The myth of the Clinton surplus...I'm a libertarian but I am sick of hearing this..SM

• Do you think our government should bail out FM/FM - me
  • I wonder who's going to pay for all this? - It certainly won't be the rich........
    • Contrary to popular belief.....the rich pay the - majority of taxes in this country.nm
  • Whether we like it or not, it had to be done....sm - ms
    • You know what and who is to blame, don't you? - Ima Friend
      • Deregulation schemes.......... - sorry, wrong party.....
      • We are already too far down the road...sm - gloomy forecast
        • Say what you will....sm - ms
      • Yes....who's to blame....sm - ms
        • laffin my cheeks hurt - satinlizard
        • Democratic = surplus - Republican = debt - Heaven Help Us All
          • This is not true - New Englander
          • Calling all CLINTON LOVERS..... hard pill for - you to swallow.......sm
          • you know someone is going - satinlizard
          • The myth of the Clinton surplus...I'm a libertarian but I am sick of hearing this..SM - Dems and Repubs, Beast 1 and 2
            • Excellent link - I never did "buy" the party line - me
          • Clinton had a surplus because he had a...sm - ms
            • Funny how the dems want to overlook this one important fact - me
            • ha ha ha ha ha ha you're too much - satinlizard
      • Do you really think we won't have even a.... - passing through
      • yes! I posted below. Don't let - satinlizard
    • funny how the gomers strain at a gnat - satinlizard
      • Frederick Raines.... - sam
        • yeah, those are some of the names and facts ...sm - ms
      • what's a gomer? nm - Huh?
        • a small town dweller with hemorroids. - satinlizard
          • Aaaah, experience, huh? - nm
          • Lol. That's silly but funny! nm - Gomer Pyle. I get it.
      • Repubicans and Money - Heaven Help Us All
        • Bravo. A voice of compassion and - satinlizard
      • I do believe you just insulted me....not to mention...sm - ms
        • I do understand it, which is why I asked you - to please watch the link.....nm
        • I dont know who are you to insult - satinlizard
      • This is not Rep or Dem........ - sm
        • it has to do with McCain and - satinlizard
          • Key word = deregulation! - Heaven Help Us All
            • REALITY? Do you know who deregulated - the banks?? Bill Clinton!!!!!!!!
          • Bush didn't create the federal reserve...... - economics 101.......nm
            • Can you say d-e-r-e-g-u-l-a-t-i-o-n? - Elementary, My Dear!
              • Can you say BILL C-L-I-N-T-O-N???? He - signed the deregulation act
            • da doop. not responsive. nm - satinlizard
              • Uh oh.......Bill Clinton, not BUSH - no response?
    • Thx - your explanation helped me understand it better - me
      • I agreed with your comment....sm - ms
    • Does your husband understand the - Federal Reserve???? nm
      • Like I said....sm - ms
        • If he believes what you just said, then no - he doesn't...........sm
  • I am totally ignorant about the pros and cons...sm - oldtimer
    • Ignorance...... - sm
  • Gold - sm
  • bailouts - sm
    • Thank you - I agree 100% - me
    • Also why gold and silver should be our source - of purchasing, not paper money....nm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

how republicans are at fault for everything.  Yes, President Bush is republican but don't we have a democrat congress?  What have then done to help better things?

I'm neither republican or democrat.  I always try to pick the person I feel is best for the job.  However, I learned a long time ago that a politician will say almost anything to get elected.  Yes, Obama has many plans, but realistically how many of these plans will actually work, be put into works if he is elected, or just a bunch of smoke he is blowing up our rear ends to get elected. 

I was watching a show on TV the other night that showed politicians during an election year and one of the things consistently brought up by many was the need to decrease our dependency on oil.  This went all the way back to even before Carter was president.  After these politicians were elected, not one of them did anything about decreasing our dependency on oil.  Politicians will bring up any subject worth bringing up during an election year to get the backing of people, but once they win.....they don't have to do half of what they promised to do.

principles, they just get too weird on others.  You really can't bring all the troops home from everywhere, all at once.  Much as you'd like to, you really can't shut down the IRS on Monday, the FBI on Tuesday, the CIA on Wednesday, etc.  What has taken a century to evolve cannot just be abolished with the stroke of a pen.  And phasing-out does not seem to be in the Libertarian lexicon.  (cool alliteration??)

Having said that, I will add that I like the concept of everyone taking responsibility for themselves.  I like the idea of government doing only what government constitutionally must do and leaving us the H alone otherwise. 

