published Tuesday, November 9th, 2010

In Bookstores Now

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

123
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
AndrewLohr said...

Once upon a time, both the liberal NEW REPUBLIC magazine and the conservative NATIONAL REVIEW had several writers comment about a controversial book (possibly "The Bell Curve.") The NEW REPUBLIC group of reviews appeared first, partly because NEW REP comes out every week and NAT REV every two weeks, and partly because NATIONAL REVIEW required its reviewers to actually read the book.

November 9, 2010 at 12:11 a.m.
Dumbledore403 said...

Andy- Could it be that it takes some people that long to think?

November 9, 2010 at 1:19 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

AndrewLohr has nothing to say about the George Bush's rememberations of his eight years in office, so he pivots and attacks The NEW REPUBLIC.

He suggests, I think, that NR book reviewers aren't capable of reading a new release and writing a comprehensive review in seven days. At least I think that's what he's getting at. How that relates to today's cartoon is unclear but what the heck.

Actually, Andrew, as a former book reviewer I have to tell you that it's not impossible. I wrote for three different newspapers at one time or another while holding full time jobs elsewhere.

Maybe you're suggesting that conservatives are slow readers, slow writers, or - as GWB might explain - slow comprehenders.

Thanks for the peek behind the curtain!

November 9, 2010 at 1:42 a.m.
mmlj said...

Mr. Lohr wrote analogously. The book was released today, November 9. He's (Mr. Lohr)suggesting that before judgment is made, the book should be read. Perhaps, Mr. Bennett did read it. That didn't really need to be explained did it?

November 9, 2010 at 2:12 a.m.
Francis said...

another predictable offering from our local neighborhood propagandist.

can't wait to read obama's memoirs..the one he's paying someone to write right now........since he'll be one and done....maybe he'll buy a bunch of stories from someone ...like mr. peterman did from kramer on the seinfeld tv show.

a good line from that same episode suits obama well.....

"the last thing this guy's qualified to give a tour of is reality"....

and for obama...the last thing this guy's qualified to write a book on is reality

November 9, 2010 at 2:26 a.m.
alprova said...

Passages from the book have been being released for the past two weeks, up to and including one of the most bizarre and personal revelations that I have ever read in my life, and that should have remained private. Clue: A miscarried fetus in a jar.

In the book and during an interview with NBC's Matt Lauer, he continues to defend the most controversial decision he made as President, which was to invade Iraq, by stating that it was justified because "we were not hit again while I was President."

He offers a few regrets. "We did not respond more quickly or aggressively when the security situation started to deteriorate after Saddam’s regime fell. Cutting troop levels too quickly was the most important failure of execution in the war. I still have a sickening feeling every time I thinks about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

"Removing Saddam from power was the right decision -- for all the difficulties that followed, America is safer without a homicidal dictator pursuing WMD and supporting terror at the heart of the Middle East."

What was not addressed in his book? The Former President made no effort to deal with any criticism offered that his deregulatory, free market policies played a large role in fueling the economic meltdown that was blossoming by the end of his second term.

His claim? "We were blindsided by a financial crisis that had been more than a decade in the making. My focus had been kitchen table economic issues like jobs and inflation. I assumed any major credit troubles would have been flagged by the regulators or rating agencies."

So, he too kicked that ball back towards Bill Clinton, totally ignoring the facts and that his fellow Republicans introduced, sponsored, and all but 16 of them voted for the very piece of legislation (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) that led to the financial crisis, and that rescinded the Glass-Stegal Act of 1932, prohibiting banks, insurers, and investment houses to merge and to bundle mortgages and place them up as viable investments.

He does express at least a modicum of honesty however. Upon retiring to private life in Dallas, Texas, he wrote that he took his dog, Barney, for an early morning walk.

"Barney spotted our neighbor’s lawn, where he promptly took care of his business. There I was, the former president of the United States, with a plastic bag on my hand, picking up that which I had been dodging for the past eight years."

November 9, 2010 at 4:25 a.m.
EaTn said...

The banner I am waiting for regarding Bush is the one that reads "Justice Accomplished" when he is hauled in front on a court of peers to defend himself on charges related to the loss of innocent lives in the illegal invasion of Iraq and other human tortures.

November 9, 2010 at 5:45 a.m.
rolando said...

He has committed no such crime, EaTn. Nor, so far as I understand, does such a federal law exist. He is out of office now so impeachment is moot.

He is not subject to trial under any form of international tribunal, Nuremberg trials notwithstanding.

Unless you are speaking of Heavenly judgment, in which case it might be a bit difficult to locate any of his peers [so some would say].

November 9, 2010 at 6 a.m.
alprova said...

I'm not about to transform the subject matter of this thread, but I will say one thing;

The hypocrisy offered by someone regarding the issue of impeachment, and he knows who he is, is so thick that you can cut it with a knife.

I try very hard not to pass judgment on people, but there are some things that are truly indefensible.

I'll agree all day long that Saddam Hussein needed to be toppled. The man was a tyrant and a murderer.

But to go about it in the way it was done, no matter who made that decision, resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent lives, if not more, who had never harmed a soul.

I would have much more respect for President Bush, had he arranged a "hit" on the man, and allowed the chips to fall where they would have, with the United States staying completely out of it.

Many would argue, "But under international agreements made long ago, that would have been illegal." That may be true, but is invading a nation and destroying almost every inch of it in order to wage battle with outsiders who came their to fight us, is not?

In terms of how we stand with the Iraqi's, there is little evidence that after all that has been done, and all that has been spent, that we have a new ally in Iraq. There are way too many citizens of that country that have nothing but contempt for the United States, and for good reason.

I dare say that little has been done to temper the concept of terrorism. If Bush is seeking a legacy, he can take full credit in giving cause for more to be recruited in hitting us back for what was done to them.

Butting out of the affairs in other nations needs to be a policy among our leaders, and it needs to start immediately.

Sell them aircraft. Sell them guns. Sell them ammunition by the boatload and let them fight amongst themselves forever and a day. But sending our men and women to fight on any side's behalf has got to stop forever. Enough.

And I doggone sure don't want to read any more crap about God telling him it was the right thing to do.

November 9, 2010 at 6:41 a.m.
EaTn said...

rolando-- he may never get to trial, justice sometimes works in other mysterious ways. Bush is not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I bet you'll never see him at a book signing in Bagdad.

November 9, 2010 at 6:51 a.m.
Clara said...

I don't hate Bush! I hate the attendents and manipulators that fed the poor man's ego and led him, but with his compliance and average intelligence, into paths I hope never to see again.

November 9, 2010 at 7:24 a.m.
alprova said...

EaTn quipped: "Bush is not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I bet you'll never see him at a book signing in Bagdad."


I lost another mouthful of iced tea on that one.

Too funny!!!

November 9, 2010 at 7:28 a.m.
hambone said...

Really Francis, a Seinfeld episode? That's the best you can come up with to support your rant? And at 2:26am too! You should get some sleep!

November 9, 2010 at 7:30 a.m.
alprova said...

Dumbledore403 wrote: "Andy- Could it be that it takes some people that long to think?"


I wish to offer my humble apology to you. I voted down your remark in error. When I realized what it was you were saying, I did a forehead slap.

November 9, 2010 at 7:37 a.m.
moon4kat said...

Bush's invasion of Iraq -- which everyone with 1/2 a brain knew had nothing to do with 9/11 -- did not make us safer. Quite the opposite. It metastacized terrorism among Islamists who resented Bush's "crusade," and American military intrusion into their lands. By any measure, that invasion was the biggest mistake in American history, and we will bear the consequences for decades to come.

November 9, 2010 at 7:40 a.m.
alprova said...

Hambone wrote: "Really Francis, a Seinfeld episode?"


SHHHHHH!!

(Whispering)...He's broadening his horizon and is watching something other than Fox News.

November 9, 2010 at 7:42 a.m.
OllieH said...

I don't believe you really have to read George Bush's new book to assume it will be revisionist in nature. Every presidential memoir is. These are always an attempt to write the history of your administration before the historians take a crack at it.

Seeing that this particular administration had a revisionist view of reality as it was happening, I think it's a safe assumption that the fish will only grow larger in the story's retelling.

November 9, 2010 at 8:26 a.m.
EaTn said...

Clara-- I too don't hate Bush. I'd rather sit around talking sports with him more than Obama; I'm a baseball fan and not so much basketball. His politics however is another issue, like for instance abortion. I also oppose it but believe that saving a life to let the child live in hunger and poverty watching their wealthy neighbor kids, is cruel.

