Tuesday open thread
There is not any memory with less satisfaction than the memory of some temptation we resisted.
What’s on your mind today?
March 19, 2013 - 6:07 AM
- Contact us |
- Customer care |
- Subscribe |
- Advertise |
- Submit news |
- Sign in
Don't Miss
Are you the Ultimate Red Sox Fan? Enter your photo in our contest and you could win fan-tastic prizes.
March 19, 2013 - 6:07 AM
Join the conversation [ADD A COMMENT]
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
32 COMMENTS
Error submitting comment
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Add a comment
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
Monday, May 20, 2013
THE ROANOKE TIMES
March 20 will mark the 10 year anniversary of US and our allies invading Iraq. You will hear from the liberal MSM that it was totally the misguided foreign policy of the Bush administration and was Bush’s war. A review of history is in order.
The overthrow of Saddam was US official policy in 1998 when Pres. Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, overwhelmingly passed by Congress. The legislation also called for a UN war crimes tribunal to try Saddam.
Saddam had invaded Kuwait unprovoked, had used chemical weapons on his own citizens and Iran, and had repeatedly tried to shoot down US aircraft. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism around the world and ignored UN resolutions. He desired to dominate the middle east and its oil.
There was a world wide agreement that Saddam had WMDs. Even his own generals believed it. Also there was bipartisan support for the overthrow of Saddam. Former VP Al Gore, then Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sens. John Kerry, Reid, Biden, and even the late Ted Kennedy to name a few, all spoke out that Saddam had WND and might even acquire nuclear weapons in a few years.
The War in Iraq was authorized with overwhelming bipartisan congressional support. Even a Pew poll found a 72% approval rating of the American people.
If Bush lied, so did a lot of others including many prominent Democrats. The tragedy of the Iraq War and the successful Bush surge that ended it, is that Obama failed to secure the victory and allowed Iraq to fall under the influence of our enemy Iran. In the future we shall pay dearly for Obama’s failure in Iraqi foreign policy I fear.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324532004578360574070682516.html?KEYWORDS=knott
John R, “a lot of others including many prominent Democrats” did not have access to the same, complete, well reasoned intel that the President and his Cabinet did and you know this. Only certain evidence and certain cherry picked items were shared with Congress and the American people. This is a decided fact and the majority of people in this nation have recognized that truth.
Is it because Bush/Cheney were not impeached and the issue adjudicated? Do some people need that “conviction” or even punishment levied to know when someone is guilty? Apparently so. I am glad we did not drag this nation through another Ken Starr debacle just to prove a point that history and truth-tellers have told anyway. But apparently because no one is in prison or labeled a felon, no one did anything wrong in some minds.
It is a little scary, this ride on denial.
…thereby enforcing my contention that in terms of governance – and particularly foreign policy – there is virtually nothing to distinguish the democrat and republican parties. Any “distinctions” are merely illusory.
.
The Iraq war – like the adventures in Afghanistan, and Libya, and the Balkans, and the Horn of Africa, and Syria, and Pakistan, and…. – are all ill-advised and poorly executed, and serve only to make more enemies. But at least the state of perpetual war is an excuse to destroy the economy.
There’s so much wrong with your post, John R, that’s it’s impossible to cover it all. For instance, you conveniently forget why the “surge” was needed — because Bush ignored his military experts and didn’t send in enough troops to start with or for years to follow.
Speaking of the deficit, I’m sure you’ve been reading the recent articles adding up the trillions we’ll be spending in the future as the result of Bush’s folly.
Only a blind irrational partisan would claim that Bush’s bumblings were a good idea and that Obama subsequently ruined all the good that Bush did.
Sadly, the only “distinctions” are on domestic policy, specifically “welfare” IMO. That is not a proud admission.
#2 Sandi, I know nothing of the sort! To say the Dems did not have access to the same intel as President Bush is to rewrite history.
Many of those same prominent Dems served on the Senate Intelligence Committee and received the same intel briefings by law that Bush did.
Former Sen. Jay Rockefeller was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and made the claim that Saddam would “likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324532004578360574070682516.html?KEYWORDS=knott
It was the Dems that neutered the CIA’s “on the ground” intel gathering network around the world in favor of relying on spy satellites. That proved ineffective when it came to verifying Saddam’s WMD.
