post war insurgency isn't new nor is the claim that we are extremely disliked by our occupationist tendencies by the New York Times.

Furthermore, I looked into that Times Article, and it does predict serious consequences (that attacks against U.S. soldiers would increase if our occupation continued) For the 1940's, that could be considered pretty serious.

Anonymous, if you would get off of your determined to be a lone crusader, I am more informed than the whole of the Agora put together, egotistical high horse, you might stop reading so much extra into everyone else's posts and do some reading/listening, you wouldn't be exactly what you accuse Lysis of being only on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Anonymous, you hear what you want to, and given your seeming intelligence, it is one of the biggest acts of hypocrisy in the Agora.

Oh, and by the way, telling Aeneas to nominate Bush for worst boss of the year and expressing sympathy because he is in the military and Bush in the Commander in Chief? Juvenile Anonymous. Silly really. Reminiscent of play ground name calling of the like of I know you are but what am I. You disagree so vigorously with the folk here in the Agora and are almost always worth reading and considering, but come on. That was simply juvenile. Perhaps we should take a page out of Anonymous' playbook and say that that speaks volumes about our friend? No, but it is by far one of the most childish and pointless comments I have read posted here in a long time.

Lysis said...

I wonder Anonymous, if you ever heard of the Battle of the Bulge? Now before you go off screaming that that’s not the same as want is going on in Iraq, realize that everyone here knows that – but what everyone else is able to recognize, and you would too, if you weren’t so determined to keep your discredited position afloat; is that when wars are fought and WON, hostilities and haltered go on for a long time after. You have presented one point of view of Nazi resistance after the WWII in Germany, Aeneas has presented another. The point is that there were atrocities. Your pretending there weren’t and continuing to hold to your preconceived idea that Iraq is the only place were insurgencies have followed victories is silly and childish; on the same level as Maureen Dowd.

It is amazing how you can dismiss neo-Nazi and Neo-Fascists murders, some of which have included terror bombings of high rise apartments full of people they hate, in efforts to reestablish, through terror, the wonder world of Hitler and Mussolini. I guess the monsters you support get more credit for their efforts than the ones you were taught to dismiss.

Dannyboy nailed Anonymous’ mistake on this one. Dannyboy has explained to Anonymous and the rest of us who the Iraqi people are fighting. Anonymous, you know what they are fighting for. Why can’t you get past the “America is always wrong”, “if America would just leave everyone alone the buffalo would come back”, silliness you were taught in you college propaganda 101. Wake up, live in the real world; the 60’s dream of your professors was always made of smoke.

Anonymous, why do you think there are still thousands of U.S. and NATO troops in the former Yugoslavia? Could it be that even after NATO has brought peace and Democracy to the Balkans, there are still terrorists and murderers who, without the forces of good, would rise up to kill again. Your attacks on the success in Iraq and Afghanistan are so much hot air. Tell us something constructive. What would you do? Are you ready to abandon Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea, and France to the bad guys? How about your home town Anonymous. Why not “can” the police force protecting your family. After all murders still happen, policemen shoot criminals, and criminals – determined to get what they want still kill. According to your prospective of victory, Anonymous, that should be reason enough to send your Officers of the Peace packing!

But all this bad wind is moot. The premise of this Web Log Posting has not been challenged by Anonymous’ cherry picking presentation of history. I notice Anonymous has carefully avoided discussion of Afghanistan. I hope that even Anonymous can see the success there. The success in Iraq is that millions of Iraqis are willing to go on fighting for their freedom against the thugs and terrorists that would re-enslave them. America fights with them, not only because it is the right thing to do, but in our own self interest. Terrorists were and would again use Iraq and its resources to rain terror on the rest of us. American blood and treasure support the Iraqi people in their r struggle, their struggle has made the world a safer place. The misrepresentations of the “Mainstream Media” and their stooges in Congress and the Democrat party, are taking the side of terror against freedom and peace. They are doing this for purely political reasons. Why they have chosen such politics may well go back to the pre-strained education they were engraved with when they sat in class with Anonymous.

Anonymous said...

Here is a silly prediction.

"I picked the best person I could find." "It's important to bring in somebody from the outside. People will get to see her character and a sense of her judicial philosophy... Harriet Miers will bring dignity to the bench." "I am confident as the Senators get to know her as I do she will be confirmed." Hahahaha!

Dan, I think the insurgency in Iraq is not one group. It is made of about %20 foreign fighters who are streaming over the borders and who make up most of the suicide bombers and about %80 Iraqis - mostly Sunnis - who carry out sabotage ambushes and kidnappings. That is the military's own assesment. So it is both. I think the foreign fighters are there because the U.S. is. I think the mostly Sunni's fight because they are threatened by the Shiite majority. It is complicated.

Not so complicated though. I don't remember when the Iraqi terrorists rained blood on U.S. citizens before the war. That part is just a lie. I remember that Cheney always says it though.

And I also thought nominating the president for the worst boss was a funny idea. Thx.

P.S. Where is the Dowd article?

Dan Simpson said...

If 80% of the insurgents are Iraqi, and are busy carrying out ambushes and kidnappings, there numbers must be low indeed.

I think you have gotten stuck on a point that many liberals do. You keep fighting the argument about Iraq and 9-11. I don't believe that Iraq or Saddam had anything to do with 9-11 directly.

But my question to you is, can you honestly say that Saddam had no ties to terrorism? That is what I care about.

Here's the point. Even if Bush and Chaney wanted to go to war for their buddies at Haliburton, and they were willing to kill babies to do it, that doesn't change whether going to Iraq was right or wrong.

I believe it was right to go there and remove Saddam. First, because of the horrible acts of terror he perpetrated on the people of Iraq, and second because he openly and publicly supported terrorism throughout the Middle East.

9/11 or not, you make your argument as if that is the only way in which Saddam could have hurt us, or the only way we could have had reason to go into Iraq.

Anonymous said...

Liesis, don't reduce this to opinion, Aeneas' version versus my own. What I presented is not an opinion, it is the Army's official history!! Given your sacred treatment of all things militant I should think you that would be truth enough for you. There was no real resistance to Allied occupation after WWII, and certainly nothing that even remotely compares to the current mess Bush's handling of Iraq has caused!

Do not presume that I want the destruction of America, victory for insurgents or terrorists because I continue to call for a better handling of war effort! It must pain to you finally have a real challenge to your version of history beyond the sheepish chorus of voices that normally cheer you on. Your calling me a traitor for disagreeing with you is at least as mature as others have accused me of being. Of course, the type of playground antics I have been accused of only led to recess. Your more serious claims have created black-lists, the destruction of real war-hero sacrifices, and an unchecked hand that has led us to war and is screwing up an all too important effort in Iraq.

Dan, don't confuse your not hearing about the kidnappings with their being no, or few kidnappings or few insurgents in Iraq. It is the kind of American underestimation of reality that caused this mess. Iraqis are kidnapped constantly but this does not make the mainstream media. European Humanitarian Aid workers and journalists in Iraq have been frequently kidnapped. And Saddam's support of terrorism in the Middle East had to rank far behind Iran's - a country that used WMD's on their neighbor's, is the number one supporter of Hamas, IS developing a nuclear weapon, detained and beat Westerners to death before Iraq invasion planning, and publicly calls for Israel to be wiped off the map. Iraq's terrorist connections were pretty weak tea in comparison, probably non-existent, as the CIA and DIA concluded a full year before U.S. invasion. There was another reason entirely for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, terrorism was only the excuse to put it into action, it was the misguided world view of Neo-Cons like Liesis. All of the retro justifications you can think of now will not change that fact that the U.S. entered unprovoked war.

Your Bush running accumulation of Bush predictions being proved silly by the crrent situation Anonymous is great! I looked for a good one too and got one from an interview with Polish reporters May 29, 2003. It kind of relates to Dan's current situation in trying to justify the war somehow.

Q: Weapons of mass destruction haven't been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?

A: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

What!!?? I had to look again to make sure it wasn't Liesis they were quoting at the press conference!

Anonymous said...

Don't forget the MOAB Silliest Statement of Incompetence: "Again, I want to thank you all for—and, Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job. The FEMA Director is working 24—(applause)— they're working 24 hours a day." Well, not quite 24. Remember this?

_Bahamonde to FEMA Director Michael Brown, Aug. 31, 11:20 a.m.

"Sir, I know that you know the situation is past critical. Here some things you might not know.

Hotels are kicking people out, thousands gathering in the streets with no food or water. Hundreds still being rescued from homes.

The dying patients at the DMAT tent being medivac. Estimates are many will die within hours. Evacuation in process. Plans developing for dome evacuation but hotel situation adding to problem. We are out of food and running out of water at the dome, plans in works to address the critical need."

_Sharon Worthy, Brown's press secretary, to Cindy Taylor, FEMA deputy director of public affairs, and others, Aug. 31, 2 p.m.

"[I]t is very important that time is allowed for Mr. Brown to eat dinner. Gievn (sic) that Baton Rouge is back to normal, restaurants are getting busy. He needs much more that (sic) 20 or 30 minutes. We now have traffic to encounter to get to and from a location of his choise (sic), followed by wait service from the restaurant staff, eating, etc."

Anonymous said...

Is the United States more secure since 9-11?

With semi-permeable (at best) borders with Mexico and Canada WHO, at the Agora, is foolish enough to feel secure?(Hey we checked 6oo pairs of old lady shoes at airports today!)
Bush has had 6 years to secure U.S. borders and illegal immigration, but hasn't, and now Lysites feel pacified because Iraq had an election and ONLY 2,200 have died, to fight terrorism????

The war in Iraq is a distraction from the OBVIOUS dangers of unsecured boundaries.
Let's secure the borders NOW. It's easy -- take away the incentives to illegally come to this country -- heavily fine and *incarcerate* employers who use illegals. Stop Bush business cronies from profiteering off cheap labor that OBVIOUSLY makes the whole country insecure -- as with all Bush policy, FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!
Osama is STILL STILL STILL alive and free. The U.S. was "Bush-whacked" on 9-11 and it was on the "Bush-watch"!!!! (undeniable)
What would Gore have done post 9-ll if he had been (really was) elected? 9-11 would NOT have happened on a Gore watch -- Osama attacked only when he saw the country in a WEAK moment with WEAK opportunistic leadership!!!! (undeniable)
Another Osama attack could be imminent ONLY because there is STILL Osama and Al Qaida -- Gore would have eliminated that possibility by now!!!! (undeniable)

Now, Lysis spin up some sites that "prove" 9-11 didn't happen on Bush-watch and that 9-11 has been vindicated. No? Then do the Clinton whine-o-rama and the Bush, pre-9/11 would'a should'a could'a once more -- but remember, just the facts man, just the facts!!!!

Anonymous said...

Iran is holding known al Queda operatives who poured into the country after Afghanistan in what they say is "custodial detention." The CIA says that these operatives are still being allowed to plan and communicate including playing a key role in two Riyadh bombings by terrorists in 2003 that killed over fifty - nine Americans, more injured. Add that to the list along with the thousands that have been killed and tortured by the Mullahs that run Iran.

"I believe it was right to go there and remove Saddam. First, because of the horrible acts of terror he perpetrated on the people of Iraq, and second because he openly and publicly supported terrorism throughout the Middle East."

What do you say Dan? Are you ready to enlist and lead the charge into Tehran? Maybe you just support invading Iran. I have not heard you call for it yet. Why don't you go on record here and say we should invade Iran. It fits the topic, considering how silly the facts make all these predictions now. Maybe you just want to admit that it was not the lofty ideals you cited that drove Bush into Iraq but some of that warped propaganda DICK cheney, Wolfowitz and Rummy were pouring in his ear.

Anonymous said...

MOAB is an acronym that means Mother of All Bull!!!!

Lysis said...