November 9, 2010 at 8:36 a.m.
BobMKE said...

Does anyone know if Bill Ayers helped President Bush write his book?

November 9, 2010 at 8:44 a.m.
mmlj said...

I just witnessed something more ridiculous than actually voting for the usefulness of the comment. A posted apology for hitting the wrong button. Wow, is that rich! You all really care about the approval of the crowd, don't you!? Hilarious!

November 9, 2010 at 10:12 a.m.
Clara said...

BobMKE,

I know your joking but I have to say.....

I doubt if Ayers helped. Ayers was against the war in Vietnam, and the invasion of Iraq was even more irresponsible. Ayers is 66? now, and it would be interesting to hear directly from him on Iraq.

That doesn't make me a far leftist. Just curious.

Perhaps you can name another far right person who would comment.

It ain't I. I is igorint!

November 9, 2010 at 10:28 a.m.
softnotes37 said...

I really like President Bush then and now. His wife;she is such a Lady. He did what he had to do with the information they gave him.

November 9, 2010 at 10:47 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

Ollie wrote: "I don't believe you really have to read George Bush's new book to assume it will be revisionist in nature. Every presidential memoir is."

Very true, which reminded me of one of my favorite Winston Churchill quotes: "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

I remember, too, poor George on more than one occasion complaining about how being President was hard, which loosened this Edward R. Murrow observation:

"Difficulty is the excuse history never accepts."

November 9, 2010 at 10:56 a.m.
Livn4life said...

Say all you will about Iraq. Many lives have been lost. It is sad. But do not believe all the stuff about conditions there now. I have heard from service persons who were there early in the invasion and who have since gone back. It is much better today than when Saddam Hussein ruled in terror or when we first went there. The US has done a lot more for the Iraqi people than our ridiculous media will report. I guess the media are hell bent on making Bush's legacy be tarnished while giving all the praise to a former president who brought the office of the presidency to an unprecedented low by his personal lack of character. When he was in office, character did not matter. When Bush came in, suddenly he was attacked on every side. Back to Iraq, the only way our brave and hard working people who have gone there and made a difference will be recognized will be if in some sense president Obama can get credit for it. That is a disgrace. As for all you indict Bush persons, get a life. Our nation has so many more important issues to deal with. Remember that cry when a former president WAS IMPEACHED then acquitted by his Democrat friends? No, that no longer applies in your eyes. You are sad, all of you.

November 9, 2010 at 11:31 a.m.
alprova said...

mmlj wrote: "I just witnessed something more ridiculous than actually voting for the usefulness of the comment. A posted apology for hitting the wrong button. Wow, is that rich! You all really care about the approval of the crowd, don't you!? Hilarious!"


If what you assume was true, I wouldn't have mentioned it at all. I would have remained silent and let everyone assume it was someone like yourself who considered the comment useless.

At least there are some of us who have no trouble at all in admitting to mistakes.

Following this post of mine, I absolutely voted your comment useless, and THAT was not a mistake.

November 9, 2010 at 11:52 a.m.
mmlj said...

al, casual observation: Liberals love to vote on here; conservatives don't. Sorry, if this is news to you and you actually thought that 100% of readers found your commentary useful. Many do; after all, this is your stage and your audience, and I marvel at how much time you devote to the board. But many who don't vote simply roll our eyes at some of the things that are written, knowing the meaningless of the approval of the crowd.

November 9, 2010 at 12:29 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Another day of useless drivel.

November 9, 2010 at 12:30 p.m.
alprova said...

Livn4life wrote: "The US has done a lot more for the Iraqi people than our ridiculous media will report."


The US has also done a lot more TO the Iraqi people than the press HAS reported or that they ever would report.

I'm sure most of you remember the Wikileaks photo of the 2007 Apache Helicopter attack in Iraq and the firestorm of controversy that it caused. You can read the REAL story from a soldier who was there and was in that photo, as well as other stories that he has publicly spoken about since returning from Iraq after nearly losing his own life. He's an amazingly brave man for what he is attempting to do in bringing some of these things to light.

For those who are not squeamish, and are interested in some insight as to what went on over there, I urge you to Google "Ethan McCord" (in parenthesis) to read a little introspect from someone who was there and experienced the realities and U.S. policies when it comes to being engaged in war.

He illustrates what, "casualties of war" actually consists of, and how reckless some of the engagements were in Iraq.

The first four links in the list covers his efforts to portray an honest assessment of the war waged in Iraq. It's not pretty and it's not something that will inspire pride of our military's leaders, but the man, who was raised to be a Christian, is indeed honest in his revelations and deals with a great deal of regret and guilt as a result of his experiences while in Iraq.

November 9, 2010 at 12:33 p.m.
realityrox said...

alprova -

So are you saying that anyone other than a christian can't be honest?

November 9, 2010 at 12:45 p.m.
alprova said...

mmlj wrote: "al, casual observation: Liberals love to vote on here; conservatives don't. Sorry, if this is news to you and you actually thought that 100% of readers found your commentary useful."


I don't write what I write to necessarily seek approval, however, it's nice to know that my posts are useful to some, for if they weren't, I'd not hang around and write useless comments. But that's me.


"Many do; after all, this is your stage and your audience, and I marvel at how much time you devote to the board."


Well okay...thank you for marveling. I'm free to devote as much or as little of my time as I desire to this forum, wouldn't you agree?


"But many who don't vote simply roll our eyes at some of the things that are written, knowing the meaningless of the approval of the crowd."


Well okay. Thanks for clearing that up. I'd be careful in rolling those eyes too much. They might get stuck, especially if someone slaps you on your back when you're doing it.

November 9, 2010 at 12:46 p.m.
Francis said...

that's right alprova...seinfeld..that quote fits obama really well..he has about as much grip on reality as kramer does...actually he may have less..

obama is on kramer's level...just damn lucky to be where he is..his whole life is one fantasy....the fantasy of pushing people around.

and there he is india..once again stating we are no longer world leaders.. pumping up china and india.....what a downer this socialist is....what destroyer of american exceptionalism.....he wants to preside over out demise...and he's doing what he can to hasten that...

November 9, 2010 at 12:46 p.m.
alprova said...

realityrox asked: "alprova - So are you saying that anyone other than a christian can't be honest?"


Not at all. I did think that it was important to note that he describes himself as a Christian, which is one basis for him coming out against what transpired over there.

I realize that reading the sentence as I wrote it, that it could have dual meanings. No offense was intended to anyone who is not Christian, but more than capable of being perfectly honest.

November 9, 2010 at 12:51 p.m.
alprova said...

Francis wrote: "that's right alprova...seinfeld..that quote fits obama really well..he has about as much grip on reality as kramer does...actually he may have less.."


Francis, to make comparisons of our President to characters in a sitcom, only demonstrates that the only grip that you have on reality, is with a hand that is lathered with KY lube.

Perhaps you should read the instructions on the box, to discover that particular product's intended use.

November 9, 2010 at 1 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

What is this obsession you have developed with masturbation?

November 9, 2010 at 1:25 p.m.
Francis said...

oooo...testy are we...last tuesdays results are getting to you, huh.

your last post, alprova, says more about you than it does it about me.

it stands on its own

November 9, 2010 at 1:25 p.m.
moonpie said...

I agree with the intent of Andrew's post. Bush's book should not be bashed if not read, nor should it be praised. Same with The Audacity of Hope.

Like alprova, I have only encountered excerpts of the book's contents. Bush's interviews about the book show a man who knows he made some mistakes, but it also gives a credible account of how he came to those decisions. Of course, these accounts are exerpts and may not fully reflect the context of the book.

What most impresses me is that Bush does not use this platform to bash President Obama, despite the fact that Obama has repeatedly laid blame at Bush's feet for our current economic situation. (Personally, I believe that the private sector was the leading culprit.)

In the end, generally books like this serve the authors well, if they can show others their human side. I would bet that people who are opposed to Bush would have a bit more sympathy if they read it. The same would be likely true for Obama and his books.

It is more difficult to demonize someone when you encounter their human side.

November 9, 2010 at 1:32 p.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "What is this obsession you have developed with masturbation?"


Reread what I wrote. My mind was certainly not on that subject at all. Your's may have been, but not mine.

I guess you haven't read the KY lube box either, to discover it's intended use. Now I don't know for sure, but I don't think that masturbation is even mentioned.

November 9, 2010 at 1:38 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Typical, you lie about what you meant to bring to mind. You suggest that someone did not know what the intended use was and implied that they were using it for something else.

Now go get some and put the KY away.