5 – and I would argue those distinctions are mere window-dressing, Sandi. Despite all the rhetoric, the welfare grows as much under the GOP as it does under the Dems.
#2 Sandi, Were the American people and Congress duped by President Clinton and his cabinet?
“Saddam “will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983,” warned Bill Clinton’s national-security adviser, Sandy Berger, in 1998. He “spend(s) his money on building weapons of mass destruction,” said Secretary of State Madeleine Albright a year later. “We know that (Saddam) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country,” said Al Gore in 2002.”
http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/today-s-top-opinion-elusive-peace/article_77201af1-9228-522f-b9e1-557697a2bdf0.html
Was Congress and the American people duped in 1998 when President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act which was passed 360-38 by the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate?
How about Kenneth Pollack, one of Clinton’s National Security Council advisors, who wrote that it was a question of “not whether but when” the U.S. would invade Iraq. He added that the threat presented by Saddam was “no less pressing than those we faced in 1941.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324532004578360574070682516.html
Looks like Pres. Bush was just carrying out the Clinton Iraqi foreign policy! Didn’t Clinton bomb Iraq for four days at the time of his impeachment?
The congressional resolution giving Bush the power to invade Iraq had overwhelming bipartisan support. I maintain that the Dems saw the strong public support for removing Saddam and didn’t want to be on the wrong side of overthrowing a murderous dictator. Nothing more complicated than that. Especially Hillary, who wanted to run for president, didn’t want to appear as a “dove”.
Public support for the War remained strong throughout the conflict and was a major issue in the 2004 presidential campaign. It didn’t turn against the war until Americans began getting killed in large numbers by IED’s during the occupation phase.
That problem was resolved successfully by the surge which was opposed by the Dems. Remember in 2007 when Sen. Reid said “I believe…that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything,..”. That proved wrong!
Unfortunately Obama got elected in 2008 and proceded to cut and run from Iraq leaving it to the Iranians.
John R, I am fairly certain that the myriad Congressional Hearings and subpoenas that have flown from Darrell Issa alone, much less over the years, belies your point that Congress gets the same info as the White House or has access to all aspects of it like the White House would.
“Finished intelligence that is not published for general circulation is not routinely shared with Congress. For example, the Hill does not receive copies of the President’s Daily Brief (PDB), prepared daily by CIA. Nor does it receive copies of the daily intelligence summaries prepared for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Moreover, it does not receive “memo dissems” prepared by CIA for use by White House principals on various topics or tailored materials requested by top-level officials during their daily briefings. Occasionally, as part of an oversight investigation, intelligence committee staffers are shown portions of such tailored reporting–including the PDB–but regular access has not been accorded.”
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/sharing-secrets-with-lawmakers-congress-as-a-user-of-intelligence/3.htm
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2005/11/11/2517/iraq-intel/
“Nevermind that much of the intelligence offered to the public and to Congress was inaccurate and misleading, or that according to the Downing Street memo and other documents, such intelligence was likely intentionally “fixed.” It is simply not true to state that Congress received the “same intelligence” as the White House:“
#2 “John R, “a lot of others including many prominent Democrats” did not have access to the same, complete, well reasoned intel that the President and his Cabinet did and you know this. Only certain evidence and certain cherry picked items were shared with Congress and the American people. This is a decided fact and the majority of people in this nation have recognized that truth.”
Mrs. Saunders, in that “This is a decided fact…”, and “truth”, perhaps you can provide any documentation.
Wow Jim Lucas, I read your mind…
A “decided fact” because Dems decided it was a fact?
Be careful….it’s scary in there. (Documentation?).
The Other Rick, there were more people than just Dems who decided those facts. This is an easy one.
http://www.cato.org/blog/gop-congressmen-most-republicans-now-think-iraq-war-was-mistake
http://www.cato.org/blog/who-failed-stop-iraq-war
Surely that is a source you can listen to?
“But the war hawks also downplayed the costs of invading Iraq by claiming that there would be no need for a long-term U.S. troop presence, and certainly not as large as Army leaders had estimated. They dismissed the overwhelming evidence that Iraq was beset by ethnic and sectarian divisions. Bill Kristol famously dismissed the notion that “somehow the Shia can’t get along with the Sunni” as so much “pop sociology.” I suspect that they were aware of these divisions, because it would have been far harder to convince the American people to support a conflict if they knew that it was going to be long and costly, instead of the “cakewalk” that the war’s supporters claimed.