Anonymous, the point is that even in Europe, after six years of total war, the complete devastation of Germany, its occupation by millions of Allied troops, its partition into four sectors with armies of occupation and foreign military governors; there were still acts of terror and murder carried out in the name of the fallen regimes. The point is that even in the Western Europe of today, long ago made free by the expenditure of American blood and treasure, there are still those who long for the return of Raciest Nationalism and totalitarian despotism.

The point is that you have not mentioned the other examples of the messy endings of wars I referenced. (Afghanistan, South Korea, your own home town) Faced by facts; you ignore them; hoping they will go away.

The point is that you have not explained the need for U.S. troops in Kosovo, 12 years after Clinton promised they would be “home for Christmas”; or why you need cops in your neighborhood; while cop killers are still killing cops. (Do you actually believe if we turned our communities over to the criminals they would be more peaceful? Come on. Answer the questions!) You can’t. You cling to your broken straw of an argument, having forgotten entirely what point it failed to make.

Save your self the trouble of pointing out inconsistency on my Clinton reference. I don’t want those troops to leave Yugoslavia in the hands of terrorists either. We do what we must do to keep the world free and safe. When we stop doing it; neither the world nor your neighborhood will be free or safe.

Your, “Iran is worse that Iraq ever was” lecture to Dannyboy is laughable. That’s like saying, “the bear over there killing those kids is bigger than the one here killing mine, so don’t hurt this one!!!

What is your justification for the atrocities of Saddam? Do you want them back? Not even Kerry was that stupid. What’s your point, Saddam didn’t have nukes yet, so we should have waited until he had handed one off to Osama, then called in the UN? What was the point of all those U.N. resolutions, and U.N. sanctions, and oil for food programs, and no fly zones, and troops in Kuwait, and supporting Kurds in the north and Clinton’s missiles raining on Baghdad? You think Saddam was, behaving all on his own? Still Neville Chamberlain after all Anonymous!

You’re the bleating sheep here Anonymous. Your carefully scripted kibitzing has been programmed on your mind by late night comedians. If you really want the answers to the challenges you pose, if it’s really not all rhetorical; please read my condensation of President Bush’s October Speech on the War on Terror. Posted in the Agora on Oct. 8th, 2005. You remember? The one that got Lysis Verus’ shorts in a knot. He got mad because I forced my students to listen to it. Now they are better off than you. They have heard the answers to the disinformation you recite, the canned questions you pose. Better yet, read the whole speech for yourself and get the details first hand. Then read the Post on Al – Zawahiri’s Struggle from the next week. You and your arguments are all written up in Zawahiri’s little book of blood. Learn the role Iraq plays in Islamic fascism’s plan for world domination. Learn the role he has cast you in Anonymous. Get some information first hand. That would be a great experience for you Anonymous. Oh, I forgot, you get your news from Maureen Dowd and the Early Show.

Lysis said...

Anonymous, you missed my favorite MOAB from Katrina, the 25,000 dead, America’s economy destroyed, no oil till spring one that Lysis Verus hung his hopes on!

I’m not the one saying that America is safe. That’s why we need Bush in the White House and our troops all over the world, especially in Iraq. It’s the neo-libs who want to go back to politics as usual. I only know this; we are a whole heck of a lot safer than we ever thought we would be and a whole heck of a lot safer than we would have been with Saddam in Baghdad. John Kerry and I finally agree on something!

I am confident that America can handle Iraq, and al-Qaeda, and Kim, and a few more hurricanes to boot. Your “one problem at a time” mind set is further proof or your two dimensional thinking; no doubt the result of your never having to deal with real challenges during you education.

Lysis said...

I heard Al Gore pissed his pants on 9/11; then got down on his knees and thanked God, as did the rest of us, that he had lost in 2000. Just the facts man!!!

Lysis said...

Oh, forgot to remind you Anonymous, that Clinton and Gore had Osama on a silver plat and turned him down. Osama himself has said that the actions of the Clinton/Gore administration in running from Mogadishu, and doing nothing about African embassy bombings and attacks on our ships at sea, convinced him that a strike against the American homeland would drive America from the Middle East. That’s what Osama said. He was no doubt counting on Gore in the White House as he laid his plans. Now he’s dead, or wishing he was. Just the facts!!!

Lysis said...

Oh Anonymous, I forgot to remind you why Clinton/Gore turned down Osama. They were afraid it would upset their pacifist, “America is the real bully in the world” believing constituents.

Dan Simpson said...

I love how you say 'just the facts' following a list of 'undeniable' leftist opinions more than likely taken directly from Michael Moore's website.

The only true statement in your rant. 9-11 did happen during George Bush's term as president.

Anyone stupid enough to really think 9-11 was ANY presidents fault cannot be blamed for believing such mindless tripe as your list of 'undeniable facts'.

I have never claimed to know Bush's 'real' motives for invasion. I merely stated that I believe there were reasons enough to invade Iraq.

Have Iran's murders upon their own people reached the hundreds of thousands? I honestly do not know. I do know that it would be a very bad strategic move to try to invade them right now.

To tell you the truth, I am not sure why I am wasting my time on this argument with you. If you cannot even grasp how the electoral college works, but instead grasp on to a six year old mantra of Gore 'truly' winning that election you really have lost touch with reality.

I am sure you will respond with something along the lines of me being a 'kool aid drinker' or a Bush lover, or some other tired tripe, but everyone who reads this blog knows that I am no such thing, especially Lysis.

Anonymous said...

A virtual plethora of anonomy. hahaha Happy to be one of the many.

I like Bush's prediction/claim, "Listen, I know of nobody — I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action." [9/30/03] If anyone had ANYTHING to do with leaking of the covert CIA operative's name will you fire them? Bush: "Yes." [6/2004] LOL!

It's funny but it's sad too. :_ (

Lysis said...

Anonymous the other, in the virtual plethora. Do you know someone in Bush Administration who leaked? I’ll bet that prosecutor back in D.C. would love to get your help. He hasn’t found anyone yet. I will point out that the one guy that was indicted, Scooter Libby, was asked to resign. He is still innocent till proven guilty, and thanks to Bob Woodward, we know Libby hasn’t done the things he was accused of in the indictment.

Maybe you know who leaked the National Security stuff to that “book hawker” from the NYT. Now there’s a real crime, and with your help all knowing help, we might discover the leakers who are endangering us all.

Lysis said...

I have been chided for using the words “pissed his pants” here in the Agora.

I would like apologize and to withdraw those words. Please insert, “wet himself” in their place.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your outlandish punidtry Liesis. Please do not go off indoctrinating your students to join up with the military to start a war with Iran now! I know you and DannyBoy2 are right military experts, supercharged with red, white and blue blood and think our boys and girls can take on anything (see your madman rantings, "I am confident that America can handle Iraq, and al-Qaeda, and Kim, and a few more hurricanes to boot" and "I do know that it would be a very bad strategic move to try to invade them right now") but fortunately more down to earth military brass is making the decision. It may be surprising but they don't agree with you: June 25th, 2004, Gen. Richard Cody, the Army's vice chief of staff, told the Armed Services Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives that "the military could not properly respond with overwhelming force to a major war threat if one developed at this time." He explained the military has reassignment of troops from South Korea to Iraq and specifically mentioned that another front in either North Korea or Iran would stretch the military beyond its full capacity. I suppose that is just more calculated talk by the Joint Chiefs to assist the terrorists, destroy America, and live the dreams of their hippie college professors.

Like I said Liesis, get real!

Your silly analogy of bears mauling children is what I expected from you, simple and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the facts. I think it was shown well which country posed the most threat to international stability. Iran was given a pass so that Bush could prosecute a war of choice against an enemy that we have learned now, all evidence said was not a threat, not knowingly harboring terrorists as Iran was, not developing nuclear weapons as Iran was and still is, not supporting terrorism in the Middle East to the nearly the extent that Iran was and still is now even in Iraq against our troops and innocent civilians. Even someone as incompetent as Bush should be able to see where the greater threat rested. Since your incompetence probably exceeds his I will not hold you to the same standard. You can get a pass.

And why do you keep claiming that pointing out President Bush's incompetencies is equal to calling for withdrawal from Iraq? I have never in a single one of my posts made such a recommendation. I have consistently called for better leadership in conducting the war in Iraq. You are confused again.

I want the war on terror to be fought with efficacy and justice and prejudice against those that seek to harm the U.S. Almost everything Bush has failed to do. Today we see claims in the foreign press that bin Laden personally ordered attacks in Israel last week. Why did we not concentrate everything on capturing or killing him!? We knew he was the one responsible for embassy bombings, the Cole bombing, Kobar towers, 9/11. Where was Saddam in these attacks? In Iraq, contained, not draining our resources in a war of choice and weakening our position internationally. Forcing our eyes off the real threat, that was incompetent.

Here is another sign of outright lying and incompetence that came as a prediction and still has Republicans steaming mad.

In September, 2004 President Bush and his Medicare chief Mark B. McClellan said Bush's new drug package would cost $534 billion over 10 years.

February 8, 2005 they acknowledged that "the cumulative cost of the program between 2006 and 2015 will reach $1.2 trillion."

Oops!!

Anonymous said...

Doh! In a case of my own supercharged rantings and "wouldn't have seen it if I didn't believe it" ranting I have mistakenly read DannyBoy2's post to say something it did not. DannyBoy2, as anyone else reading with a level head probably saw, said it was a strategic mistake to invade Iran right now. I see my error and I am very sorry and embarased for it. A thousand apologies, please. Just concentrate the vitriol I spewed towards you into my retort for Liesis. Now my post should be read as twice as mean toward him.

(Odd that we should be this heated and say things we apologize for later isn't it Liesis?)

Lysis said...

Glad to see you have accepted the necessity of liberating Iraq and maintaining our troops there. I agree with you that we should have the best leadership possible on the job. Where we disagree is that I think we already have a demonstrated winner in Bush. The best you can offer is Al Gore – a demonstrated loser. When you come up with someone better than Bush let US know. I’ll help you out – Joe Lieberman, who calls for support of the President and points to Bush’s successes though out the area. You probably won’t go for Joe. He sounds more like Lysis than he does like Maureen Dowd!

I thought you were all for the U.N. and Europe solving the worlds problems. You should have no worry, their on the job in Iran. If you knew anything about Iran, other than the tripe you scoop up from Mike Moore, you would know that America is more popular among the Iranian people than their theocratic government. I am quit confident that the Bush Administration is playing its cards very well, if very close to the vest. Every time the President of Iran gives a speech he moves the Ayatollahs closer to the chopping block and Iran closer to liberation. The thing we can be sure of about this Administration is that they have demonstrated the resolve to act if the need arises. America’s enemies in Iran know that too.

I join you in bewailing the escape of Osama. Just remember who put him on the run. Clinton/Gore had the chance to do that but all they did was reward his infamy with retreat. By the way, Osama and his ilk have been calling for the end of Israel since it came into existence; that is nothing new. What is new is that they haven’t got Saddam to back them up.

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

January 1, 2005, Bush:"2005 is going to be a great year!"

Ooops!

Lysis said...

Anonymous, when I have been justly called to task, something you have never done, I am more than willing to admit my error and apologize.

A trait I share with President Bush, and something that sets us both apart from you, Anonymous.

Anonymous said...

Where is that Maureen Dowd article? Please post the whole article for US to read. Thx.

Anonymous said...

"We will build on our economic progress and strengthen Social Security for the next generation so that all our citizens can realize the promise of America." 2005 New Year proclamation from the Whitehouse. Oops! What competent leadership we are blessed with. Glad to hear you will be accountable. Consider me calling for the Maureen Dowd article calling you to account! Why won't you print it?

Lysis said...

Anonymous, do you see a pattern here. Democrats obstructing the “salvation” of Social Security, and offering nothing on their own; Democrats obstructing the War in Iraq and offering no plan for victory of their own. Seems like all democrats can do is obstruct.

Anonymous said...

Liberties: Can Bush Bushkazi?
By Maureen Dowd (NYT)
October 28, 2001

As Rudyard Kipling’s Kim reports back to his British spymasters, from the mountainous moonscape of Afghanistan, “Certain things are not know to those who eat with forks.

