Notice how, despite what Barack Obama and the media will tell you, it was the Republicans calling for tighter oversight of Fannie and Freddie back in 2004. But the Democrats were quick to defend those who made them rich, even going so far as to lob pathetic personal insults at regulators attempting to raise the alarm.
Now let’s hear Speaker of The House, Nancy Pelosi’s viscious politcal rhetoric and finger-pointing only moments before the Bailout vote on what was supposed to be a non-partisan bill to help the American people.
Are House Republicans expected to endorse her comments by voting for the measure? So why did the Media give Speaker Pelosi a free pass after they called the following a “Political Stunt.”
But nothing was ever said about Obama’s casual attitude on the subject or his refusal to set aside politics for two days to do his job. Could this be because Obama benefits from economic turmoil?
So, America, does the montage you just saw at all represent the picture that the media has painted for you about the two parties, the economic crisis, and the candidates?
On the first video, what party attempted to raise the alarm FOUR YEARS AGO on Fannie and Freddie while Senator Obama lined his pockets with their dirty money? What party was on the side of the “Wall Street Fat Cats?”
On the last three videos, which of those three appeared to reach across the aisle to work with both parties?
Who is the leader and who are the dividers?
The media is lying to you! Don’t fall for it.
~Man Overboard
91 Comments
I’m not really sure what you are driving at here, Jack. I understand that Democrats are just as, if not more so, dirty as Republicans.
I am glad to hear that Republicans tried to raise the alarm four years ago, but then have to ask the question, “With the Senate and House under their control, how did they not manage to do something about it?” Partisan politics isn’t satisfactory because they controlled the majority and could have gotten anything they wanted through, including lots of bad legislation.
Pelosi’s comments were derogatory and critical of the Bush adminisration (rightfully so), but she was far too complimentary of the Clinton administration. After all, Bill Clinton “balanced” the budget off of the political suicide that is raising taxes, which Bush Sr. did, not Billy. She is also hypocritical in that she spoke so negatively of the Bush administration and the bail-out, but then voted for it despite her comments. Ludicrous – when will this woman leave?
I do not commend McCain for “putting aside his campaign to work on the rescue measure” for two reasons: (1) he announced his intentions as if he were going to rush right back to Washington, when in reality he chilled out in NYC for 22 hours and even did an interview with Katie Couric (much to the chagrin of David Letterman) before going to sleep to get a good night’s rest and then going to Washingt (this is political stunt at it’s finest); and (2) McCain hadn’t voted on a single thing since April 6th before “rushing” to Washington to work on this bail-out.
In the end, why will no one discuss the real reason for this mess – the introduction of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which deregulated banking?
So before the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks had to stick to what the Fed set the prime rate at?
Sorry Jay, I probably should have asked that in your other post.
No problem. The Banking Act of 1933 declared banks that accept deposits from customers can not underwrite securities (the mechanism by which corporations issue stock, bonds, or mortgage-backed securities, among other creative financial instruments). It also declared that corporations that engage in the business of underwriting securities can not accept deposits from customers due to the risky nature of securities underwriting.
The Gramm Leach Bliley Act reversed this decision so that banks could go back to underwriting securities. And look what happened in less than ten years.
My point being
1. It was Democrats pushing for ‘politcially correct loans’ to people who could not repay them. At the same time, they were taking plenty in the way of money from these companies.
2. It was Democrats who made the issue into a politcal one because Bush is easy to pin this on. Republicans made attempts, perhaps with other motives but attempts nonetheless, at working on a bipartisan issue.
3. Pelosi and Obama politicised the issue to the point where Republicans bailed.
4. Somehow, with all the above, the media spins this to make Bush, McCain, and House Republicans to blame for this entire crisis and there is no accountability whatsoever on the part of the Democrats.
There a lot of people accountable for what happened. However the “evil” media is correct when it says that this happened under George W. Bush’s time in office and as Jay pointed out during a time when the republicans had control of the house and senate. You can spin it anyway you want but those are the facts. I wish Sarah Palin had been in power none of this would have happened.
