Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditI have a short, direct question. Don Rumsfeld's shameful tenure as Defense Secretary comes to an end a week from Monday.
Meanwhile, he jaunts off on a "secret trip" to Baghdad this weekend for what's being billed as personal farewell to the troops. We know he's not conducting any real government business. If he wanted to personally thank "his" generals, he could have signed onto to a cheapo Web teleconference.
So why are the taxpayers underwriting this PR junket? why should one penny of public funds be spent to bolster the personal legacy of this disgraced architect of the catastrophe in Iraq?
Considering that we will be paying for this misadventure for the rest of our lives, isn't it fair that Rumsfeld be passed the tab for this last, gratuitous weekend in Baghdad?
Share this article
News & Analysis »
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
RSS
Mr Cooper, just be glad Rumsfeld is gone. Trying to get in "one last dig" on ol' Donny isn't worth it.
Want some fun, try to get the few remaining supporters of staying in Iraq to explain why Robert Gates "didn't really mean it" when he said we are losing there.
(I tried with CPT and LVLIB and their only answer is "Gates is ignorant"....odd thing to say about Bush's choice for # 2 on our national defense, huh?)
Posted by Mask at 12/10/2006 @ 07:44am
Sorry Mask, Cooper raises a valid point. Where is the accountability and humility of this administration even in the face of defeat. Rummy's victory lap is disgraceful and he's making Richard Nixon look like a class act. "I resign the office AT NOON TOMORROW." No trips, no PR, no "finessing the legacy"...just gone.
Posted by kimbo1 at 12/10/2006 @ 09:02am
MASK
You dishonesty regrading the GATES subject is now fairly shameful. You have been answered honestly and directly. Let it go. I have a different opinion you have yours, you wont acknowledge that i have answered you for whatever reason. I think you have a problem.
Want some real fun??? Ask the opponents of the war for a strategey.
Like you....what would you do...the ISG plan?? Surrender and capitualation to Iran.
Posted by CPT at 12/10/2006 @ 09:28am
Posted by KIMBO1 12/10/2006 @ 09:02am
KIMBO....what do you expect?
Mr Cooper and you can bitch and moan about it, but does it CHANGE anything? No....so what's the point?
Posted by Mask at 12/10/2006 @ 09:36am
Posted by KIMBO1 12/10/2006 @ 09:02am | ignore this person
and MARC COOPPER
As much as you dont like him, he is still the SECDEF and has gone several times to IRAQ/AFGHAN....you cannot do anything about it.
SECDEF usually do a goodbye tour....I appreciate Rummys maginificnet service in extraordinary times. You dont have to.
History will treat him better than contemporaries will.
Posted by CPT at 12/10/2006 @ 09:37am
Or you could ask the proponents of the war for a strategy! No, just kidding!
Or maybe we could just get some more of Bush 41's friends to put together a study group to study the ISG! That'll burn some more time until little Bushy leaves office.
Posted by kimbo1 at 12/10/2006 @ 09:37am
Posted by CPT 12/10/2006 @ 09:28am
CPT, you like facts how about some?
1. 60+% of Americans want us out of Iraq ASAP.
2. Robert Gates, the man GEORGE W BUSH chose as SecDef, said we are losing there.
3. James Baker, family friend and advisor to the Bushs, is one of the authors of the ISG recommendations...not some Dem or lib hack...but the guy who was George HW's Sec State and fought for Bush's election in Florida.
4. From Senators Gordon Smith to Chuck Hagel, even former supporters on the REPUBLICAN side have said it needs to be ended.
As I said to you before...besides Bush, Cheney, and a few guys at the "Weekly Standard" and you and LVLIB of course...who's left supporting this thing in Iraq?
Posted by Mask at 12/10/2006 @ 09:39am
KIMBO
So, can i take that to mean that you dont have strategy
Posted by CPT at 12/10/2006 @ 09:41am
Mask,
Calling attention to a problem is the first step toward change. For the next 2 years, we as a nation will be treated to a massive "legacy preservation" campaign while no accountability is taken or results achieved... in Iraq, with the deficit, with immigration...you name it. (Meaningful to 2008.)