I cannot prove the war hawks knew the truth about Iraq and concealed it. I’m certain that they should have known. But they weren’t trying to stop a war; they were trying to start one.“
Question of the day:
What is the (fundamental, if any) difference between siezing bank accounts in Cyprus, and, a retroactive (expo facto) tax (plus interest) on small businesses in CA?
I am not sure the plan was to actually “seize” bank accounts.
jim, if you meant “ex post facto” then there does not seem to be much difference, but I would have to read more about the CA tax to draw a conclusion and it does not interest me enough to warrant spending the time.
#16 Confiscating people’s money from their acounts….what would you call it?
#17 I’ve seen it both ways, but you are correct. Thanks. (For your time & interest). Smiley face.
I have not seen any evidence showing the proposed tax being an account seizure as you portrayed it. It did not happen, in fact, did not get one vote to happen, but there was never any intent to seize accounts, only the tax they wanted to assess on those accounts from what I have read. If you have such evidence, please present it. Even if it is “expo facto”.
As I understand the California tax issue, the “fundamental” difference is that an appeals court (presumably based on a challenge to the law) ruled a provision unconstitutional and therefore they interpreted that as a tax would be due. I do not know if their decision will stand. Do you?
“Earlier this month, lawmakers from both parties introduced legislation that would force the FTB to scrap the retroactive tax bills.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/19/california-businesses-fuming-over-retroactive-120m-tax-grab/#ixzz2O5hqgxtr
#19 The “difference” is one of semantics & degree. Not fundamental. If they can take 10%, they can take 100%. If they can make a legal activity retrospectively illegal….and tax it, there is no limit to what they can take.
(Yes, my spelling is poor….but I know what the words/concepts mean).
Which do you think is more important?
I think it is important to practice the slack you would like to receive. I understand the meaning of the words and concepts I post too; has it ever stopped you from questioning that or making fun of it repeatedly?
I disagree that proposing legislation that dies without one vote and a court rendering a decision on a law/provision already in effect is a difference of “semantics & degree”. They are two very different and distinct things. The only similarities are that they both dealt with a tax.
It goes a little deeper than that. The proposed (and rejected) actions were intended to strengthen (i.e., bail out) the banks, as a condition of the Cypriot government receiving more money from the EU. Basically taking money out of depositors’ accounts because the bank entrusted to safeguard it did not.
#22 Mrs. Saunders I neither request or need any “slack”. The conepts are fudamentally the same in that people’s property (money) is being taken by illegal fiat by government….and in each case to cover their poor economic/social/policy actions.
I did not say they were indentical….and the question (“of the day”) was rhetorical. The other thing they have in common is some persons’ inability to see the danger of such precedent….especially as to unchecked government.
Whether either is, this time, in these cases, implimented, is beside the point.
Well sure 89Hoo, both issues go “deeper” but the difference is not just “one of semantics & degree” IMO.
Tell me, if the banks close or go bankrupt without the bailout, what happens to their deposits then? Do they have a system like our FDIC and would that even matter? It was a bad idea and that is why it did not get one vote of support, but it also did not appear that it was formulated by Cyprus, was it not the plan presented by the EU, specifically Germany?
The California issue was changed circumstances after a court ruling. Kinda like Cucinnelli and not allowing existing clinics to be “grandfathered”, instead insisting they have to abide by the changed rules even though they were in compliance under the old rules.
The current effort in California seems to be not to allow the retroactive tax bills to succeed, but it is not the same issue as in Cyprus.
#24 Mr. Lucas, pardon me for reading “(Yes, my spelling is poor….but I know what the words/concepts mean).
Which do you think is more important? as asking for some slack you seldom afford me. Was that rhetorical too, or should I answer?
It is sometimes difficult to tell when a comment is rhetorical on a discussion blog. If you believe the concepts are the same, that does not make it incumbent upon me to agree. Not rhetorically and not if you were really asking.
Not to nit-pick, but neither case has actually taken or been allowed to take anyone’s money. So even if I tried to agree that proposed legislation and a court decision on legislation already enacted were fundamentally the same, you still cannot claim that “people’s property (money) is being taken by illegal fiat by government” as no money has been taken. Decades of “poor economic/social/policy actions” have come home to roost for many nations.