Jack,
Pelosi’s speech was wrong in every way. It just doesn’t make sense that she would be so divisive when trying to seek a unified voice.
But come on…the Republicans voted against this thing with a majority! And if they did it in response to Pelosi’s speech…well that’s just a shame.
And Obama and McCain are still senators until they are elected president – so their influence on this bill is limited to how they decided to vote.
I just don’t think its realistic to pin this on one person.
Its probably a good thing that the bill didn’t get passed in such a hurried manner anyway. There should be revisions to the bill before it is passed and I’m not just talking about tax breaks.
Oh yeah, Pelosi is apparently under Federal investigation for giving her husbands firm money. Ha…haha.
It is alleged that she is also Satan’s Concubine
So now that Senate has passed the act, what does this mean?
I’ve actually visually confirmed that one. But I deny all allegations of wire-tapping the nether-world without proper written authority.
I have to read the bill first, but then I will let you know. I have heard rumors floating around about $805 billion and tax cuts, which would seem to me to be polar opposite sides of the economic corrective spectrum. I really need to read the act to ascertain its substance since most of what you hear is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
The ‘wooden arrow’ clause sounds fishy to me
There is a reason why the Republicans didn’t act on any these proposals; they were terrified of being attacked and demonized in the media as “racists” because the vast majority of these bad loans, millions and millions of them…went to blacks and hispanics. That’s why. The Media is MORE powerful than either party. Even though the Republicans had “power” over both houses, they knew they could be destroyed by the Democrats Pitbull, the Media Lie Machine, if they got out of line.
LOL! Who is “The Media”…I’m just curious, cause until somebody can explain who actually calls the shots in “The Media” and who is held accountable for airing pro-Democrat material, I just don’t get how “The Media” is different from “The Illuminati” or any other conspiracy theory evil group that controls everything in a secret coordinated effort.
I actually know a few people who work in the media industry, so does that makes them a part of “The Media”? Do you think they had a role in airing Pro-Democrat material?
Andrew,
CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, Time Magazione, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Daily News, and Washington Post to name a few.
I wouldn’t exepct a Liberal to ever admit media bias. On the contrary, your first inclination will most likely be to cite Fox News as a coutnerpoint. For the record, I don’t argue that Fox News is incredibly biased Conservative. But the fact that the rest of the media attacks them for being so is hypocracy at it’s worst.
Take this ridiculous economic stimulus bill. God forbid ‘The Annointed One’ be criticized for this, the single most digusting piece of legislation ever to come out of our government.
No, instead all the media will say is “well, the last 8 years were so bad, can you blame him?” Obama should have an approval rating as low as this bill does, because it is really the only thing he has EVER done – and it sucks to high heaven.
But instead, the media gives him a free pass for nearly a trillion dollars worth of pork spending on what is better described as the liberal social agenda than economic stimulus.
I think if anything the majority of “The Media” is in it to please public opinion, and that’s about it.
“The Media” only started looking anti-Republican/anti-conservative after public opinion for Bush and his policies also started dropping.
Now…….if you think that public opinion for Bush fell BECAUSE the Media suggested this kind of opinion through their programming…well that’s a conspiracy theory equal to Big Brother being controlled by the Illuminati.
Which came first, the Media or public opinion?
Who really caused the bail-out failure are the Wall Street executives who gave themselves almost $20 billion in bonuses for a year where they had to go begging for tax-payer money in Washington. Here’s the thing: in order for someone to earn a BONUS, they should be performing well and executing at their jobs. Having to ask your government for money to cover losses for poor business decisions is hardly bonus-worthy.
Oh, and Jack: How is Obama’s package any different than the one Bush and McCain and the rest supported in the fall? They both seem very similar to me, with the exception that Obama is actually pissed off that executive compensation has sucked up billions of the bail-out.
Last year’s bill was also garbage and pork – but it sure wasn’t Bush and McCain’s, although they had a hand in it. Remember, the Dems, for the last two years, have controlled both houses of Congress.