Bitching translates to votes, and that's why Rummy's on his final tour. At least when Michael Jackson takes a farewell tour, we don't have to pay for it.
Posted by kimbo1 at 12/10/2006 @ 09:46am
Bitching translates to votes
Posted by KIMBO1 12/10/2006 @ 09:46am
Okay....but since Bush is term limited, Cheney's career is over in 2009, and Donald Rumsfeld isn't likely to run for any elected office....again...
what's the point?
Posted by Mask at 12/10/2006 @ 09:48am
MASK
There are a few more supporters than that..many are alreadyu there.
But 60% that is powerful number.....have they been asked the question: If withdrawal means essentially losing and surrendering to jihadists and extremeists are you still in favor of immediate pullout?
You know there is a Pentagon study coming out; like the ISG, they arent the only ones making recommendations.
But then again you said it all, Bush beleives he is POTUS, hence the ONLY one who can order a withdrawal...as long as he is not for surrender and capitulaiton....there is hope. Gen Abizad and Casey have not said "Abandon ship."
The venerable study group has not taken that into account. But I guess Gen Abizad and Casey are just hacks right
Posted by CPT at 12/10/2006 @ 09:50am
CPT,
"Strategy" is what you have when you plan and enter a war. What you, Republicans, the Administration are asking for is a remedy for a lack of strategy.
Posted by kimbo1 at 12/10/2006 @ 09:52am
KIMBO
He is still the SECDEF.
Why is that such a hard concept for you to get a hold of? You are pissed that he isnt tucking his head between his legs and cowaring. Right? Good. Let him go to EVERY overseas base...if it pisses off the radical left..so be it
Posted by CPT at 12/10/2006 @ 09:53am
KIMBO
No...the ISG...affirmed the essential strategy that has already been advocated.
Train more iraqis...this is its central holding....nothing new there.
I find it hilariaous that so many DEMS are backing the ISG...because its main solution is to train more Iraqis...non shit...thats what has been said by Rummy and Bush all along.
I guess it took DEMS and old Reps on a committee together to finally back up that lynchpin of the strategy.
Shows how hyperpartisan DEMS are in regrads to national security.
Posted by CPT at 12/10/2006 @ 09:57am
CPT,
That's right, Republicans are the big spenders now! Let's pay for him to fly around the world!
He's leaving because he failed. And while he saves face over the next 2 weeks, more soldiers will die.
His humility would show his accountability. But he unfortunatley possesses neither.
Posted by kimbo1 at 12/10/2006 @ 10:03am
Mask, I've read your posts, so your last comment surprises me. The Republican in-fighting regarding Iraq has serious ramifications for 08. I've already moved ahead of the irrelevancy of Bush/Cheney, as have most Americans/Republicans.
CPT, I made no comment about the ISG findings. I simply mocked such a cocky "steadfast, resolved" President needing multiple study groups to, as Pat Buchanan puts it, "get his chestnuts out of the fire."
Posted by kimbo1 at 12/10/2006 @ 10:13am
I had exactly the same thought when I heard about the trip. Why are we continuiously paying for unnecessary boondogles by incompetent government officials?
Posted by sjagoda at 12/10/2006 @ 10:21am
CPT, I agree with you...let the man say his final goodbyes as he wishes, afterall his hasn't been indicited or convicted over his "failures" (as KIMBO1 would put it..)
KIMBO1, are you truly interested in him showing humility or do you simply want to humiliate him?
Posted by ACook at 12/10/2006 @ 10:24am
SJAGODA, Rummy is still the Secretary of Defense until Gates takes over in January. These last 2 weeks ain't gonna kill ya....
Posted by ACook at 12/10/2006 @ 10:27am
The venerable study group has not taken that into account. But I guess Gen Abizad and Casey are just hacks right
Posted by CPT 12/10/2006 @ 09:50am
No, but they're military officers and they don't undermine CIC.
Let's ask that 60+% "Do you favor staying in Iraq for atleast 4 more years and ANOTHER 3000 dead GIs?" (just a mirror of what you're asking them to be asked).
Again, you can talk about how Abizaid and Casey are right and THE WHOLE WORLD is wrong. But it doesn't matter.