I did not accuse you of saying they “were indentical” so no need for offense. The thing they have in common is that they allow someone to grossly interpret their effect for politically biased reasons. The only “precedent” so far is that one measure failed and the other is likely to. Which, in point of fact prove there is no “unchecked government” at all. And THAT is precisely the point.
25 – I agree it’s not a matter of semantics/degree. Never claimed it was. It is much more important than that.
.
Tell me, if the banks close or go bankrupt without the bailout, what happens to their deposits then? Do they have a system like our FDIC and would that even matter? It was a bad idea and that is why it did not get one vote of support, but it also did not appear that it was formulated by Cyprus, was it not the plan presented by the EU, specifically Germany?
.
I don’t know if there is an equivalent to the FDIC in Cyprus; without that people lose their money.
.
But this gets back to the danger of fractional reserve banking: without the legal responsibility to maintain 100 per cent reserves on demand deposits, there is no check on the banks (and the FDIC removes the responsibility even more…Uncle will just bail us out!). Without fractional reserves, and without a bailout guarantee (explicit (FDIC) or implicit (Too Big To Fail!)), spending money that was not theirs would have landed the bankers in jail, for fraud; also would have prevented runs on the banks. Now, of course, with those guarantees, that criminal behavior gets rewarded.
.
And yes, the origin was with the EU, who is ALSO hemorrhaging money amid gross and criminal mismanagement. Instead of doing the right thing and implementing real reforms, they are trying to put a bandage and destroy the savings of those who trusted them, particularly the poor.
.
I have not been following the situation in California and have made no comments on it.
I agree absolutely with the menace that is “too big to fail” and wonder when that started to happen, I have my opinions of course. It needs to be fixed and I agree that the banking oversight and regulators failed in a spectacular fashion that would have cost you or me our jobs and likely earned us a cell. I do not blame the fractional reserve system per se. The banks are not going to loan (their own) money without it, they need that liquidity to play with but they must manage it responsibly. It had been done for a long time until they started playing with fake transactions (default swaps – derivatives) and selling bad investments then betting against them and such shenanigans, that again, would land us in jail.
A strong regulatory system we have not had for a long time and I worry if it is better yet. That is my lament, not the FRS. Even without the legal responsibility to maintain 100 per cent reserves, they had the legal responsibility and the moral responsibility to safeguard the deposits, the loans and the investments.
It seems the whole world was gambling like they had nothing to lose.
28 – well it turns out, Sandi, that the TBTF bankers really had nothing to lose.
Sandi, the problem with inflationary monetary policies (so unbelievably easy with fiat money) is that there ARE no controls. Fractional reserves, quantitative easing (FR on a grand scale), fiat money…they were implemented precisely to allow Uncle to have the liquidity to spend beyond their means (Keynesians call it ‘flexibility’). Tired of being hamstrung, fiat money allows us to start stupid unwinnable wars, spread the world with billions of dollars in foreign aid (thereby pissing off at least half the world), start more dumb wars, promise everybody everything…no consequences.
.
As a by-product, we have a whole ineffective and inefficient and wasteful regulatory structure…in short a bureaucracy whose only goal is to perpetuate its own existence, which means it squawks like a child when it’s budget is increased.
Agreed, they had nothing to lose and unlike a lot of us, they lost nothing. They go on today as if nothing ever happened in fact.
I maintain that the problem is not having strong and enforced regulations. I do not expect greedy banksters to play well with others that is why they need a nanny who ensures their behavior. That was, from all I can gather, non-existent for a very long time. From the economic crash and debacles like Madoff to the massive fraud and bogus “investments”, no one was watching the hen house until there were no more eggs. Not even the credit rating folks most likely to be expected to. I think the system worked for a long time and this nation as well as the banksters did well. The changes in the The 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, The 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act, The 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, and The 2003 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, all played their part in weakening the regulations, oversight and rules to the point of “anything goes”.
There are too many guilty hands to count (and it is futile at this point), but the solution is not to scrap the financial and economic systems, it is to restore strong regulations, oversight and enforcement. What I cannot fathom is either political party claiming to care about this nation, refusing to do so. But they have.
With sound money and full reserves on demand deposits, if they blow the customers’ money, they go to jail. That’s a pretty strong enforcement mechanism.