Obama is pissed about executive compensation but not Pelosi and her hundreds of billions in earmarks? Why not?
What does $400 million for STD prevention have to do with economic stimulus? Don’t have sex with strangers, I just saved $400 million.
$30 Million for new sod at the Mall of American? Plant seed for 3 million.
If you want to stimulate the economy, stop draining dollars from it with these political favors you owe to the people who got you elected and calling it economic stimulus.
Obama said he would eliminate earmarks and stop corruption in Washington – well this bill is the opposite – and it was written entirely by HIS party – the party he leads. If he can’t control Pelosi how is he supposed to change the world like everyone claims he will?
STD’s and high birth rates are rampant in poor communities…in large part because of a failing sex education system, and a failing education system in general (trust me I’m experiencing it first hand this year).
Jack, you obviously support draining our tax dollars into extra welfare handouts for all the families that don’t think to use protection and either: A) Keep pumping out babies, or B) Get STD’s that cost lots of money to remedy due to a lack of health care…thus further draining the system and our tax dollars and our economy.
This can be seen as typical liberal spending OR as an attempt to solve a problem that actually exists in the fringes of our society.
Well said, Andrew.
Andrew wrote: ” “The Media” only started looking anti-Republican/anti-conservative after public opinion for Bush and his policies also started dropping.”
I seriously hope your kidding.
Jon, just explain to me a few things…
1) When did liberals take control of “The Media”?
2) How did liberals take control of “The Media”?
3) How do we end this biased liberal programming?
1. When Walter Cronkite first spoke out against the Vietnam War.
2. Hollywood influence and opinion-shaping polls.
3. There is no stopping what can’t be stopped. It will always be Fox News and ABC vs. Newsweek, The Daily Show, Real Time with Bill Maher, CNN, 60 Minutes, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and many others.
Here is a great article on this very issue.
Jon,
That’s from the poorly designed research article you cited above. Please explain how this makes anything clearer or more factual?
Andrew, I think it hits the nail on the head with, “Perception is reality.”
People left of center will say that Fox News leans right, however, people right of center will say that 90% of the media is situated left.
Do you have anything concrete that proves the majority of media is not slanted left?
How about this one:
Public opinion of Obamas bill is about 30% yet no one thinks Obama or the left should be held accountable for nearly a trillion dollars of wasted spending…why is that?
This bill is a sham and Obama has not taken one single bit of heat for it becuase the media will never hold him accountable for anything.
Joe Biden says there is a 30% chance this will fail yet no one says anything…why?
The bill is full of ear marks and political favors but no one says anything…why?
He wants to give tax ‘refuds’ to people who don’t pay taxes and no one says anything…why?
Half of his cabinet are tax frauds and no one says anything…why?
If Bush did any of this stuff the media would be in a feeding frenzy and you know it.
Jon,
Even by the stats generated in that research article, the majority of participants did not see the Media biased towards liberals.
The reason is that the sample was split in 3rds…1/3 Liberal, 1/3 Moderate, and 1/3 Conservative.
The majority of moderates, and almost all liberals saw no bias, or voted no opinion – which in that study counted as ambivalence.
So if you still want to use the above article to bolster your argument its not gonna work.
Andrew, why would a liberal see a bias in the media when 90% of the media is liberal? If anything they feel comfortable, hence their reason for having no-opinion. Arn’t you proof of the same? Its like me or Jack saying that Fox News is fair and balanced.
We can focus on an article or we can focus on the grand scheme of things. Lets look at the forest and not the trees.
I agree with Jack in his previous comment and you yourself admitted there is a bias today:
Can you provide anything of substance that proves the media did not have a liberal bias during the Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton years?
I am suprised one of you guys havent wrote a blog reaction to the Mayor of Las Vegas wanting Obama to apologize story.
…because it hasn’t been proven to be a waste of spending. And we won’t know it’s a waste of spending till after its been spent. That’s the nature of all legislation. Criticism of legislation before results can be shown is always motivated by ideology.