The large majority of the public doesn't support it...and if Bush wasn't MAYBE looking for a way out himself, he wouldn't have embraced ANY of the ISG report...but he didn't, did he?
Iraq is lost; I think even McCain knows it and his call for MORE troops is simply "CYA" for 2008 and his later claim that "They COULD have won it, if they had listened to me" (sort of like all the conservatives who (like you now) said "We COULD have won it in Vietnam if we had only stayed longer or put another 50,000 in the field!")
Which is what you'll be doing in the next few years as well.
Posted by Mask at 12/10/2006 @ 10:48am
Posted by KIMBO1 12/10/2006 @ 10:13am
Sorry, KIMBO, but I don't see how "Donald Rumsfeld took a 'victory lap' in 2006"....is going to count for many votes against John McCain or Mitt Romney?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 12/10/2006 @ 10:51am
ACOOK, Like the results in Iraq aren't indictment enough. Rummy could take some lessons from Colin Powell, a true class act. He has been actively repairing his image and credibility, only not at taxpayers expense. (He was also accountable.)
MASK, It all speaks to accountability, which will undoubtedly be an issue for Republicans in 08. Remember, many Republicans were calling for Rummy's ouster. So is that the Republican message? We want him gone, he wrong for Iraq, but he's a heluva great guy? Let him spend a few mil, for cryin' out loud!
Posted by kimbo1 at 12/10/2006 @ 11:08am
You know what? You guys are right. We should pay for Rummy to travel! But I hate to see him traveling without a companion. Maybe ex-FEMA director Mike Brown could accompany him!
Posted by kimbo1 at 12/10/2006 @ 11:11am
Posted by KIMBO1 12/10/2006 @ 11:08am
KIMBO...for Gosh's Sakes, there are BIG issues, medium-sized issues, and then nit-picking....this is the last.
Rummy on THE WAR itself, I THINK, will rank a wee bit higher (by a magnitude of 1000) than him taking a junket to Baghdad on his way out.
Mr Cooper should concentrate on the WHALES...and not the krill.
Posted by Mask at 12/10/2006 @ 11:48am
CPT,
"Strategy" is what you have when you plan and enter a war. What you, Republicans, the Administration are asking for is a remedy for a lack of strategy.
Posted by KIMBO1 12/10/2006 @ 09:52am
I don't think any of us fully understand how people like this think. For them hostility and violence are a strategy in and of themselves. That's because their main objective is not to accomplish anything worthwhile in the real world, their main objective is to satiate their uncontrollable psychopathology. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has been an abject failure, a policy that has left America in a far worse position, from a national security perspective, than an alternative policy? So what? Look how much death and misery we caused. Right on! Let's keep doing it. It feels good!
I mean, how hard is it to figure out that the invasion and occupatuion of Iraq is a disastrous policy? Yet these peabrains still keep coming here and saying, "the jury's still out", and other imbecilic formulations.
They're about as logical as someone who drives their car into a three foot diameter tree trunk at 70 miles an hour and insists that the best way to get around it is to back up far enough to drive into it at 90 miles an hour.
What they're expressing here is only supported by 21% of Americans in polls. That gives us a pretty good indication of the mentally disturbed, un-American fascist element in America.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/10/2006 @ 2:36pm
Mask, Sometimes minor symptoms are caused by larger ailments. Who will take a stand and say that nothing should be allowed to be celebrated with Rumsfeld and not a dime should be spent? All future disgraced Bush resignees, repeat after me, "I resign effective noon tomorrow."
Here's what Marc Cooper is saying to me and others: While we watch the tears and the trips, hear the speeches and the rhetoric remember that Rumsfeld failed this country miserably. He should have been gone long ago. He used computer-generated signatures on death certificates (until he got caught), lied, let the lowest underlings of the military take the fall for Abu Gharib without even a nod that leadership should be better from the top, and oh yeah, that torture/Geneva Convention "issue". Our great-grandchildren will pay for the "war that will pay for itself."
It's a whale...and in a blessed week, a beached one.
Posted by kimbo1 at 12/10/2006 @ 3:21pm
Posted by KIMBO1 12/10/2006 @ 3:21pm
KIM...what do you think is going to HAPPEN to Don Rumsfeld, besides disgrace and a golden parachute into some Board of Directors jobs?