After six weeks of a war at home and a war in Asia, we now understand what we do not understand.

The terrorists and Taliban have the psychological edge on three fronts: military, propaganda and bioterror. George W. Bush was brought up to believe in Marquess of Queensberry rules. Now he is competing against combatants with Genghis of Khan rules, Who hid among women and children in mosques and school dormitories, and who don’t need an executive order to betray and murder.

Polo at Yale is a bit different than the Afghan version, Bushkazi, a violent free-for-all with no rules in which galloping horse men try to throw a headless goat’s carcass over a goal.

President Bush has been lured through the high-altitude maze to the minotaur’s lair, or as it’s known in the novel “Flashman,” “the catastrophe of Afghanistan.”

Now, like the British and Russians before him, he is facing the most brutish, corrupt, wily and patient warriors in the world, nick named dukhi, or ghosts, by flayed Russian soldiers who say them melt away.

After one of the worst weeks in the capital’s history, filled with federal confusion and deadly missteps, the question was suspended like a spore I the autumn air: Are we quagmiring ourselves again?

“Yes, it may be a quagmire, “President Musharraf of Pakistan said to Peter Jennings. (Now he tells us.)

Was George Bush willing to replay the Great Game with the most sordid rules? Could the team reunited from Desert Storm, a video-game triumph, fight this invisible war ruthlessly, but also with guile, the dagger sliding between the ribs?

Washington has gone to war many times, but not since Bull Run has war come to Washington. Just as the injured and dying Union troops streamed into the capital after Civil War contests, there were funerals last week of public servants felled in anthrax attacks, filled with colleagues fuming over second-class treatment.

With the Supreme Court closed for the first time since 1935, parts of Congress shuttered, the C.I.A. and the State Department mail facilities shut down and new spores floating in government corridors every day, we can’t seem to catch up to the terrorists. “It’s hard to get your arms around something that’s constantly moving,” conceded a Bush official.

Tom Ridge, tangled in the bureaucracy, was getting tossed off by the F.B. I. “The F. B. I operates; they do not cooperate,” said one Ridge ally.

The military was bogged down in questions of nation-building, Ramadan, winter, humanitarian concerns, serial bombings of the Red Cross and whether America could win a Miss Congeniality contest with Muslims.

Just as terrorists, American or foreign, cunningly used our own planes and mailboxes against us, so they used our own morality against us. We were stumbling over scruples against a foe with no scruples.

The Brits were blunt, saying we’d need serious ground troops to flush out “IBL.” As Rumy calls him, or the Evil One Who Hides, as Mr. Bush says.

The Northern Alliance was looking evermore feckless, even mocking the American airstrikes to a reporter, saying the gazillion-dollar bombs had had no impact on Taliban troops, except to embolden them.

The southern alliance was stillborn, after the rebel commander Abdul Haq was hung, shot and/or hacked to death by the Taliban after his C.I.A. and Pentagon pals failed to protect him as he tried to recruit anti-Taliban forces.

With Muslims, the media-savvy troglodytes in a cave were still out spinning Ari Fleischer at a podium.

And even as Rea Adm. Stufflebeem denied we were getting bogged down over there – always a sure sign we’re getting bogged down over there – the Pentagon issued a disconcerting plea. “Pentagon Seeks Ideas on Combating terrorism,” read the press release, saying the U.S. “specifically needs help in combating terrorism . . .conducting protracted operations in remote areas, and developing countermeasures to weapons of mass destruction,” and soliciting ideas from any Tom, Dick & Goofball for possible defense contracts.

Six weeks into the war on terrorism, and they’re putting out a suggestion box!

Lysis said...

Wow! Anonymous, Ask and you shall receive. Looks like one Anonymous blogger took pity on another. Find anything you like?

Anonymous said...

I can't believe they actually put out a suggestion box. Six weeks into the war on terror and it was already apparent this administration was in over its head. Oh, its funny but its sad. :_(

What kind of suggestions do you think they got?

Anonymous said...

Enrage all of your traditional allies (use name calling when appropriate), invade the wrong country (insist it is the right one), inspire generations to terrorism by torturing and humilating those you capture in combat (be sure to have plenty of cameras around when you do this), narrowly reinterpret long held notions of international law (or better yet, side-step it all together), create secret prisons around the world (fill them up by kidnapping - doesn't matter who, you'll keep them and their kidnappings a secret!), bypass Congressional or Judiciary checks for the rights of ordinary Americans and spy on them; call the whole thing "patriotism."

Oh, and if there is time, please try to convince the President to pass a tax cut for the wealthiest five percent of Americans. Thx! Ha-ha!

Anonymous said...

Anon:
One more.
Deficit spend like there is no tomorrow -- there just might not be for our children. Convince gullible others these our "flush times" because we're spending our children's money/future on tax cuts for the greedy here and now!!!!
FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!

Anonymous said...

Insert are if front of our on last posting.

Anonymous said...

Dear Pentagon, (c/o Donald Rumsfeld)

Please send more troops to Iraq, A LOT more. Like 400% more.


Please.


L. Paul Bremer III
May 16, 2003

Anonymous said...

I can see why Liesis wanted to hide the Dowd article. There are no dire predictions of failure in Afgahnistan in her article, just the opposite, it is a call to arms there! "Step up and kick some butt!" It says, before it does becomes a quagmire. At the very least it makes it sound like even the Pentagon was worried about how to go forward in the war on terror. I think that is an encouraging thing; we have seen all too readily the dangers of our leaders taking wars so lightly and galloping in without a plan but a fistful of dreams.

She was certainly right on the money about Afghanistan though, in spite of Liesis' opining on her "edited" thoughts. We should have committed serious ground troops to flush out “UBL” instead of outsourcing the capture of the biggest mass murderer in American History to Taliban sheepherders who had just come from Osama's son's wedding party! (Liesis ommited this part from his Pravda approved version.) Of course, committing that many troops would have probably stopped us from the "real" 9/11 culprit, Saddam Hussein. Just sickening.

I'm most upset I didn't know about the suggestion box. I could have given some feedback back then.

"Ask Senator John McCain to prepare detailed advisory report on the benefits of torturing or otherwise mistreating captured combatants."

"Create new early retirement incentives for Secrataries of Defense."

"Remind Vice President's Office of its Vice Commander in Chief powers under the U.S. constitution: None!"

And Liesis, what kind of edited material are you reading now? You say of me, "I thought you were all for the U.N. and Europe solving the worlds problems. You should have no worry, their on the job in Iran." Where are you reading this!!?? Where have I made such a claim? In fact, the only country that had the international capital to substantially stop Iran's nuclear program went bankrupt spending it in Iraq. Maybe you saw in today's papers that Iran removed the IAEA seals from their reactor areas to begin nuclear work this morning. What do you think George Bush is going to do about it? Nothing. Those predictions I put on the record in last week's blog, sadly, are already coming true.

Liesis, you go on, "If you knew anything about Iran, other than the tripe you scoop up from Mike Moore, you would know that America is more popular among the Iranian people than their theocratic government." Did you get that from a pamphlet in the lobby of The Great Satan Museum? Or, maybe it was Ahmed Chalabi who gave you this reliable information. Sounds silly. I wouldn't trust it.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Bush's fiscal conservatism is patchy. His current deficits, primarily the result of a collapse in tax revenues, down from 20.8% of GDP in 2000 to 16.8% this year, yet Bush intends to make his tax cuts permanent!?!? Obviously, GREATER spending out of a DWINDLING tax income means the money has to come from somewhere --borrowing from China to finance "millionaire" tax cuts at home to reward greedy cronies who need a second term payoff for past "campaign loyalties".

Perhaps the Lysites should pay attention to all of that railroad containerized cargo passing through the middle of town -- quite literally from China to Walmart at such a "cheap" price -- only the price of a dismal economic future for ALL his students. Schedule a field trip why don't you and watch the future that Bush spent roll by us /U.S.!!!!

Anonymous said...

I can't recall any recent Lysis "wisdom" on the relationship between Homeland security and the United States' porous borders.
When a terrorist walks across the border with some Iranian suitcase dirtybomb or nuclear (NU QUE LAR in Bushese) device, I predict Lysis will be prepared to tell us that Bill Clinton would have been worse/at fault/or lied.
Also, I declare that there is NO NO NO Homeland security without SECURE borders, no matter what happens in Iraq!!!!
Let's hear the parable about the boy who cried "terrorist wolves in Iraq" and left the front and back doors to his house wide open!!!!

Anonymous said...

Vegimatic Checking in:

The Anonymous crowd is sounding like the Senior Senator from New York. You remember him, the man who threatened a filibuster of Justice Alito.

He is wrong and will lose again. (as you are)

Thank you Lysis for using "simple" yet extremely powerful examples of the patterns that are happening in our lifetime. Keep it up.

Anonymouses or is it Anonymi....

You may wish to consider that the reason Lysis uses "Simple" examples is to make them age appropriate for y'all.

When you continue to whine like a two year old, maybe it's time to communicate at your level.

So nite-nite

Thank you Lysis, keep up the wisdom.

Anonymous said...

Dear Pentagon, (c/o Vice President)

Mabye it would be good if we had a plan to win this thing, you know, the war we started in Iraq.

For your consideration.

Sincerely,
L. Paul Bremer III
November, 2003


Did anyone see his interview on Dateline!? If you missed it you can read it in his book, "“My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope.”

He talks about how he formally requested more assistance to stop the insurgency from Donald Rumsfeld two times but was %100 ignored. "I never had any reaction from him."

The most shocking admission though is what he said to Veep Cheney in November, 2003: "I said to the vice president, 'You know i’m not sure that we really have a strategy for winning this war.'” What the!!!??? He was the guy in charge! This was the man who oversaw the security of 10 million Iraqi lives and he is admiting they didn't know what to do about the insurgency! I know, you're thinking, just follow the plan that Bush and his advisers set out. Well, he says, "[T]here was very little attention paid to what kind of an insurgency would come afterwards. [I]ntelligence assets were largely focused on the main question: Does he have weapons of mass destruction. It happens we seem to have got that wrong. Policy was more driven [through the V.P.] by troop rotation." There NEVER WAS A PLAN! AHHHHHHH!!!!! OUTRAGEOUS!!!


Let's see, that's two handpicked U.S. ambassadors to Iraq with control of reconstruction and security, one Secretary of State, one chief advisor, one handpicked Prime Minister, one Secretary of Treasurey, and recently one Undersecretary of Defense all saying Bush was obsessed with invasion from innaguration, deliberately misled U.S. citizens, ignored requests for more troops, did not plan for occupation, and has created a situation in Iraq equal to that before Saddam. What is it going to take to get some Diddo-Head on the Agora to say Bush was just a little incompetent in handling this thing!!?? Come on people. Make an opening in that big red brick wall. Let some sense in.


Here is some more from the transcripts of the "Dateline" interview between NBC's Brian Williams and former Bush-handpicked-reconstruction-Ambassador-to-Iraq L. Paul Brememer III, aired January 9, 2006. If you have anyone serving in Iraq you are going to need the tissue box for this:


Bremer: I said to the vice president, “You know i’m not sure that we really have a strategy for winning this war.” The vice president said to me, “Well, I have similar concerns.” He thought there was something to be said for the argument that we didn’t have a strategy for victory at that time.

I raised my concerns about the numbers and quality of these forces – really, right from the beginning.

Williams: With whom?

Bremer: Well, with the president, with Secretary Rumsfeld, with senior military leaders. There was a tendency by people in the Pentagon to exaggerate the capability of the Iraqi forces. And I felt that it was not likely that we would have professionally-trained Iraqi forces able to allow us to withdraw American troops.

Williams: That flies in the face of everything that the president of the United States has ever said about our role in Iraq. What was his reaction?