Andrew, come on with that last statement now…
This is the U.S. Federal Government, in all its inefficient, bureaucratic, bloated glory that we are talking about here. You really don’t think they are going to waste a trillion dollars??? It is what politicians are born to do.
The Dems are loading up the latest fail out with countless amounts of Pelosi’s pet programs because they know that this is their big chance to jam these initiatives down the beltway and get them passed. Don’t think for a minute that the Democrats are not exploiting the suffering economy in that regard.
As for my comment,
My reasoning is not that “The Media” in general is liberal, but that editorials in different media formats (TV, radio, internet/blogs, print) began to reflect the anti-conservative/ anti-Bush opinions of the public, so as to ride the wave of popularity and achieve high ratings. (Of course I’d have to find research to prove this…it is just my observation)
My issue with the theory that “The Media” is liberal, is that that kind of belief doesn’t take into account all the different facets of the media industry. Commentary based programming isn’t the only aspect of “The Media”.
Admittedly, I don’t know a great deal about politics an most of my opinions are base mostly on gut feelings and what I think passes the smell test or feels right to me. I do fancy myself as someone who knows sports, so I’ll use this knowledge to make a parallel. The media is like the refs. Both sides think the ref is on the other side and is swaying the game in the opponents favor. The truth is the refs don’t give a crap.
The media is any source that gives information. I think it is important to look at many sources before making an opinion (I wish I took my own advice more often but I have a short attention span). However, what usually happens is those who lean right will get info from right leaning sources an the lefties among us will do the same. In conclusion blaming the media is as fruitless as blaming the refs. The losers still lose and the winner still wins.
Am I the only person who thinks that this new stimulus bill has more pork in it than Miss Piggy pounding her own pudd in the middle of a spam packing factory?
Did you see the executives testify before congress today? It was priceless when they were asked to raise their hand if their company owns a private jet. Every one except GS.
This bill better be a lot more transparent than the last one.
Greg,
No doubt that the Dems are taking advantage of this opportunity to advance their ideological agenda.
And they should. And kudos for Bush and his administration for advancing their ideology while in power. After all, there’s no better time to prove the worth of your ideas than when you finally have to power to enact them.
But…in the end, only past legislative failures should be used as an argument against proposed legislation.
To Jon & Jack & all Obama Haters,
Rather than the generalized ideological criticisms thrown at this stimulus bill, I would love for the critics to dig up some legitimate research on what parts of Obama’s stimulus package have already been proven ineffective by past legislative failures.
Do it. Otherwise you can’t really be taken seriously.
Well then Andrew, why don’t you dig up instances where the government prudently spent the tax dollars of its citizens.
That would make for a great post actually…
Andrew,
Explain then how the Frisbee Golf Course included in the stimulus bill is not wasted spending?
If that is legitimate legislation than I propose Feb 15 be declared National Silent Ball Day.
This bill exposes the fact that Obama is in way over his head and he is 100% unable to reign in Pelosi and take command of his party.
I stand by my initial assessment – Obama will be the worst president since Jimmy Carter. Then again, he has only been in office for a month, so maybe I’m wrong and he will be worse than Carter too.
$73 billion of the money is dedicated to 11,391 “misc. projects”. Here are a few examples of the project portfolio:
HOW DOES ANY OF THIS APPLY TOWARDS REBUILDING AN ECONOMY IN RECESSION? Are there any pork stocks out there? Maybe I should invest in them. It will probably yield a better return on investment than some of the spending listed in “this” stimulus package by “this” administration.
I think it is funny that Jimmy Carter is brought up because he was determined to get rid of pork belly spending. Realized shortly there after that it was part of the machine and something that was beyond his control. I think if someone had the energy or desire they could find pork belly spending in every piece of legislation going back as far as you’d like.
Jimmy Carter also was a better president then he is given credit for. A lot of his moves helped to create the prosperity that Reagan is given credit for. He also was the victim of high gasoline prices and as we recently found out the economy grinds to a hault when this occurs.