November 9, 2010 at 1:48 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Former President George W. Bush's book can only stir up bad memories for most of us – and lots of them. It certainly reminds me of another book involving his former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul H. O’Neill. In his book, “Price of Loyalty,” former Secretary O’Neill speaks about his own experiences within the Bush/Cheney administration.

O'Neill recalls that within 10 days after his inauguration Bush let it be known he was looking to go after Saddam. It was all about “go find me a way to do this,” says O’Neill. Along with this directive, O’Neill says that plans/memos about war crime tribunals, distribution of Iraq’s oil, and suitors of Iraq’s oilfield contracts were being circulated as early as January, February and March 2001.

Former Secretary O’Neill's book also mentions President Bush’s trillion dollar tax cuts, including the second round. After 9/11 and the invasion in Afghanistan, the budget deficit - needless to say - was growing. As such, Secretary O’Neill opposed the second round of tax cuts because he felt a second round would be it irresponsible – a view that even President Bush shared to some degree. But as expected, Vice President Cheney disagreed, argued and said: “You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.”

November 9, 2010 at 1:51 p.m.
mtngrl said...

I took Al's post as meaning Fran has a "slippery grip on reality"

I do appreciate a good double entendre, it shows just who's mind really is in the gutter....

November 9, 2010 at 1:55 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Francis, you are helping me have a wonderful day reviewing quotes from Winston Churchill. Here's one right up your alley:

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

To you Obama is evil incarnate. You don't see anything else. You're so narrow minded you can probably look through a keyhole with both eyes.

If you weren't so focused you might see that the Republicans are making tax cuts for the wealthiest their number one priority.

Cutting taxes on EVERYONE earning up to $250,000 is not good enough. That money, by and large, will be spent. I'm sure even you know that ours is a consumer driven economy. More people buying more goods and services is a good thing.

No, the GOP wants to include all income earned ABOVE a quarter of million which will blow a $700 billion hole in the deficit. That money, by and large, will find its way into off shore tax shelters and Swiss Bank accounts. That would be a bad thing.

Put that in your "fiscally responsible" pipe and smoke it.

November 9, 2010 at 1:56 p.m.
eeeeeek said...

Publishers often send advance copies of an upcoming release for review and input, sometimes there are rewrites.

Authors often have available copies of a soon to be released book, which they send to various folks to read in exchange for a quick blurb or such.

TV and movie studios have advance screenings. Again, sometimes there are rewrites. Imagine a pilot for a long running series having an actor or actress that the screening audiences didn't like. Refilming happens too.

Audio entertainment will often have pre release parties. I've received a fair amount of CDs to review. Mainly for my brutal honesty on what I like and don't like.

November 9, 2010 at 2:02 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

blackwater,

Out of control spending has created this deficit. Let's just roll the budget back to 2007 and get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and you would about have a balanced budget.

Houston, we have a spending problem here (not a revenue problem).

November 9, 2010 at 2:19 p.m.
Francis said...

"our president", alprova....is not an american president....he's a president, but he doesn't believe in the exceptionalism of america...

"our president"..behaves like our enemy.

"our president"....sides with enemies of this country over u.s. citizens... terrorists and illegal aliens..

"our president"...bad mouths us over seas and apolgizes for who we are and who've been.

"our president"...can't wait to bow to foreign leaders and monarchs.

"our president"...believes our best days are behind us.

"our president"...believes the private sector is the enemy and the government the savior

"our president"...believes the constitution is too much about keeping the government off our backs and that it should be more about what the govern ment can do to us

"our president"...has conceded our leadership role in the world at the u.n. and whenever he gets a chance in another country.

"our president"... views taxation, as most socialist's do, as a weapon to control "the great unwashed masses"...or middle" as that liberal icon, katie couric, put it

"our president"...is clearly a socialist and has no faith in the free enterprise sysetem...his dumb ass attack on the chamber of commerce for getting foreign contributions makes him look like an ass given how haters of this country, like george soros, have poured money into the democrat party

blackwater..obama is not the evil incarnate...but he is no friend of freedom and most certainly an enemy of free enterprise. he believes citizens should be ruled rather than governed....tuesdays's results reflect not only his stupid handling of the economy, but also the level of discomfort the majority of people feel for his authoritarian stance.

November 9, 2010 at 2:22 p.m.
eeeeeek said...

It's okay francis, we understand. We know your husband beats you.

There is help out there when you feel you can get away.

November 9, 2010 at 2:45 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Poor, poor Francis.

I repeat, though I know it will do neither of us any good:

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."


BRP (I like 'cabin boy' better but whatever)

I don't see your numbers adding up:

"Let's just roll the budget back to 2007 and get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and you would about have a balanced budget."

Okay, one more try:

The CBO estimated that the deficit in 2007 was $8.9 trillion. The cost of the Iraq War to date: $750 billion. Afghanistan: $365 billion. Both costs are skyrocketing by the second.

I am pleased that you have tried to offer something tangible. Maybe we just disagree about the numbers. How are you breaking it down?

November 9, 2010 at 2:54 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Here is something funny.

Get your peak in before the link police pull it.

http://townhall.com/cartoons/2010/11/09/6

You would think they would show us some mercy and leave these up since clay is incapable of anything funny.

November 9, 2010 at 3:06 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

blackwater,

I think you are quoting the debt? The deficit was something like 200 billion in 2007. You only need to eliminate the deficit to balance the budget.

November 9, 2010 at 3:11 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

blackwater,

Is there a way to change your username? I like cabin boy better too.

November 9, 2010 at 3:13 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

I just saw a funny T-shirt.

"I just neutered the cat. Now he's a liberal."

November 9, 2010 at 3:46 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

I just neutered the cat, and changed his name to clay.

November 9, 2010 at 3:51 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

BRP

It's almost impossible to say what the debt in 2007 really was.

The cost of both Iraq and Afghanistan was left out of all the Bush budgets and were funded with emergency supplemental appropriations. I think it's called 'cooking the books,' because we were spending about $5 billion a MONTH on both wars.

It's smart politically because the public doesn't really understand the full amount of our invested treasure. Bush did a 'good' job of trying to cover up our priceless invested blood, too, by banning all cameras at Dover AFB as the bodies of our fallen heroes came home for the last time.

Another Republican smoke and mirrors scheme to make the federal budget deficit appear smaller than it actually was, but numbers you would need to make your calculations accurate.

Just one of many reasons I truly despise our last President and wouldn't even buy his book for toilet paper.

November 9, 2010 at 3:52 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Oh, I see. I guess that is why Obama just spends with impunity. There is no hope. You might as well go FULL SPEED AHEAD into the ditch!

November 9, 2010 at 3:54 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

On a more serious note. How much would we have spent on the resources in Iraq if they were not in Iraq? I agree that it makes no sense that the wars were not in the budgets. Clearly, those clowns in Washington are not qualified to be in charge of a dime let alone trillions of dollars!

November 9, 2010 at 3:56 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

I just noted that one of former President Bush’s promotional talking points for his new book is how he became anti-choice as a teenager. According to Bush, his stance was solidified after his mother experienced a miscarriage and showed him the fetus in a jar. He claims this experience formed his philosophy that we should respect human life.

One would think that a man who was truly sincere and who truly felt a reverence for human life would have reflected more by now on his own unconscionable conduct, especially when you count all of the innocent men, women and children who were killed as a direct result of the lies that he himself orchestrated and promoted as President of the United States.

November 9, 2010 at 4:25 p.m.
Francis said...

last tuesday's results validate what i've been saying.

November 9, 2010 at 4:26 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Francis must have fallen asleep and immediately started typing in answer to nobody in particular:

"last tuesday's results validate what i've been saying."

So I repeat, since you seem intent on marching to your own invisible drummer:

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

November 9, 2010 at 4:37 p.m.
mtngrl said...

The bigger question is how much could have been accomplished in Afghanistan if those resources had been used there instead? If Bush had gone after Bin-Laden with the same gusto he went after Saddam we just might have actually caught him and put a stake in the heart of al-queda.

Instead Bush started an unrelated war and used the people's emotions over 9/11 to try to justify it. This unnecessary war helped recruit more al-queda members instead of hurting them, along with killing thousands of our own troops, contractors, and innocent Iraqis. He went into Iraq with 10X the number of troops he had in Afghanistan.

And thanks mountainlaurel for the reminder of Paul O'neill. Richard Clark and Richard Pearl came out with the same information. These folks were labled as traitors by the bush administration, even though nothing they brought out was ever denied.