We really have such a strange  way of going about things.  You may not shoot up drugs;  here's a nice free clean needle.  Marijuana is a gateway drug; pass the bourbon.  You may not learn about abstinence in school.  Instead, we will teach contraception (yeah, that's working out great)  here's a free condom, or an abortion, or we'll pay for you to raise your kids - forever.  Firearms should be banned; think the criminals will obey?  Does the government REALLY want everyone to stop smoking, considering all the taxes it reaps on cigarettes?

Am I the only one that thinks government sticks its nose way too far into our personal business?   And that with all these mixed messages it is creating really schizzy generations who have no clue what is expected of them?

    Thursday 10 November 2005

The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement.

The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement. (Photo: spacewar.com)

    Al-Zarqawi was born Ahmad Fadil al-Khalayleh in October 1966 in the crime and poverty-ridden Jordanian city of Zarqa. But his myth was born Feb. 5, 2003, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the United Nations the case for war with Iraq.

    Napoleoni, the author of Insurgent Iraq, told reporters last week that Powell's argument falsely exploited Zarqawi to prove a link between then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. She said that through fabrications of Zarqawi's status, influence and connections the myth became the reality - a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    He became what we wanted him to be. We put him there, not the jihadists, Napoleoni said.

    Iraq's most notorious insurgent, Napoleoni argues, accomplished what bin Laden could not: spread the message of jihad into Iraq.

    In an article of Napoleoni's in the current November/December issue of Foreign Policy, she said, In a sense, it is the very things that make Zarqawi seem most ordinary - his humble upbringing, misspent youth and early failures - that make him most frightening. Because, although he may have some gifts as a leader of men, it is also likely that there are many more 'al-Zarqawis' capable of filling his place.

    The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement.

    Al-Zarqawi became the icon of a new generation of anti-imperialist jihadists, she said.

    The grand claim that al-Zarqawi provided the vital link between Saddam and al-Qaida lost its significance after it became known that al-Zarqawi and bin Laden did not forge a partnership until after the war's start. The two are believed to have met sometime in 2000, but al-Zarqawi - similar to a group of dissenting al-Qaida members -rebuffed bin Laden's anti-American brand of jihad.

    He did not have a global vision like Osama, said Napoleoni, who interviewed primary and secondary sources close to al-Zarqawi and his network.

    A former member of al-Zarqawi's camp in Herat told her, I never heard him praise anyone apart from the Prophet [Muhammad]; this was Abu Musab's character. He never followed anyone.

    Al-Zarqawi's scope before the Iraq war, she continued, did not extend past corrupt Arab regimes, particularly Jordan's. Between 2000 and early 2002, he operated the training camp in Herat with Taliban funds; the fighters bound for Jordan. After the fall of the Taliban, he fled to Iraqi Kurdistan and set up shop.

    In 2001, Kurdish officials enlightened the United States about the uninvited Jordanian, said Napoleoni. Jordanian officials, who had still unsolved terrorist attacks, were eager to implicate al-Zarqawi, she claimed. The little-known militant instantly had fingerprints on most major terrorist attacks after Sept. 11, 2001. He was depicted in Powell's speech as a key player in the al-Qaida network.

    By perpetuating a terrifying myth of al-Zarqawi, the author said, The United States, Kurds, and Jordanians all won ... but jihad gained momentum, after in-group dissension and U.S. coalition operations had left the core of al-Qaida crippled.

    In her article, Napoleoni says, [Zarqawi] had finally managed to grasp bin Laden's definition of the faraway enemy, the United States. Adding that, Its presence in Iraq as an occupying power made it clear to him that the United States was as important a target as any of the Arab regimes he had grown to hate.

    ... The myth constructed around him is at the root of his transformation into a political leader. With bin Laden trapped somewhere in Afghanistan and Pakistan, al-Zarqawi fast became the new symbolic leader in the fight against America and a manager for whoever was looking to be part of that struggle, she wrote.

    The author points to letters between al-Zarqawi and bin Laden that have surfaced over the past two years, indicating the evolution in their relationship, most notably a shift in al-Zarqawi which led to his seeking additional legitimacy among Sunnis that bin Laden could help bestow.

    In late December 2004 - shortly after the fall of Fallujah - the pan-Arab network Al-Jazeera aired a video of what was bin Laden's first public embrace of Zarqawi and his fight in Iraq.

    ... We in al-Qaida welcome your union with us ... and so that it be known, the brother mujahid Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the emir of the al Qaida organization [in Iraq], bin Laden declared.

    Napoleoni believes that al-Zarqawi, however, is still largely driven by the romantic vision of a restored Caliphate, and that his motives still are less political than some other factions participating in the Iraq resistance.