He can't be impeached and people have been trying to get Henry Kissinger put on trial for THIRTY YEARS (ask Christopher Hitchens).
Rumsfeld lives out his life in relative peace, DEFINITE prosperity, and dies in 20-30 years surrounded by family and friends.....sorry, but that's it.
Posted by Mask at 12/10/2006 @ 4:19pm
Mask, I don't disagree. Let him make his money selling his book to the Ollie North fan club. I think the victory tour is shameful. Of him and those he works/worked for. Be gone. Rumsfeld, Bolton, Hastert and Delay can be a golf foursome and the country can get back on track.
Posted by kimbo1 at 12/10/2006 @ 5:06pm
I don't think any of us fully understand how people like this think. For them hostility and violence are a strategy in and of themselves. That's because their main objective is not to accomplish anything worthwhile in the real world, their main objective is to satiate their uncontrollable psychopathology. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has been an abject failure, a policy that has left America in a far worse position, from a national security perspective, than an alternative policy? So what? Look how much death and misery we caused. Right on! Let's keep doing it. It feels good!
Hmm...so your position is actually that we invaded Iraq because Bush and the rest of his Administration just really like death?
Ladies and gentlemen...the tiny insane wing of the Democratic Party.
Lest you think that there is no substance under this incredulous response, consider how little sense your proposition actually makes. For one thing, there is no evidence that any of the people involved simply sought violence for the sake of violence. Ergo, your claim is absolutely unwarranted to begin with. On top of that, your position commits you to saying that the people involved never really wanted victory in Iraq at all, which makes no sense either on a political level or on a personal level; such a thing would almost certainly not win them votes (especially not compared to success in Iraq), and it certainly wouldn't be satisfying in any meaningful way. Would you care to present any actual evidence for the assertions that you offer?
Posted by Thrawn at 12/10/2006 @ 5:15pm
Btw, the excerpt in italics was from:
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/10/2006 @ 2:36pm
Posted by Thrawn at 12/10/2006 @ 5:16pm
Posted by THRAWN 12/10/2006 @ 5:15pm
I agree that the statement you quoted is nothing more than an emotional rant.
But I disagree with your argument that "... your position commits you to saying that the people involved never really wanted victory in Iraq at all, which makes no sense either on a political level or on a personal level; such a thing would almost certainly not win them votes (especially not compared to success in Iraq)"
Wouldn't someone, who was concerned about victory or re-election, have a plan for this? Is it inconceivable to you, that any war, win or lose, creates billions in unaccounted funds to throw around. And billions in contracts for the MIC/oil companies.
If millions of dollars can inspire murder, how corrupt could billions make you? (or me?)
All I know is, the current reasons for being in Iraq are lies to replace the old lies. Maybe when the architects of this war tell us, then we'll know why they did it. Either way, I suspect, we wouldn't like the answer.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/10/2006 @ 7:54pm
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/10/2006 @ 7:54pm
I disagree with your argument that "... your position commits you to saying that the people involved never really wanted victory in Iraq at all, which makes no sense either on a political level or on a personal level; such a thing would almost certainly not win them votes (especially not compared to success in Iraq)"
Wouldn't someone, who was concerned about victory or re-election, have a plan for this? Is it inconceivable to you, that any war, win or lose, creates billions in unaccounted funds to throw around. And billions in contracts for the MIC/oil companies.
If millions of dollars can inspire murder, how corrupt could billions make you? (or me?)
First of all, the idea that "someone who wanted to win victory or re-election would have a plan for this" is bang on target; the idea that someone would deliberately create a war which they knew would result in defeat is absolutely preposterous because no one benefits from it. I don't think Bush really took home any real electoral benefit from it.
Also, oil companies wouldn't benefit from a war in Iraq. One, an unstable atmosphere is bad for business. Employees don't want to work in a place where their life is continuously threatened, which means you have to either pay them huge amounts of money (money that comes out of your profit margin), or have substantially less productivity (because of less people working). Violence also has a way of making reliable transactions themselves difficult; a market often requires some form of stability in order to be effective and efficient. Given the choice, an oil company would almost certainly prefer to just deal with Saddam in the first place, rather than risking all the harms that come with a war, especially a losing war.