Going into Iraq before the job in Afghanistan was finished was the worse thing he could have done for the supposed "war on terror"

November 9, 2010 at 4:42 p.m.
Francis said...

why don't you change your mind?

you have your view of bush..i have mine for obama.

i call it as is see it.

November 9, 2010 at 4:49 p.m.
Francis said...

there's no need to change my mind since the evidence backs me up on it.

no one on this site has given me any reason, or evidence, to convince me to change my mind regarding obama..no one...he is a socialist and he is anti- american....he's anti-private sector and believes the government should dominate our lives....

all evidence points to that.

i've seen him, heard him and followed his agenda...what more proof do i need?

you libs have your opinions about bush...i have mine about obama.

last tuesday's results, overwhelmng results, prove that most of america sees what i see. but, here, in the land of the lost, except for a few..you just don't see it.

November 9, 2010 at 5:01 p.m.
Francis said...

it's not fanaticism if it's backed up by facts, history, logic and common sense.

my pointing things out about obama..that are pretty obvious, pales in comparison to the nutty, baseless and breathtakingly stupid accusations and statementsdirected foward bush/cheney.

the whole hitler comparison with bush...the movie and books about how to assasinate him...the demonic portrayal of rumsfeld and cheney....the attempt to portray the cheney as advisor to bush thing as something sinister...

the way you libs swept under the rug obama's ties with jeremiah wright....double standard..

but somehow axelord and emanuel are more acceptable?

at the very least you libs are hypocritical and delusional..

you want to know fanaticsim....the whole gore/global warming hoax...... or the "hope and change" and "yes we can"..chanting...

you libs are lemmings.....

November 9, 2010 at 5:26 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

it's not fanaticism if it's backed up by facts, history, logic and common sense.

Don't know about the logic/common sense part, but you fail to offer up any facts or history. All requests for evidence are simply answered with more rants.

November 9, 2010 at 5:54 p.m.
Clara said...

Francis says ""our president", alprova....is not an american president....he's a president, but he doesn't believe in the exceptionalism of america..." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I've heard your phrase about the exceptionalism of America for months, but I have yet to hear a valid explanation from you what the term means to you.

To me it means we are a country made up of millions of people with vastly different cultural backgrounds, ideals, beliefs, morals, etc. We have been fairly cohesive.

The old analogy of you can break one stick easily but bundle them together and you have strength. This didn't happen in the Civil War and we almost lost our exceptionalism, but look what happened in World War II.

So what is your belief in American exceptionalism? I've been waiting for months for you to explain.

There are times when my computer went down and I might have missed it, so please take the trouble to inform me. Thanks!

November 9, 2010 at 6:01 p.m.
Dumbledore403 said...

I accept your apology Alprova.

I usually make more comments on Facebook. That being said...You will find that I am not one that will not name call. I will make my points and go on. I will calmly discuss the issues, and do my rant and raving in the privacy of my home. I will even tell you are right when you are.

November 9, 2010 at 6:23 p.m.
hambone said...

Seems to me there's a fine line between American Excertionalism and Arrogance, Francis!

November 9, 2010 at 7:55 p.m.
whatsthefuss said...

There comes a time when you have to realize that the person who draws these cartoons and the people who use the "Did you find this comment useful" are from the same inbred family. They possess a teenage mentality that is parellel to the texting cashier at a Shop Rite. I see we are back on the "Bush invaded the wrong country" rhetoric again. Go back one more time and see for yourself that every Democrat insisted that we must stop the Iraq threat. It was WMD's you know!!! Do we have to bring the short bus to pick up you "Parrotts" and bring you to the special school to show you once and for all?? Quit breeding with your brothers & sisters. It's against the law you know. Now come one and all. I want to see at least a 0 of 15. I believe that would be a record and take a little heat off of Francis. Is that all you got??? Remember you are all to much of a coward to attend the Times Press Disfunctional Family Picnic. I wonder what the man named Jesus would think of that???

November 9, 2010 at 8:05 p.m.
alprova said...

BRP whined: "Typical, you lie about what you meant to bring to mind."


For you, I'll draw a comic book.

Why, pray tell, would I need to lie about anything as stupid as why I used KY lube as a metaphor? I used that particular product because it has a reputation for being a product that provides superior lubrication.

The point I was attempting to get across was the to relate my opinion that Francis has virtually no grip on reality. And since most people "grip" with their hands, and that a loss of grip is sometimes due to the presence of a slippery substance on them, I used KY lube as a convenient metaphor.

And while KY lube does have a reputation for being a product used while in the throes of passion, when Mother Nature quits or is not present, so to speak, I was not aware that people buy it for those moments when one finds themselves left with having to manage their own desires to a successful conclusion in solo fashion.

Given your response, you may be one of those people who does. I'm sorry that you felt it necessary to reveal such information in a public forum.


"You suggest that someone did not know what the intended use was and implied that they were using it for something else."


Yes, I referred to the fact that he is apparently using it improperly and is thus losing his grip on reality. I in no manner suggested that he was engaged in any solo activity, again, so to speak.


"Now go get some and put the KY away."


I find no need to respond in any manner to that comment.

November 9, 2010 at 8:21 p.m.
rolando said...

"I just neutered the cat. Now he's a liberal." and "I just neutered the cat, and changed his name to clay."

Two beauties in a row, BigRidge.


whatsthefuss, you set records just sitting there...I can actually hear the libs gnashing their teeth.

November 9, 2010 at 8:22 p.m.
alprova said...

whatsthefus wrote: "There comes a time when you have to realize that the person who draws these cartoons and the people who use the "Did you find this comment useful" are from the same inbred family."


Well, that comment isn't going to win you any points of a positive nature.


"They possess a teenage mentality that is parellel to the texting cashier at a Shop Rite."


Another quite useless comment.


"I see we are back on the "Bush invaded the wrong country" rhetoric again. Go back one more time and see for yourself that every Democrat insisted that we must stop the Iraq threat."


The vote in Congress to invade Iraq was 297-133. Of the 133 "Nays," 126 were Democrats and 6 were Republicans. Those who voted in favor consisted of 215 Republicans and 82 Democrats.

Do you agree that your statement above is false?


"It was WMD's you know!!! Do we have to bring the short bus to pick up you "Parrotts" and bring you to the special school to show you once and for all?? Quit breeding with your brothers & sisters. It's against the law you know. Now come one and all. I want to see at least a 0 of 15."


Huh?


"I believe that would be a record and take a little heat off of Francis. Is that all you got??? Remember you are all to much of a coward to attend the Times Press Disfunctional Family Picnic. I wonder what the man named Jesus would think of that???"


Do you speak English?

November 9, 2010 at 8:33 p.m.
whatsthefuss said...

Here Alpo, come on boy!!! Get it. Oh your such a good boy, Oh yes you are. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4w...

November 9, 2010 at 8:41 p.m.
Clara said...

Dysfunctional is my volunteer business. I'd be glad to join the melee. How do I get an invite? C:-)

November 9, 2010 at 8:42 p.m.
carlB said...

Cutting taxes on EVERYONE earning up to $250,000 is not good enough. That money, by and large, will be spent. I'm sure even you know that ours is a consumer driven economy. More people buying more goods and services is a good thing. Put that in your "fiscally responsible" pipe and smoke it. Username: blackwater48 | On: November 9, 2010 at 1:56 p.m.


Reply to blackwater48:

What you said is correct, Under this global corporate monopolies economy, it is important that we define "a good thing." Has it been a "good thing" over a period of many years that the USA has lost much of our manufacturing base and the American jobs have been lost because the American companies have gone global? With this global corporate monopoly economy, the fact is that the American consumers don't have a choice of spending their money, when they have money, for manufactured goods made in the USA. Instead, the US consumers have been buying imported goods of the global corporate monopolies, manufactrued in the lower monetary value countries which the American manufacturing workers are competing with the lower labor cost. SO, is it possible for us to understand why it is that we need to give a broader view of this "good thing" when it comes to where the manufactured goods are made that the US consumers buy ?

November 9, 2010 at 10 p.m.
hambone said...

The name calling is exceptional is m it tonight!!

November 9, 2010 at 10:02 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"Houston, we have a spending problem here (not a revenue problem)."

Copy that 5x5. Prepare for de-orbit burn.


BW48,

You've confused debt vs. deficit. These are two related, but non-interchangeable figures when discussing the Federal Treasury's cash position. a.k.a. Our "collective", (.gov controlled) money pile.

Actually, it's a pit. A large one.

It is the total "on-the books" -debt-.

This hole is cumulative.

No matter how much money you pour into the hole, so long as you are digging out more than you put in, the hole grows.