    She questions whether he has actually devised a plan for what he will do, if and when, he wins.

of sharing the wealth will put us in the GREAT DEPRESSION just like back when Hoover was in office, exept this time, it will be worse because many more people make more than 100,000 a year than they did years ago.  So basically it will be spreading the wellfare around.

get money for a bailout? Wall Street and the banks did, but WS and the banks are HOLDING ONTO the money for BONUSES, not to bail themselves out. GM and Chryler need it to KEEP JOBS.

The bailout was wrong in the first place because everyone would want money, but that's the only thing they could come up with at the time. What's done is done but I don't think we ought to keep throwing money out there. NP and Barney Fife are too free with money that's not theirs and they should be thrown out of office. 

It was brought to a vote and that is that.  We come from a place where it was once taboo to be gay.  You had to hide your sexual orientation.  Now you can go out with your partner and live your life for all to see.  I don't agree with that kind of lifestyle, but they are free to choose what kind of lifestyle they wish to live and who am I to judge.  However, I feel that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman.  To redefine marriage, I think, is wrong.  If they want to be life partners and have a small ceremony joining them in some sort of civil union.....go ahead but marriage should be left alone as a man and a woman.  I am sick and tired of redefining everything to make it politically correct so every minority group is happy.  You can't make everyone happy.  I personally feel that redefining marriage to include marrying anyone whether it be same or opposite sex could be confusing to children in general and I don't agree with it.

I don't have a problem with them protesting their viewpoint, but when I see them rip a cross out of an old woman's hands and stomp on the cross as she was protesting her opinion.....that is just wrong.  First of all, you don't go after an old woman and secondly....she was sharing her opinion just like they were....so don't get mad at us for our opinion because we are entitled to it as well.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Maybe it’s the newly appointed speech writer. Maybe Peter Feaver has been locked away in some windowless sub basement of the White House, without access to the outer world. Maybe he can do little more than recycle earlier speeches about the war in Iraq. Maybe he and everyone else in this administration have become trapped in a bizarre and crippling time warp. Or maybe, just maybe, it’s that George Bush is hard of hearing.

That has to be the explanation. After listening to his delirious portrayal of progress today and of victory tomorrow in war-torn Iraq, there is only one conclusion: the President of the Untied States is nothing more than a deaf man, talking.

It’s not as if anyone in this administration has ever listened with a discerning ear.  Standard operating practice at the White House has been to listen only to those who furthered their agenda, and to absolutely no one else.

But this time, the man at the helm of a sinking nation has gone a bit too far. This time he has gone stone, cold, deaf.

George W. Bush and his handlers have a lengthy history of hearing problems.  For more than five years, they selectively closed their ears to those who knew things they chose to ignore. For more than five years, they dismissed the advice of the experienced, and the knowledgeable. They heard nothing that was critical or challenging. They heard nothing that questioned their ill fated policies or their inaccurate conclusions.  They heard nothing but their own applause.

George Bush developed a severe hearing malady early in his presidency. From day one, he turned a deaf ear to warnings that his policies were dangerous and destructive. Fortunately for the administration, the corporate media under-reported or simply ignored the advice of experts with as much disdain as the White House.

Just think about how the President absolutely and intractably refused to listen when:

• 
  
  Scientists warned about teaching Intelligent Design
  
  
• 
  
  Educators warned about serious flaws in No Child Left Behind
  
  
• 
  
  Environmentalists warned about pollution and global warming
  
  
• 
  
  Health experts warned about the dangers mercury levels
  
  
• 
  
  Economists warned about an inquitable tax policy
  
  
• 
  
  Researchers warned about cutting stem cell projects
  
  
• 
  
  Ecologists warned about deforestation
  
  
• 
  
  Engineers warned about New Orleans levees
  
  
• 
  
  Civil libertarians warned about the Patriot Act
  
  
• 
  
  AIDS organizations warned about ignoring condom education

And yet, George Bush chose to hear the words of the most extreme voices on the religious right and the most self indulgent arguments of corporate America. His selective hearing set the standard for every one of his regressive and injurious domestic policies.

No matter. George Bush was president and he knew better even without his hearing. He had the answers before the questions were ever raised. He was right. Everyone else was wrong. He had no reason to listen.

It was an outrage for the President and his henchmen to totally ignore the advice and expertise of anyone who disagreed with their self-serving agenda. It was, in effect, an irresponsible surrender to special interests and supporters who would help keep George Bush in power. But, perhaps, it was politics as usual.