Bremer: Well, I’m sure the president would not want us to be an ineffective occupier either. In the eyes of the Iraqis, we’re not only occupying, but we’re not carrying out the fundamental role of law and order. And I was concerned about the juxtaposition of those two things: ineffective and being an occupier. And I said so.

Williams: Are you convinced when you go to sleep at night, that on areas like the size of the force, that you did everything you could? Some will read this book and say “Why didn’t he shout it from the mountain tops if he believed in it?”

Bremer: I believe I did everything I could. My view is in government, you have an obligation to tell the president what you think. You should do that in private through appropriate channels, as I tried to do. The president, in the end, is responsible for making decisions. That’s what he gets that fancy salary for and that big white house.

Anonymous said...

Oh my, even the Vegetable Brained followers are accusing Liesis of dumbing down the debate! Dark days for the Agora indeed.

Here is a classic Bush statement made silly by the current facts from the Wake Forest Presidential Debate, Oct. 11, 2000. Enjoy:

"I am worried about over-committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. I don’t think nation-building missions are worthwhile."

What a maroon!

Anonymous said...

Anon:
Just for Vegimatic. An example of the administration's "simple and powerful" logic.

At a Pentagon press conference June 6, 2002.

Q: “Regarding terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, you said something to the effect that the real situation is worse than the facts show. I’m wondering if you can tell us what is worse than is generally understood.”

Rumsfeld: "There are no knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know. It is a very serious, important matter."

He then went on to ask, "Why are you all laughing?" (I put that part in myself.)

Lysis said...

I am sorry I haven’t commented much today. I did read all the posts, and found them interesting. I have these excuses. I am starting classes at the University, and they are requiring hours of time, also I am extremely interested in the Alito hearings. I will continue to read all comments, they are most appreciated.

Anonymous, if you’re not for the U.N. dealing with Iran’s nuclear program, who do you suggest? Israel?

Vegimatic, I am hopeful you are right on your predictions about Schumer’s sniveling. The filibuster is the only weapon the Democrats have left. They can’t use reason, logic, or truth. My belief is that their attacks on Alito will not only strengthen Alito’s position, but will continue to damage their own. They haven’t got it yet, that most American understands how the Constitution works, and want the President to use his just powers, under the Constitution, to keep them safe. Every time one of the Dem’s goes off on “an abuse of Presidential power binge”, the country is reminded who is protecting them and who would “let the bears feed on their children!”

Thanks for seeing some value in my simple examples. When a simple example works, it is far more affective than a whirlwind of spin and misrepresentation whining.

To the “suggestions” ect. from the Anonymy; I read them all, and when I find a fact worth accepting or an argument worthy of response, I’ll be ready.

I would point out to Anonymous, that the flood of “has beens”, “former assistants”, and “never weres” sighted above do not meet the level of credibility of the Chiefs of Staff, Secretaries of Defense, Central Commanders, and now functioning officials; who have and continue to execute their PLANS and successfully move Iraq toward freedom and prosperity. You should read Tommy Frank’s book. Remember? He was the commander on the ground that liberated Afghanistan and Iraq. He says he had all the troops he asked for; provided by a President who listens to his field commanders and has thus presided over the liberation of 50,000,000 people and five successful years of defending 300,000,000 more.

Let me give you a simple example of how the naysayers work. NPR reported today that the price of beef has doubled in Iraq; from $1 a pound under Saddam to $2 now. I was soooooo concerned until the NPR reporter confessed that the average salary of Iraqis has risen from $5 a month under Saddam to $150 a month now; so much for the meat crisis, and so much for the naysayers.

Rumpole said...

Vegimatic,

I got a kick out of your post! I can’t stop myself from making one correction, though. When referring to the Anonymy in the Southern plural, the term is “all y’all”. I know of this first hand! It took me 20 years to learn it!

Anonymy,

As to your recent post (12:45 PM), we have agreement on a point. Quote, “Mr. Bush’s fiscal conservatism is patchy”. I believe that to be true, but not for the same reasons you do. Many times when you have listed data the info has turned out to be inaccurate. You’ll have to give me a source so I can see for myself if it is accurate.

Now if I may, here is a history lesson on the economy over the last 30 years. It is my reasoning as to why Bush is fiscally weak. It might seem boring, but to me it is pertinent.

Bush’s tax cuts are a copy of “supply side” economics. Regan was first to institute such a plan. He inherited the “misery index” economy that Carter created. Carter coined that phrase when he ran against Ford and suggested that no one ought to run for President with such a woeful record. When Carter ran for his second term the economy was worse than when he first came into office!

After his election, Regan proposed a new line of economic thinking. Those who were against it labled it “voodoo economics” or “Reganomics”. The theory was to cut taxes to inject that money into the economy, thus stimulating growth to outpace government deficits.

Anonymy, I know you know all that. I also know that you know it worked! Regan and Bush 41 presided over the longest boom-time economy to that time. Further, I know you are intelligent enough to know that economies lag! The economy that Clinton inherited (no deficits) was due to the institution of “Reganomics” by both Regan and Bush 41.

In my estimation, Bush 41 lost his run at a second term by going back on his “no new taxes” pledge (among other reasons), a hallmark of Reganomics.

I struggle with Bush 43 because of his spending habits. “Reganomics” works unless you outstrip your gains with increased spending. Much of the increase has been in defense spending. I note to fellow conservatives that Bush 43 doesn’t bear all the responsibility for that. Our Anonymy friends are quick to try to say the military is ill-equipped, but reticent to acknowledge the deep cuts that Clinton instituted with his so-called “peace dividend”.

Those cuts could have even been somewhat positive if the Federal Budget had been reduced. Intstead, the cuts all went to other “transfer payments”, and “entitlements”. The economy was clearly in a tailspin at the end of Clinton’s administration.

I do believe President Bush could “do better” on the economy. The problem, however, is not tax cuts. His spending policies don’t appear to be fiscally conservative.

Lysis said...

Rumpole – Some thoughts. My first question to you is the one that I would ask the Democrats: What would you do? Where would you cut? My second question to you is: Who is responsible for the “power of the purse” in this country? My third question to you is how can “responsible” budget cuts make it past the filibuster; which is the final weapon of the Democrats. Remember, President Bush offered a plan to make Social Security solvent far into the future. A plan developed by Pat Monahan, one of the Gods of the Liberal Left, and the Democrats tore it to pieces. And why you might ask? Because if Bush would have solved Social Security, it would no longer be a democrat program. The Democrats have to go back to FDR to find any claim to economic notoriety. If and when George Bush or become the founder of the New New Deal, where will the Dems be to buy a vote? They know this, and they fight every reform, every attempt to cut spending as if it would bring on the end of the world. Now don’t get me wrong, I’ve no doubt there is plenty of pork to cut. But let’s put it on the table, so to speak, before we start assigning blame for it to the President.

I would also point out that wars cost money. We are at war, and for good reason. We are fighting for our survival. Any remaining fragment of that peace dividend that Clinton squandered went up in smoke with the twin towers!

Do I want a lower deficit, do I want more money for all, do I want something even better than this greatest and most productive economy in the world that we have? Sure, but I don’t know how to advise

Anonymous said...

You should put out a suggestion box Liesis. It's what Bush had his Pentagon do after he finished wetting himself in that Florida classroom. "Need help in combating terrorism . . . conducting protracted operations in remote areas, and developing countermeasures to weapons of mass destruction. Also, please advise on how to reign in the out of control defecit spending of my own party that I have veto power but have never once chosen to utilize."

Your arguments are pathetic Liesis. To hear you tell the story you would think Democrats controlled government instead of Republicans having had control for but a few months of the entire five years Bush has been President! You at least check in planet Earth enough to have known that, right?

The Bush tax-cuts created the record deficits we see every quarter and if Bush really wanted any pork cut he could have demanded it and vetoed the bills that didn't do it. Instead, he lied to congress on how much all of his programs would cost and as the leader of his party directed their passage. Now we are spending twice the amount on Bush plans like a medicare bill, four times Bush projections for his personal game of cowboys and indians in Iraq, and we're setting up ingenious ways for our children to actually pay for things like his "tax-cut."

Bush does not share your view of Paul Bremer as a never was or a has been, the man he chose to carry out administration policy in Iraq but who now reveals there was never any planning for occupation and no move to plan for victory even after the insurgency was in full swing. But keep on dismissing former senior members of the Bush administration, the ones he personally chose, that say we have failed repeatedly in Iraq as has beens and mean nothings. One day we will get to dismiss Bush that way also when he admits his failings 20 years down the road in some weepy confession.

The NPR report you mention, entitled, "Eid Ushers In Insurgent Attacks Lull In Iraq," is nothing to do with a "meat crises" or naysaying. It is just the opposite but you see enemies everywhere! You can't even accept a good report from the country which presents average salary increases first and then reports inflation is increasing also with the example of meat. Stop misleading the more impressionable sheeple who actually believe the things you say. They are challenged enough - some are vegetables for heaven's sake! - without your agenda driven bias.

Rumpole, you wanted a source for the medicare information. See the Washington Post article from Feb. 9, 2005 entitled "Medicare Drug Benefit May Cost $1.2 Trillion: Estimate Dwarfs Bush's Original Price Tag." You probably missed the issue when it was debated in the House in October and Bush's lieing came out after the contentious bill barely got passed. I guess it slipped under the radar of all the other fair and balanced news outlets all y'all watch. I am deeply concerned that you have found any of my information innacurate. If this ever happens again please post your argument and I will look into it immediately. I will not lie to you.

Also, I accept your point that I am intelligent enough to understand economics, thank you. I do not accept that economies lag in the way that you attempt to justify in your shoddy lesson. The economy Bill Clinton enjoyed during his presidency was largely of his own making and the one Bush reaps now he has sewn all along the way with idiotic tax-cuts and some of the largest increases in federal spending history.

Do enjoy wasting your time listening to the Alito hearings tomorrow. He will be confirmed. Just check the Prophet of Doom prediction I made in the blog last week. Looks like that will be two for me, none for you and your spacey prognostication Lysis. Sports fans, it should be clearer everyday who is actually in touch with reality here.

Lysis said...

Anonymous, I look forward to the day when the CONSERVITIVES in this country really do control the government. The steady trend in that direction which has placed the Republican Party in the majority is encouraging. However I remember how politicking, the media, and Ross Perot got Clinton elected two times, and I am still concerned. If the Democrats continue to obstruct, as they are, the business of the nation, there is hope hat they will continue to loose influence. As they say, we can only hope.

The causes of the deficits are far more complicated than you pretend, however I am pleased to agree with you that our present booming economy is in Bush’s doing. Hard, isn’t Anonymous – when the facts don’t fit your argument?! I’m sure you wish the economy was in recession. That’s your only hope, but remember, just the facts! One other thing to remember on the economy: under Clinton – going down, for the last year of his presidency, under Bush – GOING UP!!!!

You are also right about NPR. Their story on “Iraqi holidays” had nothing to do with reporting news. They were only trying to paint as bleak a picture as possible of Iraq for the neo-lib consumers of their endless spin. However I have found that you can find the truth between the lines, even in an NPR report.

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

I am sure President Bush has a high opinion of Paul Bremer, personally. Bush is Loyal to friends and appreciative of efforts. I would remind you that President Bush showed his confidence in Bremer’s abilities in Iraq by he replaced him. I’m sure that also has something to do with the blame Bremer places in his “up-coming” book.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous, I look forward to the day when the CONSERVITIVES in this country really do control the government. The steady trend in that direction which has placed the Republican Party in the majority is encouraging." Republicans have controlled congress since 1992 and the Presdency since 2001.

You have completely lost it. I have to believe your students laugh you out of class or that your principal is in the process of stopping you from teaching history right now.



Oh wait, you live in Utah. Nevermind. They give quality education there, just look at the NCLB progress charts.



I look forward to the day when the party that receives the most votes in a democracy will be represented as such. I look forward to the day absurdly baron states like your own relinquish their chokehold on real democracy.