It adds up, year after year. At no time since the '50s have we gotten ahead of the curve and dumped more in than we dug out.

Again, that hole is the -DEBT-.

A -DEFICIT- is a one year, budgetary overreach.

The CongressCritters spend more than they bring in, and the Treasury issues notes to cover the difference.

Those notes go into the "pile" as negative numbers in the hole.

Diggin 'n diggin.


Trillion+ dollar -deficits-.

13Trillion+ dollar -debt-.

100Trillion+ dollars in non-funded services promised to the existing population.

(Now where did we put that excess money we received for SS. Oh yeah, we wrote 'em an IOU, SPENT THE MONEY, and told the ignorant rubes that we had a surplus. Har har har!!)


Total Public Debt Outstanding

01/19/2001 5,727,776,738,304.64 01/02/2007 8,678,229,324,205.41

2.9 Trillion in 6 years. Slackers.


01/02/2007 8,678,229,324,205.41 01/20/2009 10,626,877,048,913.08

2 Trillion in 2 years. (Workin' that Dem magic in the House.)


11/08/2010 13,725,166,759,183.46 01/20/2009 10,626,877,048,913.08

3.1 Trillion dollars in less than 2 years. The far-left in full bloom.


http://treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

I'm not a huge fan of W.'s due to the left hook late in his 2nd term, but after watching the Lauer (sp?) interview, I wanna read the book.

November 9, 2010 at 10:46 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

carlB expanded on my general comment about tax cuts and placed the state of the American economy into a global context.

Couldn't agree more, CB.

Starting with Reagan in 1980 through the midpoint of Bush's presidency, stoked by tax cuts for the rich, 80% of the total of income increases went to the top 1%.

As a result the richest 1% of Americans take home 24% of total income. Those are numbers usually associated with third world countries and banana republics. Hey, there it is:

Banana Republicans.

In 1980, the average CEO of the largest American companies earned about 42 times as much as the average worker. By 2001, CEOs were earning 530 times as much.

This goes to carlB's point concerning American corporations shipping jobs overseas to increase profits. Well paying American jobs left, too, which has contributed to the current economic crisis. People have to work two jobs if they can find them. Both parents have to work which doesn't promote the best family environment.

Under Obama's tax proposal, even Bill Gates and Warren Buffett will receive a tax cut of $61,000. This has sent Republicans into a snit. They are outraged.

They believe it is in the best interest of the Country to extend cuts to the top 2%, even though we would have to borrow $700 billion to do so.

Obama is against this.To Francis, this makes the President a socialist.

The Republicans, starting with Reagan, have sold the middle class down the river and helped orchestrate the greatest transfer of wealth in our history. Francis, rolando, BigRidgePatriot, and the rest of you have stood on the dock and cheered them on.

I think you guys suffer from Fox Tourette's. You can't control what you are saying. It just gets regurgitated from the droning propaganda you guys ingest hour after hour, day after day, year after year.

For most Americans, the vast majority of us, the American dream is gone. Good paying middle class jobs are gone. About the only thing left is lottery tickets and the Tea Party.

Each offer the average working class ham and egg kind of guy the same chance at wealth.

November 9, 2010 at 11:38 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

carlB,

All of those things are included in the Treasury's numbers.

P.S. Tax cuts require no funding as those dollars are NOT spent by the government. Funding is only needed for initiatives that do require spending.

November 10, 2010 at 1:38 a.m.
alprova said...

whatsthefuss wrote: "Here Alpo, come on boy!!! Get it. Oh your such a good boy, Oh yes you are."


Look, I'm not about to argue semantics. Let's talk facts.

Making any statement that "EVERY DEMOCRAT insisted that we must stop the Iraq threat" is a patently false statement. Quoting Democrats for their support back then was based on totally contrived intelligence and the world knows it too. I'm sorry you choose to disregard it.

Every American at this point should be painfully aware that the intelligence presented to Congress was flawed, and there is more than enough information that has come out in the past few years to suggest that it was criminally manufactured.

The lack in finding any of those WMD's is proof positive of that fact.

George Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, was the most recent high ranking official to blow the whistle, stating that Bush was obsessed with invading Iraq and that manufacturing evidence to justify such an invasion was demanded by Bush.

Added to this, are released official documents obtained via FOIA, that prove that internal talks in the Bush Administration began in JANUARY of 2001 to draw up war plans and to invade Iraq with the purpose of toppling Saddam Hussein and installing a new Government.

Google "Origins of the Iraq Regime Change Policy" and peruse the first link. It is a declassified document dated 1/23/01.

Don't come back with the fact that the information contained in that document dates back to 1998. Note the date of the document itself and ask yourself why the Secretary would be making inquiries about regime changes in Iraq.

Want more proof?

At the same site you are on above, paste ~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/doc06.pdf, following the slash after "edu" and read more about the plans being made in July of 2001 that were being crafted by Donald Rumsfeld in a memo he sent to Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Vice President Cheney.

And if all of that is not enough to convince you that there are problems with Bush's recollection of events, and that the Bush and Cheney were much more focused on Iraq than they were with those responsible for 9/11, then lest you not forget Valerie Plame, who was completely trashed by Bush Administration officials after privately challenging them for the fact that she found no evidence whatsoever that Saddam Hussein was engaged in purchasing Uranium.

She was outed by Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's sidekick, because she of all people knew that the evidence presented to Congress was a little more than contrived and was supposedly based upon her findings. Her mistake was that she threatened to go public with it, and she underestimated how far some would go in trying to bury her before she could.

November 10, 2010 at 6:26 a.m.
alprova said...

Scott wrote: "P.S. Tax cuts require no funding as those dollars are NOT spent by the government. Funding is only needed for initiatives that do require spending."


And the Government derives it's revenue from...what source?

Reducing taxes must most certainly be counted at each and every facet when discussing the budget, deficit spending, and when referring to the National Debt.

Why?

Because that money that will now not be coming in reduces any chance of funding all of the above.

It's got to come from somewhere.

November 10, 2010 at 6:33 a.m.
wallyworld said...

alprova, thanks for that most enlightening and thoughtful post. After reading this forum for a couple of months now, I realize these posters on the right are not interested in facts, truth, historical references, or any information that will change their stubborn, uninformed thought process. The right-wing live in their own fantasy land and will not be swayed by truth, but it will come crashing down around them whether they believe it or not.

November 10, 2010 at 6:35 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

After seeing former President Bush’s promotional interview with NBC, I can certainly understand why so many Republicans demanded that he put off his book tour until after the election.

The man continues to lie and deflect, deflect, deflect. His answer to any and all tough questions these days appears to be - “buy my book and you will see.”

During the interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer, former President Bush insisted that waterboarding is legal. His reasoning - “because the lawyer said it was legal.”

When Matt Lauer reminded him that Tom Kean - Republican co-chair of the 9/11 commission - had said that the Bush/Cheney administration had got the legal opinions they wanted from their own people, Bush responded: “He obviously doesn’t know. I hope Mr. Kean reads the book.”

And when NBC's Lauer asked: "Would it be OK for a foreign country to waterboard an American citizen?" Bush responded: "It's all I ask is that people read the book.”

It’s too bad Matt Lauer didn’t inquire as to how much reading our former President was doing these days . . . and if he had read the 2010 Justice Department's report, which concluded the Bush/Cheney lawyers who gave the “legal justification” for the Bush/Cheney administration’s inhumane torture tactics had used flawed reasoning.

And if our former President had read the opinion of the Office of Professional Responsibility ethics lawyers who concluded that the Bush/Cheney lawyers who issued the “legal justification” opinion favoring the administration's inhumane torture tactics had ignored legal precedents and demonstrated “professional misconduct.”

November 10, 2010 at 7:11 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"It's got to come from somewhere."

Not if it isn't being spent.

Do you run your household budget the same way?

Spending should be based upon income, not the other way around.

November 10, 2010 at 7:24 a.m.
Francis said...

american exceptionalism means standing out from the rest of the world...which is what we've done since our inception. our love of freedom has rubbed off on the rest of the world since we won independence. american exceptionalism means we've dominated and have been leaders in so many areas. amercian exceptionalism means other countries in the world have tried to follow our model. american exceptionalism means the world has been a better place since we've come on the scene.

what makes american exceptionalism so unique is that it was accomplished by a people who had to correct their flaws and confront their own demons along the way.

if america is no longer an exceptional country, as obama would have us believe by his constant aplogies and statement regarding that america can longer this and no longer that..etc..