Finally, on what grounds do you assume that every justification ever given for the war was a lie, and that the actual motive for the war will turn out to be a bad one? As I've said before, the burden isn't on the accused to prove their innocence, but on the accuser to prove their guilt.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/10/2006 @ 9:43pm
http://dana.ucc.nau.edu/~aka32/index_files/image002.jpg
Posted by crabwalk at 12/10/2006 @ 11:07pm
...there is no evidence that any of the people involved simply sought violence for the sake of violence. Ergo, your claim is absolutely unwarranted to begin with.
Uh...We're not in any court here except the court of public opinion, ergo the Federal Rules of Evidence don't apply. BTW, as an irrelevant side note, the statement that "there is no evidence" is substantively different than the statement "no evidence has been produced," but I digress.
What is the reason again? Not weapons of mass destruction. Not making Iraq safe for democracy. How about fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. Except there was nobody over there (in Iraq) that we had any concern about having to fight over here. I'll bite. By starting a regional war, we'll draw Al Qaeda into a stand up fight (just like we did to the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Regulars - but I digress again).
Except that by all accounts, we are creating anti-US trained guerilla fighters (i.e. terrorists, just like the mujaheddin training school we financed and taught in Afghanistan - but I just can't seem to stay on topic), faster than we can kill them requiring us to continue to stay and kill the terrorists we have spawned so we can kill the terrorists we are spawning...
But wait, doesn't that sound a whole lot like violence for the sake of violence?
I've heard of juries convicting on circumstantial evidence.
Posted by canaar at 12/11/2006 @ 12:51am
Umm...burdens still matter if you're actually trying to, well, make arguments. As such, if you claim something, you assume an obligation to support that claim and not merely assert it.
Onto the arguments...
What is the reason again? Not weapons of mass destruction. Not making Iraq safe for democracy. How about fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. Except there was nobody over there (in Iraq) that we had any concern about having to fight over here. I'll bite. By starting a regional war, we'll draw Al Qaeda into a stand up fight (just like we did to the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Regulars - but I digress again).
There are two different confusions here, ie distinctions that you conflate. The first one is the difference between reality and the perception of the leadership. Maybe we know now that Saddam didn't have WMDs, for example, but this doesn't mean that the leadership was aware of this fact. A lot of your arguments go from "so there's this bad thing" to "clearly the leadership knew this would happen," and that's a real problem.
The second confusion is between the decision to go to war and the implementation of the war. The fact that Iraq is in a pretty bad state right now doesn't itself prove that the invasion was unjustified; the only thing it demonstrates convincingly is that the invasion was conducted poorly.
The last thing that needs to be mentioned, I think, is the fact that there were legitimate arguments made for the Iraq war, many of them by people outside the administrations. Though there were certainly IR scholars that opposed the war, there were many who favored it, and made arguments based on factors like the impossibility of deterring Saddam and danger that WMD would necessarily pose. There was actually an interesting argument to the effect that invading Iraq would allow us to pull troops out of Saudi Arabia, to help take the wind out of the terrorists' sails. I understand that this argument depends on successful implementation of the invasion, but without Rumsfeld, I think that could have happened.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/11/2006 @ 01:33am
Very interesting pro and con posts. Media reports here suggest that Rumsfeld was given a very appreciative reception from the troops. It seems that the Administration, if it was wise, would have actively urged him to visit the troops. This action should give the troops a sense of continuity in that Rumsfeld didn't take his bat and ball and sulk off but is still involved with them in spirit to see this thing through. Bush and Gates have every reason to be thankful for Rumsfeld's maturity. A trip to Baghdad is hardly any informed person's idea of a junket.
On the other issue why would Gates take the job, given Bush's determination to succeed in Iraq, if he thought losing could not be turned around into success or even victory? He indicated that the pay was better in his Uni job so that is hardly a reason.
Just a comment: The Baker's of your country are in part responsible for the tag "Ugly American". It is quite evident that the Baker report represents America at its slimy, self interested worst. The comments out of Iraq indicate that. That the Kurdish President (Kurds are sound US allies) berated this report in the manner he did is very telling.