Lysis said...

Anonymous, Checkout the Senate custom of Filibustering. This is a process which requires 60 Senators to allow a vote on the senate floor. When there are 60 truly conservative Senators, the conservatives have a majority in the House, and a conservative President then government will be controlled by conservatives. I think this will be a good thing – but we are not there yet. My students understand both the power of the Senate rules, and the need for a Senate to protect the Constitution and small states from the blind and brutal knee jerk reactions of the mob. Majority rule is not the goal; WE should seek the rule of just Law. Your education is an education to us all.

Anonymous said...

The pres doesn't need a suggestion box. He could have vetoed anyone of the budget busters that came to him. But he asked for them. He got everything he wanted in his presidency. He is the head of his party. His party controls congress. As far as the media, where is the backbone republicans tout so much when they claim Bush doesn't care about what others say. Lysis doesn't know anything about the constitution. Its not their fault but I'm afraid his students probably won't know any better either. I feel bad for them.

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

Your suggestion that the American President is some kind of monarch who can do anything he wants once his party holds the majority of seats in Congress, show us all how little you understand the constitution and how little you value it.

Just because the President doesn’t bow to the media doesn’t mean that the media can’t sway the masses. Once more, we who understand, stand in grateful respect of the Constitution of the United States.

Anonymous said...

Name a tax-cut Bush wanted that he didn't get. Name a budget he wanted that he didn't get. Name a "medicare plan" he wanted that he didn't get. Name a public school program he wanted he didn't get. Name a security act he wanted he didn't get. Name a department creation or government expansion program he wanted but he didn't get. Name a "job creation" program he wanted he didn't get. Name a "family relief program" he wanted he didn't get. Name an "energy policy" he wanted he didn't get. Name a hiway bill he wanted that he didn't get. Name a hurrican relief package he wanted he didn't get. Name an emergency corporate bail out plan he wanted he didn't get. Name Iraq spending he wanted he didn't get. Name Afghanistan spending he wanted he didn't get. Name a war he wanted he didn't get! And if he got anything different why didn't he veto it!? You cannot fillibuster a veto no matter what you brainwash your students with. And if Bush doesn't pay attention to polls why does media matter in deciding to veto? Bush has had virtually EVERYTHING he has called for. You sound like someone making excuses. Or you are crazy.


Here is a new statement that, considering the facts, sounds so silly: "I look forward to the day when the CONSERVITIVES in this country really do control the government." Lysis, Jan. 11, 2005!

Dan Simpson said...

I wish Bush had used the Veto more in his presidency, there have been some absurd amounts spent on unnecessary things.

Example: I am sure you have all heard of the 200+ million that was slated for an Alaskan Bridge to an island with less than 100 people. An island that already has ferry services that take less than 10 minutes to go from mainland to island.

Luckily the Bridge was nixed in the Congress, but the money, that is still going to Alaska, just without any earmarking for specifics.

The current Congress has been almost as irresponsible with money as was the congress during the Reagan years. It is ONLY because of the strong economy that deficits aren't MUCH bigger. The Republicans have forgotten who they are and what they claim to stand for moneywise. They want to cut taxes (which I like) but the continue to spend, spend, spend. Those two things cannot go hand in hand.

As far as Bush getting everything he wants, that is ridiculous. He got neither Social Security reform, nor repassage of the Patriot Act.

And when they extended the tax cuts, the Oil companies didn't get their portion extended like Bush wanted.

One of the biggest problems in the Senate is that we have two old coots (Alaska's Stevens and W.V. Byrd) who seem to be trying to beat each other for record pork barrel to one state.

Whether or not you like his politics, look to McCain on this one, he puts out a big list every year of all the stupid expenditures put through Congress.

I do believe that Bush has completely dropped the ball on spending. It is his biggest glaring weakness.

Anonymous said...

That is of course if you shield your eyes from 30,000 plus needlessly killed and maimed Iraqis and 2,200 plus dead and maimed U.S. soldiers.

Misdirection and outright fiction by the host of the Agora have hit levels not seen since Bush entered the Whitehouse. What's this, Liesis claiming the Republicans do not control the three branches of the federal government! Surely this must be more information provided by Ahmed Chalabi. That little devil is everywhere. Just in case anyone does believe Liesis' disinformation they should know there is an alternate place -- often called reality by those who live there -- where Republicans control 55 Senate seats, Democrats 44, and one bonehead Independent from Vermont who always votes with the Republicans and has a black belt in Tae Kwan Do, which he needed when he defected from the GOP in 2001. On the House side there are 232 Republicans, 201 Democrats, one more bonehead independent and one vacancy. (I'll even provide the source for you Rumpole: c-span.org)

In that far away land, called reality, President George Bush, who is a Republican, is the leader of his party and until recently governed it with an iron fist. Since he took office in January, 2001 he has used his power to veto, a power to reject laws the President does not like that Congress has passed, exactly zero times. It used to be common practice for Presidents not to veto Congress, 173 years ago. In reality, by any measure, President Bush has received the overwhelming majority of all legislation that he has called for and even proposed to Congress. He has enjoyed a similar majority acceptance of the judicial and governmental appointments he has made.

It does sound like Liesis is making excuses for historical federal government growth, spending deficits, budgets, and extremely poor job growth. That is not a new thing for him in the Agora. However, the clear-transparency in of his usually more subtle untruths is new and shocking. Saying that Republicans, let alone conservatives, do not control Congress is foaming at the mouth madness! I fear for his students as well.

Hopefully education for anyone who still believes Liesis will be for them all.

Anonymous said...

For your edification DannyBoy2, Social Security Reform, along with Tax Code Reform, is a second term policy focus for Bush. There are still three years of work ahead on those issues and Bush will address both, if only briefly, in his upcoming State of The Union speech.

The Patriot Act has been passed, twice. In another month it is likely, and in my mind mistakenly, to be passed intact again.

Anonymous said...

“With oil at more than $50 a barrel, by the way, energy companies do not need taxpayers'-funded incentives to explore for oil and gas.” George Bush speaking to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce April 20, 2005. (Whitehouse press release; Whitehous.gov - just for you Rumpole.)

Bush quoted again by NPR, June 22, 2005, said that "with oil prices near $60 a barrel, the energy industry is healthy enough not to need the help."

Are these the extended tax cuts for Oil companies that you say that Bush DID want Dan? Some people have a hard time telling a straight story.

By the way, these statements were made before the bill was first passed. The oil companies did in fact get the very subsidies Bush is talking about. At the same time they set corporate history by making the most profits of any companies, anywhere, ever. Someone with real courage could have used, I don't know, a veto to stop tax subsidies from going to the companies in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Keep calling them on the lies Anon!!!

I can't believe Liesis thinks Republicans aren't the party in control or that Bush has not pushed through almost his entire agenda. He even pushed through his foreign agenda without going to congress by taking us out of international treaties like Kyoto and going right past congress to spy on us. He had his cake and now it is being shoved in his face. Liesis sees enemies everywhere except where he sees republicans in control of congress and the Whitehouse. Then he sees victims! Actually, I do too. Average Americans!!

Lysis said...

Anonymous you obviously don’t understand how Filibusters work. The President can’t veto a filibustered bill because it has never been voted on; it has not been carried up to him; it has never come to the President. Why do you continue to pretend that Bush’s veto could have forced the Senate to vote for drilling on Alaska’s north slope, how can the president’s veto force the Senate to vote on the conformation of a Supreme Court justice, how can the president’s veto force the Senate to vote on Social Security reform, how can the President’s veto force the Senate to vote on the Patriot Act. I could go on and on, but most of US know how and how often the minority party blocks the will of the majority. The rules of the Senate have actually created the need for an unconstitutional super-majority.

Also, most of US understand that the President is not the master of the Republican Party Remember that, just as many Conservatives in this forum disagree with the President, many in the House and Senate do too.

I also find it laughable that Anonymous would direct the President to veto those things which Anonymous thinks he should. Anonymous is no more in charge of the President than the President is in charge of the Republicans in the House or Senate, nor is the President able to veto laws that have not been passed.

Anonymous said...

"Why do you continue to pretend that Bush’s veto could have forced the Senate to vote..."

Why do you pretend that the Republicans are not in control of Congress or that Bush isn't getting the legislation passed that he wants? Don't be such a rock-headed fool. Wipe the foam off your mouth, take a deep breath, make a call to that far off place called reality.

Lysis said...

Hay you out there; can you understand the word filibuster? Obviously not. But let me give you an example; anything written above by Anonymous concerning how the government works. I call for a vote!

Anonymous said...

Vegimatic Here for your entertainment.

Sorry all but when I read this quote from the PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) Website, I almost wet my pants with laughter.

This is from a Cindy Sheehan rally in Sacramento CA on January 7, 2006. To an "overflowing" crowd of "about 200"

"Actor Sean Penn added to the enthusiasm of the day by stressing that all of the nation's anti-war activism was taking hold and was starting to work—while admitting
that the stress of living under the current administration was making it tough for him to quit smoking."

I have heard it all. George Bush is to blame for everything! Poor Sean Penn can't quit smoking because of Bush.

This reminds me of the scene in Forest Gump when Jenny's war activist boyfriend used "Johnson and this damn war" as an excuse to beat her.

So anonymous(s) are you this much of a victim? How has Bush victimized your life?

You of course won't answer this. But can't you see how transparent you are.

One of you said once that you were sorry for me because my hard life had taken away my idealism.

Not true. My hard life has taught me never to become a victim. I hope you will have that opportunity in your lives. I have been at peace and extremely happy since I became independent of my liberal victimness.

Give the Bush hating a rest. Get a new approach.

We deserve better in the Agora....

Lysis, glad to hear you are back in college. I hope it's a philosphy class so you can drive the professor crazy!

Anonymous said...

I hope it's the College of Hard-Knocks and he gets some sense knocked into him!

Anonymous said...

On the topic of silly predictions that grossly ran a foul of the truth, and because Vegimatic sent me in search of something else worth laughing about from Bushco, I thought it might be fun to read a report on one of the President Bush's old Saturday Radio Addresses from 2001. Have a look.



Bush: Surplus Justifies Tax Cut

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24, 2001

(AP) President Bush said Saturday that the most important number in the budget he sends to Congress next week is the $5.6 trillion surplus it projects over the next 10 years.

That huge projected surplus provides the underpinning of all the administration's tax-cut and spending plans, Mr. Bush said in his recorded weekly radio address.

"A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged," the president said. "And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back." The surplus figure "counts more than any other" in the budget, he said.

Democrats cautioned that surpluses projected over so long a period can turn into elusive fool's gold. And they continued to insist that as it stands the Bush tax-cut plan unfairly favors the wealthy over those of more modest means.

Mr. Bush said his budget plan proposes a "reasonable" 4 percent growth rate, which he said is "little more than inflation."

He asserted that given the size of the expected surplus, his proposal leaves plenty of room for a large tax cut, while paying for increases in spending on education and for dealing with Social Security and Medicare.

"Education gets the biggest increase of any department in the federal government," the president said. But he insisted that "as we give more to our schools we're going to expect more in return."

"Social Security and Medicare will get every dollar they need to meet their commitments," Mr. Bush said. "And every dollar of Social Security and Medicare tax revenue will be reserved for Social Security and Medicare."

He pledged that his spending plans will not neglect the national debt, now totaling about $5.7 trillion.

"After paying the bills, my plan reduces the national debt, and fast," Mr. Bush said. "So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire. That would be a good worry to have."

The focus of the Bush budget is his proposal for $1.6 billion in tax cuts over the next decade.

"Along with funding our priorities and paying down debt, my plan returns about one of every four dollars of the surplus to the American taxpayers, who created the surplus in the first place," Mr. Bush said.

Democrats urged caution.

Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, delivering his party's radio response, said his party hopes that as the tax debate continues, attention is paid to basic fairness.