November 10, 2010 at 9:07 a.m.
Francis said...

then we need to get back to that level...

believing in american exceptionalism doesn't mean one is arrogant or boastful.....it just means a belief that we've been leaders and should remain leaders...if america shouldn't dominate..then who?

we're not a perfect country...but there's no need to apologize for our past and concede our leadership role in the world. that's what obama has done.

November 10, 2010 at 9:13 a.m.
mtngrl said...

Francis, Alprova's November 10, 2010 at 6:33 a.m post and the ones by mountainlaurel explain exactly why we have lost that American Exceptionalism you describe. Bush's unprovoked war and torture policies are exactly why no other countries want to follow our model (except maybe those we are fighting). I am proud to have a president that will finally apologize for those atrocities by the previous administration that have made me shameful of what this country was doing.

We cannot act like the terrorists do and expect to still be exceptional in the eyes of the world.

November 10, 2010 at 9:29 a.m.
Francis said...

well, i guess since alprova posted it then it must be gospel, huh?

sorry..american exceptionalism can't be lost or apologized away.....

especiially by obama..

what bush did or did not do does not dimish what we've accomplished or taint our exceptionalism........at all...

if you think bush caused it to be lost, then you don't understand it to begin with. you libs' claims that bush is responsible for "the loss of american exceptionalism" has no credibility based on your over the top anger at him since before he was even elected. you're hardly biased on that.

we're no more terrorists than a rape victim is a criminal. same goes for any country who fights back. the only opinion that matters on iraq are those of the iraqi people. interview them and see what they think.

obama apologizes to the world for everything we do.....if your proud of that then that speaks to your lack of understanding of what makes america so great.

america is still the destination of choice for people around the world who want to live in another country.

they don't share your view...thank goodness.

November 10, 2010 at 10:20 a.m.
alprova said...

Scotty quoted my sentence: "It's got to come from somewhere."

He replied: "Not if it isn't being spent. Do you run your household budget the same way?"


Everyone does. A lack of, interruption of, or permanent loss of income does not mean that one's expenses and obligations are automatically reduced. They march right on. Sometimes you have to seek a source by which to meet those obligations, or have you never had to deal with such problems in your life?


"Spending should be based upon income, not the other way around."


Spending will and forever be based on the need to do so, for whatever reason exists. It holds true for families and is equally true for our nation, depending on their needs at the moment.

Republicans and their Utopian followers are quite interested in cutting spending, in order to justify keeping tax cuts in place for everyone, which would be fine if it were not for the fact that the tax cuts implemented over the past 30 years have contributed in large part, to deficit spending problems, causing rising debt, and have produced little evidence whatsoever that this nation is better off at all as a result of cutting taxes for those at the top.

Over the past nine years, the right has supported and encouraged massive spending to fund two wars that have been complete and utter failures, with bills that will continue to have to be paid for at least a decade into the future.

And because of the manipulation and deregulation of our financial markets, banks, and investment institutions, which derailed an economy, again, attributed clearly to the right, our nation lost a bundle, winding up in the hands of a very select few, who will probably get away with it.

Spending since Obama came into office, that he personally signed in agreement to do, is ONE TENTH of all that is owed, but he is blamed for it all. Isn't that special?

With a few mistakes along the way, the vast majority of the spending he personally approved of, help save this nation from a worse disaster than we were headed for. I know it and you SHOULD know it.

But you're too busy arguing that tax cuts for those who can afford to pay taxes don't matter, and that spending is the problem.

November 10, 2010 at 10:32 a.m.
carlB said...

carlB, All of those things are included in the Treasury's numbers.

P.S. Tax cuts require no funding as those dollars are NOT spent by the government. Funding is only needed for initiatives that do require spending. Username: SCOTTYM | On: November 10, 2010 at 1:38 a.m.


Reply to SCOTTYM: The Treasury's report did not say anything about the Bush's unfunded spending or that that part of the increase of Obama's budget deficit increase was because he added the unfunded spending to his budget. When all of these unfunded expenditures occurred as they did in the Bush administration, apparently were done because of idealogical/political reasons. The history of how the Bush tax cuts came about is almost comical. It was like kids with money in their pocket, as the saying goes, "the money was burning a hole in their pockets." Even with the total National Debt still at $5.3 trillion dollars and the budget deficit in the black at the end of Clinton's terms. The Republicans along with Greenspan's backing thought that this was not a good thing for the Nation to have too much money and a balanced budget. It was a deliberate move to keep this Nation in the "Red"

When the Bush tax cuts occurred, this took away income for the Government's budget under the completely Republican control and eight years later the Republicans budgets had run up the total National Debt to $12.0 trillion dollars at the end of the 2009 Fiscal Year. Plus the Nation being in the rushed up 2007 deep recession due to the fraud from greed without the proper controls on the financial systems.

November 10, 2010 at 10:34 a.m.
mtngrl said...

"well, i guess since alprova posted it then it must be gospel, huh?"

What he posted is well documented fact from multiple sources. Who posted it doesn't change anything.


"...no credibility based on your over the top anger at him since before he was even elected. you're hardly biased on that."

I was not angry at Bush before he was elected, where did you get that? Oh yeah, that's the way you formed your opinion of Obama. From all your posts here you're a fine one to talk on that subject... jeesh


"we're no more terrorists than a rape victim is a criminal. same goes for any country who fights back."

Name one Iraqi that attacked us.... just one...

November 10, 2010 at 10:38 a.m.
whatsthefuss said...

Lions & Tigers & Bears OH MY!!! Paul O'Neill, Your killing me. Now that is funny, but if he is your guy for the truth so be it. As to WMD's go back and listen to all our leaders at that time speak of them. The date was Feb. 1998. Then move along to 2002 and hear the rhetoric repeated again and again. I read your nice article but what I read is what someone thought. I do not see these documents published. What I do see is this piece of history. Iraq Liberation Act

After several covert operations against Iraq in the mid-1990s failed, increasingly fraught anti-Iraq rhetoric, endorsed by hawkish Democrats as well as Republicans, culminated in President Bill Clinton’s 1998 signing of the Iraq Liberation Act, which partially endorsed the neoconservative agenda. [Doc. 2] The act established regime change as official U.S. policy and provided funds for opposition groups and propaganda operations, but did not call for direct U.S. military action. The Clinton administration still did not view Iraq as a high priority, however, and neoconservatives were disappointed by the government’s lack of follow-up after the act was signed.

Interesting the author states Clinton still did not view Iraq as a high priority. When we listen to him speak in Feb of 1998 he has a much different tone. The date President Clinton signed this act was Oct. 31 2008. He clearly states Iraq is an imminent threat and speaks of WMD's 8 months prior to his signing the act. The powerful Dems continued with their rant about Iraq and the threat 4 years later. So grow up and realize your party that just received an attitude adjustment was as big a part of this mess as the Republicans. As to the gentleman that hides in caves along the Pakistan/Afghan border, why with the bumbling Bush long gone and the brilliant Obama at the helm is he still breathing and roaming freely? Wallyworld, there are a few facts with historical references thrown in and as far as I know they are all true. You have to love video tape because it is the same no matter how many years have passed unlike the publications alpo presents that contain a very one sided view. You have to love the name of the source. The National Security Archive. It sounds very governmental, dosen't it? Imagine, it was started by a former Washington Post journalist? Go figure. It appears to be very selective about what it is in search of. Must just be one of those coincidences??? Has anyone noticed we no longer see reporters with our troops to daily remind us what a terrible thing war is and what a terrible president we have for allowing this to continue? Wallyworld, how about you present to us your truth and exactly what is going to crash down upon us. Please hurry as I am holding my hand in a very uncomfortable position.

November 10, 2010 at 10:47 a.m.
alprova said...

Among all the gibberish spouted by Francis on the subject of American exceptionalism, the following blurb was written by him;

"america is still the destination of choice for people around the world who want to live in another country."


Do you really think so? From around the world? At one time, yes. Today? Not a chance.

What you claim only holds true for only two classes of people -- those who are totally impoverished, and those who have plenty, but are seeking a lower cost of living. Hispanics and Canadians emigrate here for those two reasons and do so for those respective reasons.

Other than that, the applications from those seeking to live here from those in other countries are all but non-existent, again with the exception of those who may fall into those two classes of people mentioned above.

Right now, there are probably more people that would love to leave this country, than those who want in.

About the only thing exceptional at the moment about the United States, is the amount of abject ignorance by many of the people of this nation, too lazy to inform themselves to many facts surrounding what our politicians and our leaders are up to, and why.

November 10, 2010 at 10:50 a.m.
whatsthefuss said...