Bush has attempted to make up for that past double speak foreign policy, (eg. supporting Iraq and Iran(secretly) at the same time in the 1980s war) and the arrogant manipulation of factions in various South and Central American countries by "Ugly American" policies in pursuit of its own ideological and economic interests, by his wholehearted support for the Iraqis and the lawmakers it has elected.
Despite the difficulties with the religious factions and the likely, less than perfect, democratic system that could emerge, he has shown himself not as an Ugly American" but rather an American with understanding and patience, in his dealings with Iraq's leaders.
Bush thus represents a break from that past but sadly it seems those Ugly Americans, who arrogantly treat the rest of the developing world with contempt; whether it is through trade barriers or contempt for their desire to move to better governance and to achieve the freedoms and rights that we take for granted, seem likely to prevail.
All power to Bush if he opposes the out of date, out of touch parts of the ISG recommendations and works as he has on the basis that the pro-democrats in Iraq and elsewhere are to be treated with respect and as equals instead of as puppets to be manipulated by the cynical Bakers of this world.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/11/2006 @ 03:44am
Posted by THRAWN 12/11/2006 @ 01:33am
Maybe we know now that Saddam didn't have WMDs, for example, but this doesn't mean that the leadership was aware of this fact.
It takes some mighty fancy sophistry to 'splain away that bit of physical evidence popularly referenced as the Downing Street memo. And then, there's the Niger yellowcake matter that received some late notoriety.
Though there were certainly IR scholars that opposed the war, there were many who favored it, and made arguments based on factors like the impossibility of deterring Saddam and danger that WMD would necessarily pose.
This is the free market economy USA we're talking about here. The land where money will buy an expert that will support any bit of nonsense. I have even heard that oil companies can produce scientific experts who will assert that global warming is a hoax, or more recently, that human activity has no impact on global warming (that is, if it isn't a hoax).
There was actually an interesting argument to the effect that invading Iraq would allow us to pull troops out of Saudi Arabia, to help take the wind out of the terrorists' sails
This one takes top prize. We could take soldiers out of Saudi Arabia and bring them home to take the wind out of Arab fundamentalists sails or, gee...what else could we do with them...? I know, let's violate the sovereign border of a country that has not committed a belligerent act against us and overthrow its government.
Given the options, still sounds like violence for the sake of violence. Not that it really matters all that much unless the U.S. wishes to continue to assert our commitment to the rule of law. I think that the administration legal "scholars" (or thugs, depending on your perspective) are trying to paddle up Niagara Falls, if that is the case. Good luck boys and girls.
Posted by canaar at 12/11/2006 @ 08:30am
who's paying for rummy's finale? the same folks who payed for the rest of the show...you and i, the taxpayers!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/11/2006 @ 08:40am
"who's paying for rummy's finale? "
The same people who paid for Clintons haircuts on runnways, the missing furniture, the same people who pay for all things government...and non government...and all other things bought by government minions..who pays? Those who actually and physically earn the money through their hard work and labors, plans and execution of the plans, all inspite of those who know better, of course..the same people who halways paid for everything and always will..
Posted by john maasch at 12/11/2006 @ 11:31am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/11/2006 @ 11:31am
Note that if the question were to be asked relevant to the State of Wisconsin rather than to the feds, three-quarters of the corporations doing business in Wisconsin would be contributing nary a dime.
Hooray, we're three-quarters of the way to the Maaschian paradise where the workers pay for all the infrastructure that business needs in order to generate and reap its profits.
Posted by canaar at 12/11/2006 @ 12:04pm
"who's paying for rummy's finale? "
The same people who paid for Clintons haircuts on runnways, the missing furniture . .
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/11/2006 @ 11:31am
huge budget surplus - haircut - piece of furniture
astronomical, science fiction-style budget deficit + 3,000 dead American soldiers + more than 20,000 with crippling injuries + America's standing in the world at lowest level in history + Rumsfeld's Iraq victory lap
It's rudimentary math, MAASCH. Did you inherit the personal success you like to brag about? Just checking.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/11/2006 @ 12:30pm
http://dana.ucc.nau.edu/~aka32/index_files/image002.jpg
Posted by CRABWALK 12/10/2006 @ 11:07pm
Looks like the result of a cross between THRAWN and RIO BRAVO.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/11/2006 @ 12:32pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/10/2006 @ 2:36pm
Ladies and gentlemen...the tiny insane wing of the Democratic Party.