Happy Birthday Jack you big jerk.
Keeker, anyman who allows tax rates to exceed 60% is a full blown idiot. I mean literally dumber than people who laugh at Wayans Bros movies.
Whoa whoa, just because YOU believe that a frisbee golf course is more frivilous than
60k hookers and Private jets doesn’t mean it is. I mean thats what are state reps spent thier previous bailout money ( read as regular taxes) I agree that the Bill has its downsides, and I agree that people very much over blame the past regime, but that past regime also pushed the spendthrift attitude that caused the whole mess from the beginning. I don’t really know how he’ll do yet, I just wanted to post on this here fancy blog thing. I don’t really know how this government, or internet thing really works.
Hey Jon,
Do you remember during the election all the heat Governor Palin got from Democrats for the Wasilla Sports complex she pushed for???
Sure looks like there are plenty of sports complexes for out of the way towns in O-bomb’s bill…that is interesting, wouldn’t you agree?
The man likes sports… I mean he is…. A guy! Got ya there didn’t I. And as far as Palin was concerned, I never took anything she said or anything that people gave her crap for seriously. Main reason being is you always attack the weakest of the heard, and she screamed target when she hit the scene. WHat I don’t like is this. If my small business fails because I made bad decisions and am a s**** businessman, nobody is going to be there to bail me out. SO why should we bail anyone out. RIde it out, survival of the fittest. Isn’t that how capitalism is supposed to work. Mind you I’m not a D or R nor do I like our ( these are the two people we picked) election process. Explain to me why there was any bailout to beginwith other than panic in the upper echelon of Business and politics.
We are in total agreement D-Rex. What is so bad about doing nothing?
The only thing the government can do is make things worse.
“So sit back relex and strap on ya seat belts, ya nevah been on a ride like this bafo”
~Dr Dre
Glad we are in agreement. TIme to put the kids to bed. Later.
What ever happened to not criticizing the president because he is our commander and chief and we are at war. That lasted less then a month. See it’s not that easy when you didn’t pick him and you disagree with his policies. I don’t think either of you hate America by the way. Criticize all you want it’s your duty as a disgruntle American.
Oh, Keeks…I completely agree with Obama as far as not pulling the troops out of Iraq. I agree with his stance on Afganistan too. Militarily, he is doing exactly what Bush was doing.
It is the economic policy I have a problem with. A spade is a spade and pork is pork. Disagreeing with spending on a sports complex is way different than practically rooting for the away team in war.
And Jack I completely agree….happy Bday btw!
Jon,
So let me get the rules straight on criticizing the president. You can do it for his domestic policies but not his foreign policy? I think there needs to be a categorized list we can all follow. That or you can complain anytime you want which is what you’ll be doing when president Obama starts to change the path in Iraq. Sounmds like you are splitting hairs to me.
All the things that have been mentioned for wasteful spending could easily be classified as public works projects by the way. Not to mention when sport complexes go up it gives opportunities for other small businesses.
Nah, just using common sense.
I am not saying this is how YOU should be. This is how I am.
I am perfectly fine with the Orange Bowl commission hearing me complain about spending all that money on a parking garage. Doesn’t really seem like that could jeopardize the lives of the construction people or anything.
As far as terrorists go, even if I disagreed with the president, I certainly would not voice my opinion loud enough for the terrorists to hear it. It might rally them. Am I that wrong for thinking this?
You can call it splitting hairs if you want, however, this is not a black and white world is it Keeks?
Keeks,
The Iraq argument has nothing to do with the spending bill.
But let’s talk about that.
First of all – we’ve all but won in Iraq – so why would we change direction now? You need to get off of the popular campaign slogans already. If Obama wants to change direction, it would mean he would rather lose.
Second of all – it just burns Obama up that we are winning a war he said we couldn’t win because of the surge that he said wouldn’t work.
As I have always said, history will prove Bush right on Iraq.