Clara, You have an automatic invite and I am so glad you deal with Dysfunction Pro Bono. It may come in handy at such a gathering. I was hoping Clay would take the lead in setting up the party but you being the only one to RSVP perhaps he will wait until next year. I'm still waiting for my free beer that was offered after election day. Another promise not delivered. Disappointment lurks!!

November 10, 2010 at 10:50 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

We do have a history of supporting dictators that are friendly to us, or are fighting the Soviet Union, human rights violations completely ignored. We also have a history of changing sides when it suits us. Take our support of the Taliban in Afghanistan, who we supported when the Soviets invaded. We also supported Saddam Hussein when he was fighting Iran. There are a string of central and south American regimes that we backed because they were anti-Communist, all well and fine except they were also anti-democracy. These are sad and shameful facts about our foreign policy (yeah, the Brits are also guilty) and a practice we should avoid in the future and also acknowledge in our history. That we are hated by some is an unfortunate result of our misguided efforts. We are also loved by many, even 65 years later, for what we did in WWII. WE are the greatest country in the world, for many reasons, and the most powerful, but with that power comes the responsibility to do what's right and to admit when we err.

November 10, 2010 at 10:53 a.m.
whatsthefuss said...

CORRECTION!!! Lions & Tigers & Bears OH MY!!! Paul O'Neill, Your killing me. Now that is funny, but if he is your guy for the truth so be it. As to WMD's go back and listen to all our leaders at that time speak of them. The date was Feb. 1998. Then move along to 2002 and hear the rhetoric repeated again and again. I read your nice article but what I read is what someone thought. I do not see these documents published. What I do see is this piece of history. Iraq Liberation Act

After several covert operations against Iraq in the mid-1990s failed, increasingly fraught anti-Iraq rhetoric, endorsed by hawkish Democrats as well as Republicans, culminated in President Bill Clinton’s 1998 signing of the Iraq Liberation Act, which partially endorsed the neoconservative agenda. [Doc. 2] The act established regime change as official U.S. policy and provided funds for opposition groups and propaganda operations, but did not call for direct U.S. military action. The Clinton administration still did not view Iraq as a high priority, however, and neoconservatives were disappointed by the government’s lack of follow-up after the act was signed.

Interesting the author states Clinton still did not view Iraq as a high priority. When we listen to him speak in Feb of 1998 he has a much different tone. The date President Clinton signed this act was Oct. 31 2008 The date President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act was Oct. 31, 1998. Not Oct, 31 2008 but perhaps everyone knew that already.

November 10, 2010 at 10:55 a.m.
whatsthefuss said...

lkeithlu, That was honest, historical and factual. Thank you!!

November 10, 2010 at 11 a.m.
Francis said...

the u.n., u.s. congress and other nations went along with the invasion of iraq. deal with it. bush was not capable of doing it without approval. the idea that bush lied and was clever enough to sneak it by everyone is ludicrous given you lib's view of bush as being to stupid to tie his own shoes.

get over it

you libs' have never thought america was exceptional..never...america is always losing it's exceptionalism to you libs......exceptionalism does not mean perfection or being spotless.. human beings are not perfect

the notion that bush is a torturer or like a terrrorist only exists in your head. nobody is buying it no matter how many times your repeat it.

you libs have no credibility regarding your claim that america has lost its exceptionalism..none.. you're like the little boy who cried wolf...everyone is sick of hearing it......and it always just happens to be republicans as the focus.

not one proud american thinks this country is perfect..but real americans know we are except- ional.

your charges against bush dont' hold up..if it's all that evident..and you have what you need...then he would be in prison. libs have controlled our gov- ernment for two years...where are the charges against bush/cheney...? .....ooooooo..scooter libby...we got him. what a bad man.

the fact is obama is doing the same things bush had to do...

November 10, 2010 at 11:15 a.m.
SavartiTN said...

I've heard it said that people find Bush likable and is the kind of guy that they would have a beer with. I can understand that but in my life, the people that I might go have a beer with aren't, generally, the people that I would want to be in charge with running my country.

I've been watching Bush's interviews and the one thing that has impressed me is that he wants to come across as a clever, witty person. A bit of a smart ass. But he hasn't really exhibited any substance. After 8 years in the White House, he still doesn't come across as a leader. That surprises me.

He's still convinced that the intelligence against Iraq was good info. Why not? If he admitted otherwise then would he be accountable for what happened to Valerie Plame? He said on Oprah that the financial crisis "snuck up" on him. How...I ask...does that happen when you are the President? Where were your advisers?

Then he puts it off on Freddie and Fannie for allowing loans with less restrictions. I remember reading an address to the financial market where Bush wanted a 4% increase in mortgages to consumers who usually did not qualify for loans. This was about in 2005.

The list of transgressions has been posted here over and over. I could tell you a couple that would have Francis screaming and throwing the monitor across the room but I need not go into more of them. I'm just saying that his interviews are disturbing. He still seems to be the kid that wants to show up his big brother Jeb..."ha ha, I was president first" kind of thing. I agree with Bush...Jeb would have made a good president.

He seems to be a man dealing with his own reality. That is what made him fail as a President. I might read this book. I haven't read any good fiction lately.

November 10, 2010 at 11:35 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

"Name one Iraqi that attacked us.... just one..."

I'll take up that challenge. A friend of mine is a Navy SEAL. While on his first deployment to Iraq, his unit was responsible for helping to train the new Iraqi military personnel when one of the Iraqi citizens being trained showed his true colors and killed the SEAL standing next to my friend, from point blank range. And from my friend's report, that wasn't an isolated event. It happened several other times during the training.

November 10, 2010 at 11:41 a.m.
SavartiTN said...

Apparently Francis learned a new word...exceptionalism. Congratulations, Francis!

November 10, 2010 at 11:46 a.m.
SavartiTN said...

I think that mtngrl meant before the war, Musicman.

November 10, 2010 at 11:48 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

Good point, Savarti, but I would counter that with the fact we were preventing further crimes against humanity in general. Saddam modeled his regime after Hitler and murdered countless innocent people. I don't think the innocent people we saved from him are less valuable simply because they were waiving a different flag than us.

November 10, 2010 at 12:10 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

I see alprova is still writing long senseless diatribes to be skipped over. I suppose that will never change. However, one exchange where the genius was explaining spending verses income caught my eye. Some part of alprova's mind apparently works well, but the part that processes logical thought has somehow become dead or dormant. The statements in that post sound like they are coming from a child that has not yet grasped the difference between want and need.

I think it offers some insight into one of the characteristics of a mind that is wired to support liberal ideals.

Username: alprova | On: November 10, 2010 at 10:32 a.m.

November 10, 2010 at 12:18 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

Good counter, Musicman. Saddam was an evil man who was killing people but, ironically, an evil man that the U.S. supplied with chemical and other weapons to use against that humanity. U.S. Policy is clearly a very complicated thing.

November 10, 2010 at 12:33 p.m.
Francis said...

savartitn...jeb bush is george's younger brother.

you do realize just because someone is taller than another person doesn't mean they're necessarily older, right?

you learned something new today.

musicman...they facts you gave regarding the navy seal incident will be quickly dismissed as not true by the libs on here....

November 10, 2010 at 1:41 p.m.
mtngrl said...

Thanks SavartiTN, my question was a direct response to the quote from Francis just above it.

and Musicman, first I want to say Thank you to your friend for his service to our country. I also believe you have a good point about Iraq, but my main questions to all of you who support the Iraqi invasion is -

Why was getting Saddam more important than getting Bin Laden?
Why couldn't any decision on Iraq wait until the real job in Afghanistan was finished?

November 10, 2010 at 1:51 p.m.
whatsthefuss said...

mtngrl, have you ever played a record that had a flaw called a skip. It plays that one small section of the song over and over and over and over and over. Annoying isn't it??? WHY<WHY<WHY!!!

November 10, 2010 at 2:15 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

"Why was getting Saddam more important than getting Bin Laden? Why couldn't any decision on Iraq wait until the real job in Afghanistan was finished?"

Those are good questions. I don't think getting Saddam was more important than Bin Laden. Then again, we still don't know where Bin Laden is even though we had CIA ops in Afghanistan searching before ever invading Iraq. Was it for rights over oil fields? Some think so. Was it over fear of WMDs? The ones who don't believe the first believe this. I think it may have been a little bit of both.

I wish we would have focused everything on finding Bin Laden first except that if/when he goes down, they will rally with a new leader. Luckily we have helped to setup a legit gov't in Iraq. Maybe they won't revert back to a dictatorship anytime soon, but it wouldn't surprise me if they do.

"U.S. Policy is clearly a very complicated thing."