Perhaps it was.  Domestic policies often deteriorate into partisan food fights, regardless of the toll on the people at large.

But in the wake of 9/11, George Bush’s hearing took a far more serious turn for the worse. His festering malady became a chronic affliction.  In time, his condition became more and more noticeable and more and more debilitating.

Looking back, we now can see that 9/11 was the prelude to a long planned war against Iraq, When it came to the attacks or to the march to his war, George Bush found himself unable to hear a great many voices.  Once again, the media were cooperative and complicit by selectively underreporting the warnings as well.

Consequently, among the voices that went unheeded by the President were:

• 
  
  Intelligence sources who warned about impending attacks on US soil, using hijacked airliners
  
  
• 
  
  CIA insiders who warned of the increased ‘chatter’ in the summer of 2001 that  signaled that something was brewing among Al Qaeda operatives
  
  
• 
  
  Families of 9/11 victims who demanded an independent investigation into the attacks
  
  
• 
  
  Intelligence reports discounting any connection between Saddam  Hussein and Al Qaeda
  
  
• 
  
  Weapons Inspectors in Iraq who insisted there were no WMD’s, but begged for more time to complete their mission
  
  
• 
  
  Experts who knew the Middle East and warned that a war against Iraq would foment civil war and instability in the entire region
  
  
• 
  
  The major nations of the world, with the exception of the UK and the bribed coalition of the billing, who warned about the consequences of an illegal preemptive or preventive war against a non belligerent nation.
  
  
• 
  
  Millions of people around the world who marched in protest to the impending invasion
  
  
• 
  
  A bipartisan group of US Military and Diplomatic experts who warned about the recklessness of a war against the people of Iraq
  
  
• 
  
  The Army War College experts who warned that GW Bus was “…on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and non-state entities that pose no serious threat to the United States. 
  
  
• 
  
  Experienced military men such as Generals Shinzeki and Zinni, who openly criticized the poorly laid plans for invasion and the horrific management of the occupation.
  
  
• 
  
  Any an all voices in opposition to the Bush/PNAC dream of global domination.

Instead, George Bush listened intently to the words of his PNAC partners who had waited so patiently for the chance to invade Iraq. And yet, he listened to Ahmed Chalabi, a felon convicted of embezzling millions in absentia, who said that an invasion of Iraq would be a cake walk. Instead, he listened to people who had no clue as to the realities of war, or the cultural and tribal entanglements of the Iraqi people.

Instead, he went to war. And the war became a quagmire. And the quagmire became a nightmare. And the nightmare began to show in the polls.

And so, something had to be done.  That something was another series of speeches by the President to shore up support for his war. That is why George Bush came before the American people once again to introduce a redundant and meaningless National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.

When George Bush gave the first of his scheduled speeches, his otic infirmity could no longer be hidden.  Sadly, his second address to the nation simply reinforced the obvious: the President of the United States is completely and totally deaf.

No matter how he tried, there was no way to conceal it.  In his effort to regain public support for his invasion and occupation of Iraq, George Bush made it perfectly clear that he was incapable of hearing anything even remotely related to reality. In order to distort his failed war policy, he turned a deaf ear to the devastation and chaos that define his war of choice. He closed off any and all warnings that a military victory in Iraq is not possible.

But, in a really bad move, he also turned a deaf ear to the American people.

The American people are asking questions, and George Bush refuses to hear them.  Instead, he offers public relations sound bites to a nation that is beginning to demand the truth.

So far he has refused to give the nation any explanations about what is really happening in Iraq. So far, George Bush has refused to address:

• 
  
  the failure to plan for our role as occupiers in Iraq
  
  
• 
  
  the chaos and bloodshed that intensify every day
  
  
• 
  
  the lack of water and electricity for the people
  
  
• 
  
  the failure of any significant reconstruction
  
  
• 
  
  the daily kidnappings and rampant crime
  
  
• 
  
  the mass exodus of doctors and other professionals
  
  
• 
  
  the use of torture by both Americans and the new Iraqi regime.
  
  
• 
  
  the widespread corruption and missing billions
  
  
• 
  
  the terrible effects of depleted uranium
  
  
• 
  
  the illegal and devastating use of white phosphorus
  
  
• 
  
  the fundamentalist government that is now in charge
  
  
• 
  
  the lack of body and vehicle armor for our troops
  
  
• 
  
  the tens of thousands of Iraqis who died at his hand
  
  
• 
  
  the claim by his own man, Ayad Allawi, that things are worse in Iraq now than under Saddam.
  