"President Bush's plan insures that the wealthiest Americans receive a healthy portion of benefits of his plan," Vilsack said. "His idea is based on the premise that if they pay more they should receive more.

"A fairer way of approaching tax cuts is not to ask who pays more, but who needs the relief more?"

"With iddle-income families and seniors on fixed incomes, paying more at the gas pump and more for their electricity and heat, Democrats believe that those families and those seniors are exactly the people who should benefit the most under any tax cut plan," he said.


Bush signed the tax-cut June 7, 2001. Five years later we the debt is going back up, the historic surplusses the Clinton administration left behind have turned into historcal deficits our children get to pay off. The gap between rich and poor has accelerated - after a brief turnaround under the Clinton administration. Bill Gates and Microsoft received huge tax relief, thank goodness, and Bush is pushing for more. He wants to Congress to pass and make permanent more of his proposed tax cuts that would "bring down the national debt, and fast." I can see why this administration makes it hard to quit smoking. Some of the stupid things they and their supporters have said should smoke come out of anyone's ears!!

Anonymous said...

Vegimatic here,

Anonymous you have just proven my point about liberal victims. You are one.

"I can see why this administration makes it hard to quit smoking."

The fact that the dow is over 11,000 and the economy is growing shouldn't make you a victim, it will make you and all of us winners as the tax base increases and the deficit decreases.

You have to do better than that..

Anonymous said...

Wow. Growth was weaker than the "reasonable" prediction he made. (I think there was A LOT of debate over that at the time.) His school program is floundering -- states like Utah have threatened multiple times to withdraw from it completely. And he is actually spending the most amount of money on a program he wants to get rid of, medicare -- 1.2 TRILLION dollars. The debt isn't disappearing because it is skyrocketing in a way that it only did under Ronald Reagan! Where did that mythical 5.7 trillion dollars go to now that we are borrowing up to our eyeballs from the Chinese just to pay the bills every year now and not default on our loans!!!??? That guy will say absolutely anything to get what he wants passed.

Really, how can one man be so wrong, about EVERYTHING! How can you not dislike someone who is supposed to lead you and is so pompous and misguided!!!!

I would like to think this would be informative to all but you cannot tell these Diddo-Heads ANYTHING. I doubt they read pass the slug on the article. They definitely "know-it-all" even after the facts show how badly they got it wrong it will be rejected or excused. Thanks for sharing George's words with us though Anonymous. It was a "terribly amusing" read. Haha!

Anonymous said...

Earth to Vegimatic, the deficit is getting bigger not smaller. The projected deficit defies even what economists thought was reasonably possible. You'll have to try using some facts if you want anyone to take anything you say seriously.

Anonymous said...

Why would Bushies want to pay attention to the facts when they can call names: "Unamerican!" "Terrorist!" "Sissy-livered Victim!" "Brokeback Mountain Watcher!!"

Anonymous said...

Vegimatic, Vegicide, Autoerotic or just plain Drain Bamaged:

Look -- it isn't Anon's responsibility/job to afford you an education in basic Economic theory, though it might have been Lysis'. Come to the table with more than a repetitive "run up" of Lysis' bias, prejudices and tired ad-hominem insults(I don't mind the insults, just make them clever and interesting, not lame-0). Lysis Verus where are you now!?!?

Anonymous said...

Did anyone see Kofi Annan's press conference at the U.N. today? He was talking about the humanitarian efforts in Darfur, Sudan are going to run out of money in March. Emergency infusion of money is necessary as the genocide is ongoing, there are active attrocities still being committed against the innocent people there. The U.S. has not been forthcoming with the money that it promised! Can we add this to the list of Bushco's "prophetic statements that have run foul of the truth?" What was that trumped up flag draped lie he told once, "if you stand for freedom we will stand with you." Put that on there too for the refugees in Darfur that will saw the sun rise for the last time today.

Anonymous said...

So then almighty wise one AA(short for asshole anonymous) You are so smart. How then do economics work?

More taxes more of the economy taken up by the government. Less stimulation to the private sector. More layoffs. More unemployment. More taxes to take care of the unemployed. More layoffs to take care of the increased taxes.

When I want to graduate school that is what I was taught. When you invest money into a black hole (government) it always wants more. When you challenge it, it always cries, but when you challenge the private sector, it always finds a way to make a profit.

So repeating what I said earlier, the tax cut becoming permanant will stimulate the economy providing more jobs and allowing the tax base to grow without having to raise them. That pays for the deficit. The reduced deficit causes the economy to get stronger. The stronger economy causes more jobs, more jobs create a larger tax base.

I realize I wrote in shorthand in my first post, thinking that you would understand how a free market works.

But then I forget, you with the entitlement mentality cry when your budget is threatened. Well boo hoo then.

Better take up smoking.:-)

Signed:

The obviously stupid vegimatic.

Anonymous said...

Well at least he admits it.

Anonymous said...

Obviously a product of NCLB.

Vegimatic, it isn't my responsibility but...

The government didn't cry when it fought the World Wars, sent people to the moon, eradicated poleo, small pox, the measles and malaria, created the most envied collegiate system in the world, performed the largest public works, public utilities, public information and transport infrastructure, and created the framework and transparency for the most competetive economy in the world. Your dim view of what the government is capable of under responsible leadership should improve. Don't let the current recklessness of the Bush government give you such a dismal impression.

And don't let smoke come out of YOUR ears as your mind evolves to take in these concepts.

Lysis said...

It appears that Anonymous had no more ability to recognize sarcasm than truth. I am indeed concerned about the problems in Darfur –as the U.N. fails once again, it will come running to the U.S.

Isn’t it interesting that Bush is responsible for everything bad? None or these attacks are reasoned or true but they are typical filibuster flack.

Vegimatic, your response was impressive, but it will not calm down the Anonymy. It would be interesting to list the lost and abandoned arguments they have left behind in this spiral of tried and discarded arguments reminds me of Kennedy’s performance in the hearings of the last few days.

The best thing these folks can do is fish for lines in from Maureen Dowd articles they don’t even understand it.

Anonymous said...

I certainly did not understand the last line from your post. If you meant to say that Maureen Down was right on point with her call for putting lots of U.S. troops on the ground in Afgahnistan then you are finally making some sense Liesis. It is too bad that Bush and his crony circle didn't get the point. Apparently the British did put the suggestion in the Pentagon box, the one Bush had them put out right after he wet himself! I knew that article would be a good one if it was printed in full - something you tried to hide from us lest we be challenged and see beyond your lies.

Anonymous said...

Veg:
Yep, that's a "GRADUATE SCHOOL"
(Masters or PHD?) level discussion of economic theory all right -- it's amazing what can be said without complete sentences and elementary sentence structure!!!!

Q. "How do economics work?"
A. How much you paying?

I have an idea. Go to small claims court, make a claim for "non-delivery of goods and services" against whatever "graduate school" was responsible for the drivel you posted about economic theory, and share the proceeds with someone foolhardy enough to teach you "how economics works."
If you prefer the Lysis school of economic theory you will have only to learn one easy Lysis' precept.
As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."!!!!

At this University class -- is Lysis teaching, preaching, or learning? (Yes, I know, all three; but, it's seriously hard to imagine the third)

Anonymous said...

And isn't it interesting Lysis that you find Bush responsible for nothing bad when so many others do including many he chose as his closest advisers to execute some of his most important policies?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

This will piss you off even more. I teach business courses (that include economics) at the University level at a state funded institution. Have done for many years.

In all of those governmental "accomplishments" that you listed give me a ballpark dollar amount that was wasted?

What percentage of the overhead costs could be removed and put into the classroom of every school district in America? 60%? 70%? What real value does it add to each student to have that cost? It's just overhead. The rest of the world has combined and flattened organizations to eliminate middle and senior management. What has government done?

Sorry, on my soap box.

At one time I worked on the Space Shuttle program. How much waste? Personal example: Manditory 60 hour work weeks. A real 10 hour work week was all that was needed. I was working in a group of 10. We we all paid above 40K and received time an one half for every hour over 40. We did this for eight months. Do the math, and this type of waste happens throughout the entire system. It was not contractor fraud either, NASA required it.

My point is...at what cost has the government accomplished the the "wonders" that you listed.

Oh, but I can't think that way, I forgot, I am a victim of my own
stupidity. (sarcasim)

I love to listen to arrogance. Most people get annoyed, I think it's funny. Because someday reality will hit you and you Anoymous(s) will realize that you may not be as smart as you think you are. As smartass yes as smart no.

Wisdom is knowledge correctly applied.

You have no wisdom. I hope you find it someday.

Lysis learns, you don't. You keep proving to us that you are not capable. (Must spew liberal lies)

So as you continue to attack Lysis and myself personally....


Just remember I am LMAO every time you leave a post.

Vegimatic

Anonymous said...

"What percentage of the overhead costs could be removed and put into the classroom of every school district in America?" None. The wonders I mentioned were only accomplished by the government.

Good grief what is up with education in Utah.

Anonymous said...

Hey Veg mail order degrees don't count! A-Ha ha ha! All of those markets except the wars were open too! You COULD say we are being overcharged in that area, at least we are for THIS job. The Bush administration sold it as a free of cost war. Remember Wolfowitz's testimony to congress, "this country can fund its own reconstruction and soon." Yeah right! This country cannot keep the lights on for six hours a day. Hey Veg why don't you explain to them how much better the private companies would be at putting together Iraq if we would just pulled out all of our government funds and troops!

The Office of Management and Budget today issued a revised projection of $60 BILLION upward for this year's deficit. It went from 340 Billion to 400 Billion!! It could still go higher, that would be half a TRILLION in one year when the total debt is five and a half. (Rumpole: abcnews.go.com) The OMB was in the awkard position of contradicting their boss, the President, by saying the deficits showed no signs of shrinking or slowing growth. I don't think anyone needs a college degree to see that the tax-cuts are not doing their job.

Rumpole said...

Lysis and Anonymy,

I’ve been quite busy the last few days and haven’t had time to post. It seems, though, that the Anonomy has gotten along quite well in my absence. I have, however, with great interest taken note of the filibuster. The definition of filibuster that I “learnt” from my early “education in Utah” was “to talk a bill to death.”

The Anonymy certainly seem to be accomplishing just that. Who else would cite Kofi Annan as a credible source? Who else would mention the Kyoto treaty as legitimate? I’m guessing the next “legitimate” argument will be the attempt to persuade the readers of the Agora that Teddy “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy really has the moral authority to condemn Alito!

Now there’s a MAROON!

The filibuster at the Agora didn’t make much sense to me until the other day. I was driving home from work and heard a comment from radio host Glen Beck that describes our own little Agora Anonymy perfectly. I’m paraphrasing, but it was his idea so I’ll put it in quotes:

“Liberals see the war THRU Bush. Conservatives see Bush THRU the war.”

Liberals have staked EVERYTHING on their HATRED OF GEORGE BUSH. They first look to their hatred of President Bush, then they look to the issue. It doesn’t really matter what issue you look at. In the case of the war, because Liberals hate Bush, the war MUST be wrong. In the case of the economy, because Liberals hate Bush, the economy MUST be bad. The concept is universally applicable to any issue.

Conservatives see the necessity of the war. After eight years of watching “lick your finger and stick it up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing” leadership they are ecstatic to see someone who had a plan, then HAS the courage to stay with it despite the current direction of the wind. They like Bush because they see the war and its necessity FIRST, then they see a President with the spine to do what needs to be done.

Have fun with that, Anonymy! Is it enough to keep the filibuster going?

Anonymous said...

How do shall we interpret the following numbers? Through Bush or Bush through the numbers? Or maybe just let the numbers speak for themselves.