It especially is in this case, and ironic for sure. Daddy sent the weapons to the bad guys, then W. punished them for using them. We have a lot to be proud of, huh?

November 10, 2010 at 2:25 p.m.
mtngrl said...

Thank you Musicman for providing an intelligent, well-thought out response - so unlike the one above yours. I fully agree with your post.

Although I believe the answer to the questions is because W was set on a regime change in Iraq before even becoming president, and Afghanistan was a distraction to him. I remember seeing an interview where he mentioned the regime change in 2000 during the recount process, and Pearl and O'Neill and others came out verifying that later. That is my opinion and what it is based on. I am sure others out there think different, but I have never seen a reason why Iraq couldn't have waited. I also believe it was pathetic to ever attempt to tie Iraq to 9/11 and that was dishonorable to the victim's memories. The connection was proved wrong almost immediately, but the masses still believed - some even to this day from the looks of Francis's post that started my question.

I believe "why?" is the most important question there is to ask when it comes to decisions of war, sending our soldiers into harm's way. It is important to ask on past decisions as well to keep from repeating the same mistakes again. Not asking "why?" means you just blindly accept what is fed to you.

So why do you have such a fear of the questions whatsthefuss? and why do you fail to even attempt at answering?

November 10, 2010 at 3:06 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Although the story about the Navy Seal is sad, special forces have been killed by foreign nationals many times without the nation even acknowledging, much less using it as an excuse to occupy another country. Attacking US civilians in the US (think Pearl Harbor or 9/11) is a different story. To use the death of a Navy Seal by an Iraqi, while proving your point that Iraqis have attacked Americans, it does nothing to support the decision to launch an invasion of Iraq.

November 10, 2010 at 3:57 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

Yeah, I dropped the ball on that one, lkeithlu. Admittedly, I didn't really analyze the context in which she asked that question. I was just skimming through posts on the fly while I had a free second and didn't think before posting my reply. Technically speaking, that was one Iraqi who attacked us, but I do realize it wasn't one who attacked us on 9/11. Iraq didn't have a hand in that. Sorry for my stupidity on that one.

November 10, 2010 at 4:25 p.m.
Francis said...

bush couldn't have invaded iraq without approval of congress. the u.n. backed the attack, along with other countries.

the president can 't got to war alone...contrary to what you libs have been saying about that for 8 years.

i never stated that iraq had a hand in 9/11, although i'm sure hussein loved every second of it.

November 10, 2010 at 4:36 p.m.
mtngrl said...

Francis, if you never stated Iraq had a hand in 9/11, then what exactly did you mean when you said the following at 10:20 a.m:

"we're no more terrorists than a rape victim is a criminal. same goes for any country who fights back. the only opinion that matters on iraq are those of the iraqi people. interview them and see what they think."

Exactly what victimization are we fighting back against in Iraq?

November 10, 2010 at 4:54 p.m.
Francis said...

what am i on trial..?

where was i 10:20 am on november 10th 2010...man..

regarding our fight against terrorism...in general...an aggressive retaliation against terrorrism is mandatory.

the victimization of the iraqi people by hussein....genocide...etc.. that's a perfectly good reason to be there....the u.n. went along with it. just because hussein didn't directly attack us, doesn't mean we weren't justified in going in.....once again...bush did not do it without approval of congress and the u.n...

and, yes...i believe we should also fight genocide wherever it is...that's right. africa...no matter where. it's the right thing to do..

and the iraqi people's opinion is all that matters....they're much better off now than under hussein...ask them and see. it's not perfect there...muslim factions will always fight, but ridding the world of a hitlereque dictator is a good thing.

November 10, 2010 at 5:19 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

" what am i on trial..?

where was i 10:20 am on november 10th 2010...man."

Apparently at your keyboard posting:

""we're no more terrorists than a rape victim is a criminal. same goes for any country who fights back. the only opinion that matters on iraq are those of the iraqi people. interview them and see what they think."

That, my dear, is called citing evidence. Something that you fail to provide when asked, unlike what mtngirl just did.

November 10, 2010 at 5:50 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

carlB | On: November 10, 2010 at 10:34 a.m.

"The Treasury's report did not say anything about the Bush's unfunded spending or that that part of the increase of Obama's budget deficit increase was because he added the unfunded spending to his budget."

You aren't getting it. The Treasury tracks every single dollar going in and every single dollar going out. It doesn't matter what Congress or the White House says the budget is. Every penny is accounted for at the Treasury. Those "off-budget" items are in the numbers I posted. That money was spent, the Treasury counts it. Period.

"The Republicans along with Greenspan's backing thought that this was not a good thing for the Nation to have too much money and a balanced budget."

There hasn't been a balanced budget since the '50s. This is a fact. You have been lied to. Look at the real numbers.

09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38 09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32 09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39 09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73 09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34 09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62 09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,633.43 09/29/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86 09/28/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06

Notice that the total debt increased every single year. Clinton and the Republican Congress got really close to a balanced budget, but it didn't actually happen and there certainly were no surpluses. It doesn't matter what the Congress or the W.H. says. If the debt increased, there was a deficit.

I'm frankly amazed than anyone still believes the "Clinton surplus" myth, when the numbers are right there for all to see. One must be willfully blind, or mathematically illiterate to believe such tripe.

November 10, 2010 at 6:07 p.m.
Clara said...

"america is always losing it's exceptionalism to you libs......exceptionalism..." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Francis, I'm still waiting for a reply to my request that you define the term for me.

Does anyone else know what he means?

November 10, 2010 at 6:35 p.m.
rolando said...

"That, my dear, is called citing evidence. Something that you fail to provide when asked, unlike what mtngirl just did."

My,my. That certainly sounds officious and weighty, lkeith. Funny I can't find it in my Black's.

Pity it has no meaning in any discourse, especially those in which the "accused" has expressed his opinion...and stated it was such.

Calling an opinion "evidence" is a contradiction in terms. Opinion is no more "evidence" than is an anecdote. [Unless the opinion is expressed by a person established to be an expert witness and testifying on an area of his expertise.]

So, lkeith. Are you awarding Francis "Expert Witness" qualification on the issue? Careful now. Think real hard.

November 10, 2010 at 7:06 p.m.
carlB said...

"The Republicans along with Greenspan's backing thought that this was not a good thing for the Nation to have too much money and a balanced budget."

There hasn't been a balanced budget since the '50s. This is a fact. You have been lied to. Look at the real numbers.

SCOTTYM | On: November 10, 2010 at 6:07 p.m.

Reply to SCOTTYM: Every fiscal year there is a budget subnitted by the administration to Congress and worked out. If this budget is adhered to without over spending, then that years budget has a "zero" deficit. The budget might be too high for the intake of the money and if it is higher, than our intake then the National Debt is increased.

November 10, 2010 at 7:50 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Do you actually think Scotty does not understand that?

Let me guess that he did not think he needed to explain the difference between budget and actual. JHC, he was trying to point out that even though the budget may have said there was going to be a surplus the actual was a deficit, every year.

November 10, 2010 at 9:06 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

rolando, it's clear that you don't know what evidence is. Francis made a statement that was in contradiction to an earlier statement. mntgirl quoted it back to him. THAT is evidence from earlier in the thread. About as simple an example of supporting what you say with evidence as one can have.

Now I see why you have so much trouble with science.

November 10, 2010 at 9:26 p.m.
whatsthefuss said...

Dear mtngrl, I have answered your repeated rant on a previous blog here. I find you laughable with your constant WHY and accusations of fear. When you are presented with the facts you continue with your WHY,WHY,WHY. Perhaps if you come off the mountain and breath some air that is not so thin it will bring back your memory and you can start to process what you read and write.

November 11, 2010 at 9:29 a.m.
mtngrl said...

oh yeah, you were the one that kept saying everyone was thinking of Iraq immediately after 9/11 even after posting your own proof it was al-queda, and keep bringing up democrats talking about WMDs as if that actually answered the question of why Iraq was more important than going after those that actually attacked us.

clear air is great for my memory, maybe you should try some yourself.

I only had 2 why's in the post above, less than in your response.

Why do you keep coming back with irrelevant rants? Why do your posts always sound like a whiny teenager? Why do you hate the question why so much?

There's a few more whys for you. Deal with it. I'm going on to more recent blogs

November 11, 2010 at 11:48 a.m.
SavartiTN said...

Why, thank you, Francis. I stand corrected. I actually knew better...Jeb is Marvin's and Neil's older brother...but we do get caught up in the moment sometimes.

November 11, 2010 at 9:19 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.