Posted by THRAWN 12/10/2006 @ 5:15pm
I agree that the statement you quoted is nothing more than an emotional rant.
Eric
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/10/2006 @ 7:54pm
I'll try to get a handle on my out of control emotions.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/11/2006 @ 12:37pm
Posted by CANAAR,
As every 14 year old not only knows but understands, corporations do not pay taxes, they pass it along as cost of doing business to the ultimate consumer...thats you, Einstein ...my god, the level of lack of common sense and simple understanding our economy and how it works is astounding...thank you public schools...
Posted by john maasch at 12/11/2006 @ 12:48pm
Plus, he took Sean Hannity with him. Did Faux news pay for him or was it on our tab, Rummy's appreciation for propaganda well done?
Posted by proudlib at 12/11/2006 @ 1:44pm
Posted by CANAAR,
As every 14 year old not only knows but understands, corporations do not pay taxes, they pass it along as cost of doing business to the ultimate consumer...thats you, Einstein ...my god, the level of lack of common sense and simple understanding our economy and how it works is astounding...thank you public schools...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/11/2006 @ 12:48am
Due to the highly competitive environment created by the accelerating nature of productivity increases in the last 10 - 15 years, and the third world labor platform, any increase in corporate taxes is more likely to come out of corporate profits and encourage greater efficiency. That may even result, eventually, in even lower prices.
Lower taxes for corporations simply allows them to remain inefficient while extracting their profits. This also explains why we're experiencing the lowest interest rates in 15 years and longer.
By your simplistic formulation, the Clinton administration should have seen prices increasing at a much higher rate than has been seen in the Bush administration, which is the opposite of the facts.
If I were trying to prove any public school education failures I would present you as exhibit "A".
Posted by fromredbird at 12/11/2006 @ 2:49pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/11/2006 @ 12:48am
Not to gild Redbird's lily but John's simplistic reply that corporations don't pay taxes doesn't scan. If such were the case that taxes have no impact on profits due to corporations passing them on to consumers, then corporations are wasting untold millions of dollars on lobbyists for an issue that has no impact on their profits. Under that scenario, corporations should increase their profit margin even more by eliminating their wasteful spending on K Street and I will be the first to hail that move as a welcome reform.
Otherwise, the remarks are no more than such propaganda tactics as hooting and chest thumping. A primate dominance display and fodder for the Discovery Channel.
Posted by canaar at 12/11/2006 @ 3:59pm
Posted by CANAAR 12/11/2006 @ 3:59pm
CANAAR, if you're an evil greedy CEO of Widgets Inc....and Speaker Nancy and the Gang come in and impose a 5 cent tax on your widgets.
Do you just "eat it"?
Remember you're an evil greedy capitalist who doesn't want to lose a dime of profit, and fortunately the tax is universal, so your competitors pay it too....and given you're all "in cahoots", you can ALL raise your prices and nobody lose any business.
So....who pays the nickel?
Posted by Mask at 12/11/2006 @ 4:41pm
Posted by MASK 12/11/2006 @ 4:41pm
I think that the "either/or" question typical of your dialectical approach (allegedly favored by Marxists) has an range of responses greater than the number "two" dependent on a host of variables including whether my degree of greed is tempered or abetted by my commitment to evil.
Posted by canaar at 12/11/2006 @ 4:57pm
I have to say, I find it interesting that Fromredbird hasn't deigned to answer my challenge; I asked him to defend his wild claim that the Bush Administration has pursued "violence for the sake of violence," and he has yet to make any effort to do so. Canaar, however, has been more willing to engage with my arguments, something that I greatly appreciate.
Posted by CANAAR 12/11/2006 @ 08:30am
It takes some mighty fancy sophistry to 'splain away that bit of physical evidence popularly referenced as the Downing Street memo. And then, there's the Niger yellowcake matter that received some late notoriety.