1.6 Million people out of work since 2001

Fifty-two percent lower job growth in the last month than expected

Fifty percent less than needed

400 Billion dollar defecit this year, the largest ever

1.2 Trillion for medicare bill that was only projected to cost 500 million before the October vote

232 Billion spent on Iraq thus far

1:1.19 Dollar trade rate to Euro in 2001 trades 1:0.83 Euro Cents today

30,000 Iraqis killed, most innocently

3 U.S. Government reports before invasion that said Iraq had no WMD's, no ties to al-Queda

2 Rogue nations actually developing nuclear weapons and harboring terrorists

4 Overstretched branches of the U.S. Military

Thousands of tons of unscreened cargo loaded onto passenger jets every day

1 Person responsible for 9/11 who still at large because we do not have the resources to find him.


You add it up.

Lysis said...

Great point Rumpole. You have exposed only a scattering of the shifting sands of Anonymous misinformation. One failed argument after another litter our string. Kyoto to Teddy K; what a spiral of losses. Your point couldn’t be more clearly made than with the last canard concocted

I see that the Anonymy have fallen back no the good old “defecate spending” argument. This always amasses me. Realizes that FDR did everything he could to initiate deficit spending in order to give American a New Deal. (Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe our deficit is anywhere near were it would have been if the tax and spend Democrats would have grabbed power in the midst of the Clinton recession. The spike in taxes to pay off their special interest supporters would have strangled the economy.) Having said that; let me point out that cutting deficit spending was never a Democrat position until they didn’t have any other issues. They were the party of barrow and barrow some more. When they lost control to Reagan they tried to make hay on the deficit. The tactic went no where, and the economy went no were but up.

Democrats are always for spending as much as possible. Remember, when Roosevelt lost his bid to pack the Supreme Court so he could overturn the Constitution and socialize the American Economy? He launched on a deficit spending binge to try and end the Depression. He didn’t spend enough; until the war got the deficit spending really going. America went in debt then, and we spent enough to stimulate the economy by barrow our way to prosperity. I love those Norman Rockwell “Four Freedoms” posters!!! Let’s all buy bonds!!! Again I’m not advocating deficits as a substitute for responsible spending. I just what to make two points: 1) the deficits would be even worse under the Dems and, and 2) that the deficit has never destroyed our economy.

I noticed the President Bush finally gave the people of Mississippi a reason to cheer today. He visited them and brought $85 billion to rebuild and employ all kinds of lives through out the South East. I’m sure our anonymous friends would either let that nasty Republican State rot, or tax the economy back into recession. But I’m confident that the rebuilding of Mississippi will further spark the economy, and do no measurable damage to the country.

To Vegimatic, I do believe that there is money wasted in education. But be careful where you cut. There is no one in the school who better deserves their pay check than the Administration. We have four Principles in our high school. Without them it would be impossible to teach.

Well, I guess this is how a filibuster works. We start by demonstration the stupidity of the neo-libs who predicted American defeat in Afghanistan, at the hands of the Russian skinning ghosts, and end up trying to cut education spending. Boo!!!!

Lysis said...

We should interpret them truthfully;

1. 1.6 million people our of work since 2001 – Truthfully stated would be that unemployment net increase is 1.6 million, but more Americans are working than have ever worked in history.

2. Fifty-two percent lower job growth in the last month than expected – Truthfully stated 100,000 new jobs created in America in December, with 350,000 in November, and 2,000,000 new jobs created in 2005.

3. 400 billion dollar deficit this year – truthfully stated would be that the deficit has actually less than projected, and that the GMP is at record levels. The US economy grew at a steady 4%, while all other major economies are anemic, and spiraling down. Not to mention we have to fight a war and rebuild the South.

4. 1.2 trillion for Medicare bill that was only projected to cost 500 million – Truthfully stated 1.2 trillion for Medicare bill that was only projected to cost 500 million, and that will provide medication for the elderly at a far better bargain then the socialized medicine pushed by the Kerry campaign.

You know, I’m going to bed. I’ll leave it up to YOU to truthfully answer the rest. If you can’t think of the answers please reread the posts above that answer each. Don’t waist your time with Maureen Dowd. Think of this as a homework assignment, Anonymous. That’s the way we learn the truth.

Anonymous said...

I thought some would like to read the report on the OMB. You'll notice some of it directly contradicts your claims Liesis. One of you must be telling lies. I'm sure you won't let a small stumbling block like the truth stop you though.



WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 - The White House acknowledged on Thursday that the budget deficit would climb back above $400 billion this year, erasing the brief improvement last year and complicating President Bush's vow to cut the deficit in half by 2009.

Joel Kaplan, the White House deputy budget director, predicted that the government's shortfall would climb to more than $400 billion in 2006 from $319 billion in 2005.

That shortfall would be equal to about 3 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, a significantly higher share than last year.

The new deficit forecast is about $60 billion bigger than what the administration had predicted in July, before Hurricane Katrina.

"We believe that those increased outlays associated with Katrina recovery efforts are a temporary event," Mr. Kaplan told reporters, adding that the administration is still hoping for the deficit to resume its "downward trajectory" and meet Mr. Bush's promise for 2009.

Congress has appropriated about $85 billion in spending related to Hurricane Katrina, as well as about $8 billion in tax relief for the Gulf Coast over the next few years.

But Mr. Bush's fiscal challenges are not all the result of hurricanes. Even though administration officials and lawmakers have known for months that the next year's deficit would be higher, Mr. Bush and Republican leaders in Congress are pushing hard to pass nearly $90 billion in tax cuts for the next five years.

"The deficit is going up again, and that complicates some of the administration's agenda," said Robert Bixby, director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan research group that pushes for fiscal discipline. "It makes part of it easier for them to argue for greater spending restraint in nondefense areas, but it will make extensions of the tax cuts more difficult."

Democrats are certain to seize upon the new deficit forecast in attacking Republican efforts to cut spending on social programs for the poor while extending tax cuts that tend to benefit high-income families.

Some Republicans also made it clear they were unhappy, too.

"The expected increase in the deficit is to some degree understandable," said Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. "But it is still unacceptable. As a government, we must continue to try to control the rate of growth of spending."

Since President Bush took office in 2001, the federal budget has swung from a surplus of more than $100 billion to deficits as high as $412 billion in 2004. Last year, the deficit narrowed unexpectedly to $319 billion, mainly because of a surge in corporate tax revenues and taxes on stock-market gains.

Mr. Bush has attributed much if not most of the rising deficit to several unforeseen shocks: a recession in 2001, the collapse of the stock market bubble, huge new spending on domestic security after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the cost of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But budget analysts outside the administration have long argued that the government spending has been very high under Mr. Bush while tax cuts have chipped away at revenues.

As a percentage of gross domestic product, a measure that economists prefer over simple dollar amounts, government spending has climbed sharply, from 18.5 percent in 2001 to nearly 20 percent for each of the past three years.

By contrast, tax revenues plunged to as little as 16.3 percent of the nation's economy from 19.8 percent in 2001.

The yawning deficit has provoked strong criticism from conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats alike. But lawmakers remain locked in partisan combat over whether to restore discipline through higher taxes or tighter spending.

In a report last month, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warned that the long-term budget problems could not be solved without basic changes, because soaring health care costs and a growing population of retiring baby-boomers would greatly increase government's overall pace of spending.

"Limiting the growth of outlays for defense, education, transportation and other discretionary programs would not be enough to ensure fiscal sustainability," the budget office said.

"If taxation is restricted to levels that prevailed in the past," it added, "the growth in spending on programs for the elderly will have to be reduced substantially."



Let the Liesis "IRrationalization" of the facts resume.

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

WE’er waiting for you to post the report of the OMB, not the some article culled from your biased “press” sources. If this Jan. 12 budget report PERDICTS an increase in next years deficit, we’ll have to wait to see what really happens. $85 billion for Katrina seems to contain the forecast $60 billion dollar increase. I guess we could count that as a $25 billion dollar “net” decrease in the deficit. Go figure!

Anonymous said...

I am truly in awe at the breadth of your ignorance Lysis.

A July forecast, that follows below and is probably as decipherable to you or anyone else reading as an Ancient Korean text, had projected the 2006 budget deficit at $341 billion. (Perhaps Professor Vegimatic could help to illucidate any questions you have.) The preliminary calculations for the coming year though now indicate the deficit will exceed $400 billion, or 3.1 percent of gross domestic product. A more precise deficit projection is expected in the proposed federal budget for the 2007 fiscal year - starting next October - that Bush will submit to Congress in early February. Rest assured, when it is available, I will print that it in its entirity as well. The fact that the OMB is a politically appointed and ran organization cannot hide the bottom line fact that Bush's economic policies are bankrupt.

As for my "biased" news sources the deputy director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Joel Kaplan made the deficit announcement to the White House press pool in a conference call with reporters Thusday shortly after the stock market closed for the day as Bush toured the Gulf Coast area. The Wall Street Journal, AP, Reuters, The New York Times, ABC News, the Washington Post and the Washington Times among others reported the story. If you did even a little research yourself you could read about it.

Now, for your enjoyment, the first step in posting the called for reports for the historic deficits of 2006, the innacurate mid-session assesment $341 Dollar projected deficit for 2006. (In the phone call Kaplan promised the 2007 budget would not be historic, but that is what they promised last year, and in 2001, and 2002, and 2004.)


Note: this is only the Office of Management and Budget's projection to Congress and not the actual budget. If you like I could probably come up with a copy of the actual budget - all 20,000 some odd pages - and find a way to post that as well, if you further choose not to believe Joel Kaplan's statements made yesterday.




FI S CAL YEAR 2006
OF THE U . S .B UDGET GO VERNMENT
MID­SESSION REVIEW
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
The Director
July 13, 2005
The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert

Speaker of the House

of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker:
Section 1106 of Title 31, United States Code, calls for the President to transmit to the
Congress a supplemental update of the Budget that was transmitted to the Congress earlier in the
year. This supplemental update of the Budget, commonly known as the Mid-Session Review,
contains revised estimates of the budget deficit, receipts, outlays, and budget authority for fiscal
years 2005 through 2010. An update of executive branch progress in implementing the
President=s Management Agenda will be provided under separate cover.
Sincerely,
Joshua B. Bolten
Director
Enclosure
Identical Letter Sent to The President of the Senate
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Transmittal Letter

List of Charts and Tables .................................................................................................. iii

Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1

Economic Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 7

Receipts ............................................................................................................................... 15

Spending ............................................................................................................................. 17

Summary Tables ................................................................................................................ 23

Glossary .............................................................................................................................. 47

GENERAL NOTES
1. All years referred to are fiscal years unless otherwise noted.
2. All totals in the text and tables display both on-budget and
off-budget spending and receipts unless otherwise noted.
3. Details in the tables and text may not add to totals due to
rounding.
4. Web address: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
i
LIST OF CHARTS
Page
Chart 1. A Declining Budget Deficit ........................................................................... 1

Chart 2. Annual Percent Change in Receipts ............................................................ 3

Chart 3. Receipts as a Percent of GDP ....................................................................... 4

Table 1.
Changes from the February Budget ......................................................... 6

............................................................................... 8

..................................................... 10

..................................................................................... 15

...................................................................................... 19

............................................................................................. 23

.................................................................................. 24

................ 25

.................... 26

................................................... 27

................................................................................. 28

..................................................................................... 32

.................................................................. 36

..................................................................................... 37

..................................................................................... 38

.................................................................................. 39

............................................. 40

.......................................... 41

.......................................................................... 42

.......................... 43

............................................... 44

Table 2.
Economic Assumptions
Table 3.
Comparison of Economic Assumptions
Table 4.
Change in Receipts
Table 5.
Change in Outlays
Table S–1.
Budget Totals
Table S–2.
Discretionary Totals
Table S–3.
Growth in Discretionary Budget Authority by Major Agency
Table S–4.
Discretionary Proposals by Appropriations Subcommittee
Table S–5.
Homeland Security Funding by Agency
Table S–6.
Mandatory Proposals
Table S–7.
Receipts Proposals
Table S–8.
Budget Summary by Category
Table S–9.
Receipts by Source
Table S–10.
Outlays by Agency
Table S–11.
Outlays by Function
Table S–12.
Discretionary Budget Authority by Agency
Table S–13.
Discretionary Budget Authority by Function
Table S–14.
Baseline Category Totals
Table S–15.
Outlays for Mandatory Programs Under Current Law
Table S–16.
Federal Government Financing and Debt
LIST OF TABLES
iii
SUMMARY

Since the 2006 Budget was released, the
Nation’s budget picture has improved dramati

Anonymous said...