Gentlemen, I will kindly refer you to my Economy for Dummies blog because you all clearly need a refresher. Government spending is a major component of GDP. Since consumers and business are not spending or investing, the government needs to so GDP doesn’t take too bad of a beating. Government spending isn’t necessarily bad, it is bad when spent on enriching the wealthy, incompetent executives who then spend it on foreign goods.
I have no problem with the Government spending money, just when they spend it on crap that like I listed above. War, oil, security, etc. obviously cost the gov. a lot.
Jay, if the government put a trillion dollars in the hands of resident consumers (1 trillion / 350 million people = $2,857.14 per person), would it benefit the GDP better or worse than putting it in the hands of park builders and sports complex contractors who will probably outsource work and possibly use illegal immigrants?
I anticipate my logic is terribly flawed, but hey, somebody has to ask the dumb questions.
Well, I just found out that the $50 billion in loan gaurantees to build new nuclear power plants was taken out of the bill.
Out of all the crap the Democrats are trying to force down the tax payer’s throat, the one iota of this shameful bill that might acutally do somthing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil was taken out.
This wasn’t even a handout – it was a LOAN (As in we, the tax payers would get OUR MONEY back).
But we can all rest easy knowing the FRISBEE GOLF COURSE will still get built. Behold the logic of a Democrat. Thanks for nothing you idealistc jackasses.
Will someone please vote these losers out of office already.
Jon, you’re question isn’t dumb and your logic is only as flawed as everyone else’s, including mine.
What I would say to your point is:
1. When the government gave back $600 to individuals last year, only 20% of them actually put it back into the economy. The other 80% either paid down debt or took it overseas. I think the same principle will apply in this case.
2. You bring up a good point with the sports complex. Sure, it could provide nominal benefits to the local economy. But it also could, as you said, wind up in the hands of individuals who pay no taxes and contribute nothing substantial to our economy. I think it is a bad idea.
Anyway, my thoughts on how to use stimulus money have just been posted in a more thorough environment. Check them out, disagree, agree, hang me in effigy, it’s all good. After all, these are only opinions and we know the old saying about them…
Jack, You will never get me to believe we are winning the war in Iraq. This is something we’ve argued about since even before the war started. Talk about wasted money. You think maybe that has something to do with the state the economy is in? You complain about Jimmy Carter spending but George Bush has spent a ton.
We have to first define what winning is before we can say we won. The goal kept changing over there and I personally don’t see anything good coming out of that situation.
Jon,
I’m sorry but it seems to me like you are changing your stance on complaining about the president to fit the situation (reminds me of George Bush’s stance on Iraq). I’m sure when President Obama does something you disagree with in foreign politics you’ll complain too. You claim that complaining about the president on the war is dangerous. Well couldn’t I say the same thing about complaining about the economic stimulus pact is dangerous too. If people aren’t supportive then that will effect consumers confidence and thus hurt the chances of us getting out of this mess?
The day I undermine the president in a way that risks the lives of our troops will be the day you can rightfully point out my hypocrisy….too bad that day will never happen.
Whose lives am I risking by saying that a good percentage of the stimulus bill is being spend poorly? Its as harmless as when I criticized W about NCLB.
*spent
Everybody needs critique I see nothing wrong with it.
Is the conservative circle jerk over yet?
Ok, so Jack and Jon, on the topic of sports complexes and the “waste of money” that you think these buildings would be….
How long does it take to build a sports complex?
How many individuals would need to be hired to build a sports complex?
How many jobs in the sports complex would be available to the surrounding communities once the complex is built?
…or is a sports complex some kind of weird creature that builds itself and is able to serve refreshments during halftime with out hired help?
Tax cuts do not create jobs.
Jon,
Perhaps you are right. I’m merely pointing out that when the leader of this country is someone whose policies represent something that you disagree with it is incredibly difficult and dangerous to hold your tongue. By the way poverty has killed a hell of a lot more people then war has.