  
• 
  
  the five billion dollars a month being spent on the war

And George Bush refused, above all, to present a cohesive and specific strategy for ending the terrible war he began.

People all across this nation wanted to know what went wrong and why. And they wanted to know how their President planned to fix it. But George Bush has closed his ears to the growing concerns of a majority of Americans. He simply refuses to hear them.

He has chosen, instead, to revert to type. He has chosen, instead, to remain deaf to facts that had been revealed about his war.  He has chosen, instead, to ignore the truth about the tragic and deadly catastrophe that was the war in Iraq.  He has chosen, once again, to lie.

George Bush speaks only before courteous audiences.  Assured of applause at appropriate intervals, he can comfortably hold both hands over his ears and refuse to acknowledge that he had led the nation into an endless morass.

He cannot tell the truth, we know that. So he did what he does best. He lied. But, the irony of it all is that more and more Americans are on to the lies by now. Just for starters, they know that:

• 
  
  There is no connection whatever between the invasion of Iraq and his trumped up war on terror. And yet, George Bush opted to use the word “terror” FIFTY TIMES his first strategy speech, and continued to the same harangue in the second.  
  
  
• 
  
  The insurgency in Iraq is composed of dozens, possibly as many as 100 cells working independently. And yet, George Bush identified only three sources of insurgent activity – and placed much of the blame on “the brutal terrorist, Zarqawi – al Qaeda’s leading operative in Iraq.”
  
  
• 
  
  American marines, not Iraqi security forces, led the incursion into Tal Afar. And yet, to make them appear battle-ready, George Bush gave full credit to the Iraqi security forces for leading the attack.
  
  
• 
  
  Former supporters of the war, such as Vietnam veteran John Murtha, are convinced that a military victory in Iraq is not possible. And yet, George Bush repeated his old, weathered war cry, “There will be no withdrawal without victory.”
  
  
• 
  
  General William Odom has called the war in Iraq a failure. And yet, George Bush touts the “amazing progress” of the occupation.
  
  
• 
  
  More than 2130 Americans and 200 coalition troops have died for his illegal and immoral war of choice, and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead as well. And yet, George Bush still insists that he has “taken the fight to the terrorists,” and that his bloody war will “lay the foundation of peace for generations to come.”
  
  
• 
  
  Progress in Iraq cannot be measured by the number of buildings being rebuilt after being destroyed by US bombs. Instead, that is exactly what George Bush insists is so.
  
  
• 
  
  Progress in Iraq cannot be measured by the number of cell phones being used. And yet, that is how George Bush measures it.
  
  
• 
  
  Oil revenues are not going to the Iraqi people, but to foreign oil companies.  And yet, George Bush claims that increased oil production was a sign of progress.
  
  
• 
  
  There is no definable victory possible.  And yet, George Bush insists there is.

But George Bush has no clue about what the public knows. The man is as deaf as a door post. But his impairment is one of choice, not affliction. He believes he can use his hearing loss as a cover for his ineptitude and his obstinacy.  In his world apart from reality, George Bush continues to believe that he can fool all of the people all of the time.

But this time, the American people are not buying it.

THE REMEDY

We are approaching day 1,000 of this outrageous war, and the mood of the nation is changing.  The winds of opposition are gaining strength across the vast expanse that is America. George Bush and his PNAC handlers are pretending not to hear the calls for an end to this terrible war. But they hear it.  They really do.

The turning point, of course, was triggered by Congressman John Murtha, whose opinions can no longer be countered by the usual rhetoric from the White House.  Murtha spoke with the tacit encouragement of his close friends in the Pentagon who cannot speak out personally, but who fully understand the hopelessness of ‘staying the course,’ His message clearly signaled the beginning of the end.

But it won’t be easy.  There will be distractions in the form of token withdrawals, and the war will go on.  More people will die.  The mayhem will continue.   But the voices of protest will get louder and louder.

And George Bush will continue to make speeches.  He will recite the words of his new speech writer with gusto and sincerity.  He will continue to sell his war as if it were a product on the open market.  And he will remain deaf to those who oppose and those who criticize and those who demand that the war must end.

He can do this because the voices of protest are still muted.  They will only be heard if they become loud enough to penetrate the ears of the deaf man who is in charge.  George Bush is the Commander in Chief. He calls the shots.  He sits in the safety of the Oval Office and sends people to their death.

The tragedy is that right this minute, as he still dreams of a glorious victory in Iraq, he doesn’t hear a thing.

Maybe one day soon, before thousands more die, if their outcry is loud enough, George Bush will hear the voices of the people he once swore to serve; then again, maybe not.