FI S CAL YEAR 2006
OF THE U . S .B UDGET GO VERNMENT
MID­SESSION REVIEW
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
The Director
July 13, 2005
The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert

Speaker of the House

of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker:
Section 1106 of Title 31, United States Code, calls for the President to transmit to the
Congress a supplemental update of the Budget that was transmitted to the Congress earlier in the
year. This supplemental update of the Budget, commonly known as the Mid-Session Review,
contains revised estimates of the budget deficit, receipts, outlays, and budget authority for fiscal
years 2005 through 2010. An update of executive branch progress in implementing the
President=s Management Agenda will be provided under separate cover.
Sincerely,
Joshua B. Bolten
Director
Enclosure
Identical Letter Sent to The President of the Senate
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Transmittal Letter

List of Charts and Tables .................................................................................................. iii

Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1

Economic Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 7

Receipts ............................................................................................................................... 15

Spending ............................................................................................................................. 17

Summary Tables ................................................................................................................ 23

Glossary .............................................................................................................................. 47

GENERAL NOTES
1. All years referred to are fiscal years unless otherwise noted.
2. All totals in the text and tables display both on-budget and
off-budget spending and receipts unless otherwise noted.
3. Details in the tables and text may not add to totals due to
rounding.
4. Web address: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
i
LIST OF CHARTS
Page
Chart 1. A Declining Budget Deficit ........................................................................... 1

Chart 2. Annual Percent Change in Receipts ............................................................ 3

Chart 3. Receipts as a Percent of GDP ....................................................................... 4

Table 1.
Changes from the February Budget ......................................................... 6

............................................................................... 8

..................................................... 10

..................................................................................... 15

...................................................................................... 19

............................................................................................. 23

.................................................................................. 24

................ 25

.................... 26

................................................... 27

................................................................................. 28

..................................................................................... 32

.................................................................. 36

..................................................................................... 37

..................................................................................... 38

.................................................................................. 39

............................................. 40

.......................................... 41

.......................................................................... 42

.......................... 43

............................................... 44

Table 2.
Economic Assumptions
Table 3.
Comparison of Economic Assumptions
Table 4.
Change in Receipts
Table 5.
Change in Outlays
Table S–1.
Budget Totals
Table S–2.
Discretionary Totals
Table S–3.
Growth in Discretionary Budget Authority by Major Agency
Table S–4.
Discretionary Proposals by Appropriations Subcommittee
Table S–5.
Homeland Security Funding by Agency
Table S–6.
Mandatory Proposals
Table S–7.
Receipts Proposals
Table S–8.
Budget Summary by Category
Table S–9.
Receipts by Source
Table S–10.
Outlays by Agency
Table S–11.
Outlays by Function
Table S–12.
Discretionary Budget Authority by Agency
Table S–13.
Discretionary Budget Authority by Function
Table S–14.
Baseline Category Totals
Table S–15.
Outlays for Mandatory Programs Under Current Law
Table S–16.
Federal Government Financing and Debt
LIST OF TABLES
iii
SUMMARY

Since the 2006 Budget was released, the
Nation’s budget picture has improved dramati

Anonymous said...

I'm afraid the document and its pungently barn-yard-fertilized statements exceeds even what the Agora can handle. If you are actually interested in reading about how badly George got it wrong, and are well versed in reading Ancient Korean, you will have to read the first part "Fiscal Year 2006 Mid-Session Review Budget of the U.S. Government" at the OMB website.

Lysis said...

I’d like to thank you, Anonymous, for proving my point. Your arguments rely entirely on the anti-Bush propaganda you feed on day in day out. I am glad you still check in on us here in the Agora, for an occasional dose of truth. Your selective application of statistics you obviously can’t understand, let alone read through, is the very thing my post set out to point out.

Anonymous said...

Veg:
You found your work on the Space Shuttle to be "fraudulent" and "wasteful spending".
Also, I read where you "worked" eight months of additional "fraudulent" overtime on the project -- by your own confession that makes you a willing accomplice in "fraud" and "wasteful spending" against your own country and its economic welfare!!!!(something Bush supporters are often guilty of -- can we say Abromoff?)

If this were the case why didn't you quit and turn Thiokol into the proper government authorities -- were your pocket-book issues bigger than your patriotic and ethical issues?

Your classes in "economics" must be something like learning tax law from Al Capone!!!!

Anonymous said...

Lysites:

With regards to filibustering:

Filibustering is for Legislative assemblies!

For the *market place*, Lysis. . .

It is ALWAYS better

To Debate a question without resolving it.

Than

To Resolve a question without debating it.

Agorites should PRACTICE that!!!!

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

I am all for arguments. Arguments lead us to truth through the clash of ideas. There is no clash in a filibuster. In an argument positions are presented and examined by reason and logic. Filibusters are a dodge, an attempt by the filibusterer to hold on to a discredited position once reason has “gone away”. WE cannot resolve any question through debate when you dump every one of your positions when each is challenged and go on reading the phone book. But, keep it up Anonymy, in the agora you can always hold the floor. Your filibuster itself proves that the question has been resolved and that you cannot dispute only rattle on.

Rumpole said...

Anonymy,

We need to have a serious discussion about your research. This discussion is independent of any topic. I do not intend this to be personal. If you take it personally, you do so incorrectly. Your recent posts with Lysis demonstrate the same issues with your “sources” that I quetioned earlier. In that brief discussion you said you wouldn’t lie to me. It isn’t about lying. But it is about being accurate. Allow me to be a little more specific.

Remember, DON’T TAKE THIS PERSONALLY! Take it as the constructive criticism that it is intended to be!

You PROVED LYSIS’ POINT by posting the actual OMB report! You didn’t quote the original report as you said! You quoted an author who INTERPRETED that report! Quoting the OMB report and quoting an article from the Washington Post by a writer who claims the OMB report as his source is NOT the same thing! A writer HAS BEEN ADDED in between the actual data and the reader of that data!

Let’s speculate that I claim to quote the same OMB report and I end up with the opposite conclusion that your Post writer reached. Then you find out that my conclusion came from an article in the National Review. Would I be any more correct than you? Of course I wouldn’t. I would, however, be guilty of the same inaccuracy.

Why would you accept that the Post writer got it right? Why would I accept that the Review writer got it right? If you are going to quote the data, post the data then interpret the data. Will you be questioned? Sure. But you will be accurate.

I can’t go on any longer trying to not make this personal. I’m sorry. I did, at least, last for five paragraphs.

I guess this explains why you are still such a big fan of Sixty Minutes. If Dan Rather said it, it must be true! It doesn’t matter if his information was forged. He got it on the air so it must be accurate!

No wonder you also love the Washington Post. After Bernstein admitted that he knew about Plaim’s identity two years before Scoter Libby was alleged to have outed her, it must have made that paper all the more credible in your mind!

Your favorite source is probably Lancet! When it comes to statistics that are 95% accurate, I’m always willing to pick a number between 8,000 and 194,000 and call it good!

Seriously, Anonymy, you need to dig a little deeper. That is what the Agora is for! Maybe you will discover some real truth!

Anonymous said...

Again, I am in awe of "all y'all's" ignorance. (Handy phrase.) My original post reads: "I thought some would like to read the report on the OMB." That is EXACTLY what I did. I posted the AP report on the OMB announcement by the Bush official that made it. Liesis does not believe the Bush official, and I can't say I blame him. I attempted to post the Mid-Session assesment from 2005 but it was too big. I cannot post or refer to the 2007 OMB report because IT HASN'T BEEN MADE YET! Do dig a little deeper. What we have now is the person who is in charge of drawing up the report trying to warn us that it is going to MUCH MUCH bigger than BUSH said it would be. In two weeks you will see more "precise" reports of how wrong they were. You Rumpole, and Liesis, will still choose not to believe it.

Rumpole said...

Anonymy,

I was wrong! You didn’t say you were going to quote the original OMB report. You then quoted the AP “report on the report.” as you suggested!

I was right! Quoting an AP report “by a writer who claims the OMB data as his source” adds a writer “between the actual data and that reader of that data.” As I explained in the examples of my post later, I am not interested in an AP reporter’s interpretation of the numbers. I am not interested in the media in general interpreting those numbers for me. That must be a need attributed solely to you.

As I have explained several times, I don’t buy it just because the AP puts it on the wire. Does that show ignorance? I think it shows intelligence, if I do say so myself!

Will I cease to read AP? Will I turn off NPR? No! But I WON”T BUY IT just because AP and NPR said so! I mean no disrespect, but I won’t buy it just because YOU said so!

The true demonstration of ignorance comes from one who implies that whatever he has said ought to be believed simply because he “won’t lie to you”. Are you afraid of being challenged? If what you say is accurate will it not stand in the light of day? Sixty Minutes doesn’t! The Washington Post doesn’t! Lancet doesn’t!

Does the Anonymy?

Anonymous said...

What the heck are you talking about? I posted the report, I posted the original data, I refer you to the deputy director of the office of budget and management, I refer to the OMB website. How thick can one person be? You are so determined to hear no evil of the Bush administration tha you won't even believe it when they are the ones saying it. You are out of your mind.

Rumpole said...

Anonymy,

I’m out of MY mind? I will say this. Lysis’ math was incorrect about the administration predictions (which was what the AP article referred to)! Here, I’ll do it for you slowly. 85 billion (one-time event) minus 60 billion (pre one-time event overage estimate) equals 25 billion. 25 billion BELOW the original estimate (excluding the catastrophe than not even the Democrats could have predicted). But wait! The 8 billion in “tax relief” will skew that figure! It is difficult to say by how much because it will be spread over the “next few years”, but if we straight-line it over the next, say, four years that 25 billion becomes 27 billion. 27 billion BELOW the original administration prediction!

Further, what I told you about this article is RIGHT! I could go over the entire article, but I’m only going to touch the high points. Apparently it was written by a journalist who WAS NOT familiar with the success of Supply Side Economics. “Even though administration officials and lawmakers have known for months that the next year’s deficit would be higher, Mr. Bush and Republican leaders in Congress are pushing hard to pass $90 billion in tax cuts for the next five years.”

I know you won’t admit it, but it doesn’t change the truth that Supply Side economics WORKS! Go back and read the economics lesson! Did a little deeper! Don’t turn away from a challenge!

Where is the balance in this article? You think I’m the only one who will acknowledge the DOCUMENTED HISTORICAL SUCCESS of Supply Side Economics? Come on Anonymous. You know that thinking economists (like our own Vegimatic) really do exist! What you have here is a reporter who only reported one side of an issue!

The last paragraph is the one that bothers me the most! “If taxation is restricted to levels that prevailed in the past,” it added, “the growth in spending on programs for the elderly will have to be reduced substantially.”

Remind me again who it was that proposed to remedy Social Security! Remind me again who stood in the way! Of course you know that it is right out of the PLAYBOOK to try to scare the elderly!

“I am not interested in an AP’s interpretation of the numbers” unless the AP can write an ACCURATE report!

Lysis said...

Rumpole, you’re in trouble here, relying on reason to explain misrepresentation. You stand to challenge the political method of choice of the neo-libs. Anonymous’ misapplication of misrepresented deficit numbers, for what purpose none of US have yet grasped, is a microcosmic manifestation of the Dem’s position through out the nation. It only took a listen to Algor’s ranting today to see this lunacy on the “cosmic” level. Their philosophy is, the louder you shout, the more believable you become. In a world where truth does not exist, volume and repetition are the tools of choice.

Medicine said...

Through the wonders of my classroom’s computer network
hookup I had a hard copy in my hands within five minuets.