OK, while I am reticent to continue this obnoxious comment thread, I need to say this about the stupid sports complex:
1. The amount of money is so minimal that is represents 0.01% of the total bail-out package – that is immaterial.
2. Andrew – what the economy needs is more quality, high-paying jobs to replace those lost by educated and skilled workers, not minimum wage hot dog vendors. That doesn’t really help very many of the hundreds of thousands of professionals and skilled laborers who have lost their jobs over the past year and a half.
Sorry, but dem’s da facts.
Jay,
If high paying jobs are needed, college degrees are needed. So a stimulus plan should pay off college loans, or offer more extensive scholarships.
Clearly I needed to stake a claim to the 70th comment.
Andrew,
Your last comment reveals quite a bit about the liberal mentality.
First of all, student loans are the cheapest debt there is. Why would the government pay back debt with the lowest interest rates on the market? If the government were to pay back anything, which it shouldn’t, it should be the higher interest debt that is toxic to personal finances.
Second of all, why shoud the government feel obligated to pay back ANYONE’s debt? Who cares? I don’t? I don’t borrow beyond my means and hence I don’t need/want/ask for help.
If you want the government to pay student loan debt than I want a refund check for the student loans I paid back! Why should I be penalized in the form of higher taxes to pay someone elses debt when I am the responsible one. Why penalize the people who DIDN’T screw up the economy in order to help the ones who did? That applies to CEOs and irresponsible borrowers alike.
Do you honestly think I give an airborne fornitcation if some over-educated under-abled twit can’t get a job with her art history degree and thinks I should foot the bill for it?
Keeks,
A former Dictatorship enemy has become a Democratic ally in a strategic location smack dab in the middle of the most unstable region in the world. A country of over 50 million people rejected radical Islam and took to the polls instead of the AK. How can that not be victory?
Jack,
First I must compliment you on the phrase “airborne fornication”. Bravo you are quite the wordsmith.
Second, At the beginning of the operation if the past administration said we are going to Iraq and we are going to take out a country that hates us and then rebuild it so it becomes our ally I wouldn’t be as put off. However, we were sold something very different. Now either that was due to incompetence or deception. Six years later, over 4000 dead, and hundreds of billions of dollars to me that is way too high a cost. Obviously you disagree and that is fine but to answer your question, that is why I don’t consider it a victory.
It was because every intelligence agency in the world said the weapons were there.
I’ll agree the cost was high, but how many people would Saddam have killed the next time he threw a temper tantrum? Worse yet, what if Saddam died and his lunatic son took over? How many people would he have kileld. Saddam looked like Mother Teresa compared to Uday Hussein who was next in line for the throne.
I am Kileld, son of Jileld – Hero of the Stupid.
Jack,
This is what I found at Factcheck.org (No doubt part of the liberal media) regarding your statement that every intelligence agency said there were wmds
Graham was one of the few who disbelieved the report’s conclusions, however. And it’s not at all clear that more lawmakers would have doubted it had they read the full report. The unclassified portions do make clear that not all intelligence agencies agreed on all points. The Department of Energy’s technical experts didn’t agree that some aluminum tubes bought by Iraq were for use in uranium-enriching centrifuges, saying they were more likely for use as rocket launchers. And the State Department’s intelligence experts said they saw no “compelling case” that Iraq had an “integrated and comprehensive” program to get nuclear weapons. But even the State Department skeptics saw evidence of “at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapons-related capabilities.” And the rest of the intelligence community expressed “moderate confidence” that Iraq “is likely to have a [nuclear] weapon by 2007 to 2009.”
My first reaction was why didn’t these law makers read the friggin’ report.
I have two interesting articles I would like to list:
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
Now obviously these weapons were old (pre-2003 invasion), however they were found after 2003 proving two things:
1) Saddam lied about destroying all his WMD’s.
2) The WMD inspectors missed these in their numerous inspections.
That being said, one can infer that Saddam would have continued to lie about not having WMDs and inspectors could have possibly missed more WMD’s (unless you think this was the only batch Saddam had).
What are your thoughts on this Keeks?