The problem with this argument is twofold. First, it ignores the fact that other evidence existed to believe that Saddam had WMD's; that's the only reason why Powell was willing to present the case for war to the UN in the first place. If he thought there wasn't any basis at all to base the administration's beliefs on, he wasn't going to do it. Second, even sources like the Downing Street memo tacitly concede that evidence existed; they never claim that intelligence was fabricated, but rather that the intelligence most-closely connected to the administration's goal was used. In other words...evidence existed, which also means that the administration wasn't lying.
As a sidenote, the yellowcake thing wasn't a lie either; no one informed Bush that the intelligence was shaky, and thus that it should be omitted from his speech.
This is the free market economy USA we're talking about here. The land where money will buy an expert that will support any bit of nonsense. I have even heard that oil companies can produce scientific experts who will assert that global warming is a hoax, or more recently, that human activity has no impact on global warming (that is, if it isn't a hoax).
The most you can say is that this is an argument for skepticism, but it doesn't really apply here. As I argued before, and never got a response to, oil companies would not be pushing the Iraq War. They would rather deal with Saddam than have to confront a country with no stable security infrastructure (and therefore, no reliable market), and a work force who doesn't want to go over there. Ultimately, they have no reason to deal with the relative uncertainty (however long) of a regime collapse as opposed to the comparative stability of a governing structure.
Moreover, this also doesn't address the arguments themselves. Even if you believe that someone was paid by a corporation, this doesn't allow you to automatically discount their argument. The question of Saddam's deterrability, for example, is a very legitimate one, and very relevant to the Iraq question. So is the danger of WMDs.
We could take soldiers out of Saudi Arabia and bring them home to take the wind out of Arab fundamentalists sails or, gee...what else could we do with them...? I know, let's violate the sovereign border of a country that has not committed a belligerent act against us and overthrow its government.
This isn't responsive at all. Our troops weren't in Saudi Arabia just for the fun of it; they're there to prevent any kind of Iraqi aggression, and have been since the Gulf War. If Saddam's government no longer exists, there is substantially less reason to worry about such a thing, and therefore substantially less reason to keep the troops in Saudi Arabia.
Ultimately, you have yet to prove the central (and most controversial) claims that you and Fromredbird have made:
Given the options, still sounds like violence for the sake of violence.
In order to show this, it's not even good enough to show that you can't find a justification for war that you agree with. What you actually have to show is that the administration actually values violence for violence's sake, something that criticizing their individual policies doesn't even come close to doing. No evidence that I'm aware of exists to support this conclusion, and it therefore amounts to nothing more than an assertion, and it deserves no respect by any rational individual until it can be supported.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/11/2006 @ 5:11pm
First, it ignores the fact that other evidence existed to believe that Saddam had WMD's; that's the only reason why Powell was willing to present the case for war to the UN in the first place.
Evidence for Powell's motivation? Not provided. Credible testimony? Seems self serving. Furthermore, the Downing Street memo speaks to the credibility of administration assertions. In short this argument sounds like the plausible deniability defense. To say that this administration has strained the membranes of credulity may be more than even the understated British would be able to verbalize without choking.
The most you can say is that this is an argument for skepticism...
Exactly. If intelligence was being fixed around policy, the statement concerning the purchase of expert opinion marginalizes the argument that many experts considered that the ability to deter...
you have yet to prove the central (and most controversial) claims that you and Fromredbird have made.
Actually, I made no such claim. I was arguing that your assertion that Redbird's claim was "incredulous" based in part on your statement that "there is no evidence that any of the people involved simply sought violence for the sake of violence" is overstated. In fact there is evidence. Whether it meets the burden of proof is a matter for an arbiter to decide rather than being the perogative of an advocate, which you have clearly been in the history of your posts. Whether the president knew of the truth of his yellowcake claim focuses on a single individual's motivations whereas the potential cast of characters comprising the "any" to which you referred is quite large.
This isn't responsive at all It responds to the silliness of the alternative theory of justification you suggested.
Bottom line, even if the evidence is circumstantial and as such is insufficient to meet the burden of proof, I believe it is sufficient to refute the one aspect of your attack on Redbird's credibility that I quoted above.
Posted by canaar at 12/11/2006 @ 6:06pm