Jack,
You are definitely right that the government shouldn’t pay off student loans (and Jack, you should be paid back if they ever did). But they should do something about the interest rates that are part of the private sector loans put out by Sallie Mae, the most popular provider of student loans.
Jon,
The only thing that can be said about WMD’s, America, and the invasion in Iraq is that we clearly are Team America: World Police.
There are two views on how the World Police should conduct their superhero activities…
#1- Preemption – Fight evil doers because you are convinced evidence will surface in the future to prove your fight right.
#2- Reaction – Wait until the proof is obvious and clear as day, and then fight the evil doers with evidence in hand.
I personally think we should have never used preemption to invade Iraq, but that’s only because I think America needs to stop wasting troops and money on being the World Police, not because Iraq wasn’t a threat to the region.
Your missing the main benefit of preemption which is prevention. There are a lot of foiled terror plots because preemptive action was taken and likely so without probable cause or “evidence in hand” as you say.
These 500 chemical munitions (classified as WMDs) found in Iraq since 2003 could certainly have been sold to religious terrorists by Saddam. The terrorists could have then used these agents to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in a city.
I would rather speculate without evidence how many lives were saved than count bodies of lives that could have been saved. Wouldn’t you?
I also understand why Americans are upset that 4245 US soldiers have died thus far when there has been no “evidence at hand” to link Saddam and Al Qaeda. At the very least, however, Saddam HAS been linked to other religious terror groups….people who would love to inflict 911 caliber-damage to the United States. Well guess what..they will no longer be harbored, supported, or funded by a totalitarian brutal dictator named Saddam Hussein. And the family and friends of those 4245 US soldiers should know that those troops died to prevent such evil in the future.
Andrew you are way off on the education retort to my comment. What I am saying is that there is a large population of skilled and educated workers who have been laid off and need jobs. Education has nothing to do with it because these people already have degrees just not jobs anymore. Hot dog vendors don’t replace wall street analyst jobs.
Jon,
I read them both and thought it was strange that George Bush had come out and said that there were no wmd’s found and Charles A. Duelfer who led the Iraq Survey Group said…..”We were almost all wrong on the weapons”. So I did a little research of my own and this is what I discovered.
I don’t know if the link worked.
link didn’t work forget it
Keeks,
Here is a little tutorial on how to insert a link into a blog.
Hope it helps!
These discussions would go so much smoother in person, lol…
I see your point Jay. But at least the stadium building will create some employment for construction workers for the next year or so when they start that up. Plus stadiums do bring in business for the community they are built in. That’s at least what happened to the section of Newark that they built the minor league park and the hockey arena in.
Jon,
thank you I feel like a schmuck.
a href= “http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/were_there_really_weapons_of_mass_destruction.”html
2nd try. Thanks Jon
href= “http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/were_there_really_weapons_of_mass_destruction.html”
forget it I’m beyond help
mmmmmmmmm…I think we are gonna need a clean-up in isle 6 Keeks..lol
America is over…it has collapsed from mass brain death. Like a giant oak with a rotten core, it is just waiting for the next big storm to knock it over.
We are witnessing the Fall of Rome…this is how it happened. I’ll bet Rome had it’s own form of Liberalism in it’s last 2 or 3 generations.
Liberalism is national and cultural suicide.
It is the rule of people who are internally no better than spoiled rotten, arrogant, immature, inexperienced teen agers.
Once it collapses completely it’s going to get very nasty. There will be alot of violence, suffering, police state rule, etc, before the final bell tolls.
Get ready.
Interesting, I’ve sort of been saying similar things recently but I think from another perspective. Liberalism is causing the suicide? How about the divisiveness of partisan-fighting? Both sides are essentially regressing to schoolyard argument-tactics, simply putting one another down and blocking one another’s progress at the cost of precipitating no work, no progress, no vision, and nothing accomplished. You can’t blame this all on any one side – it’s both that are to blame and they should be ashamed of themselves for losing sight of what is important and instead focusing on blockading one another for the sake of political positioning, which essentially lacks all substance.