At the risk of sounding sarcastic, Saen, I’ll recommend you look up the President’s plan to privatize Social Security.
Still feel safe?
Let’s review the bidding, Saen -
Your posted this in response to the Duckster OP:
"There is nothing serious in your list that connot be attributed to Clinton one way or another. He was just able to play CYA well while he was in office."
I then responded with:
**"Whether it’s left over from Clinton, or the first Bush, or Reagan or Carter or Calvin Coolidge is immaterial. It is now GW’s job to fix it as best he can, not make it worse.
I remember well a conversation between a Navy Admiral and a Captain Program Manager that took place in my presence. The Admiral was asking the Program Manager about problems with the program and the latter began, “Well, Admiral, when I took over this job …” That was as far as he got because the Admiral said, "Don’t blame your predecessor. It’s your job now. Tell me what you are doing to fix it.
I think this applies to such cases as GW’s performance to date."**
You then pretended that I had claimed GW was blaming Clinton:
"I havn’t heard GW blame any of this on Clinton. And can you tell me what he is not doing to fix it? Besides ignoring it?"
I then pointed out that GW hadn’t blamed Clinton (although I’m not sure of that) but you had:
"No, but the gist of your post was that you do."
You denied it with a flat out waffle:
**"Umm, no I’m not.
I am, however, making the case that ignoring the problems and innaction makes the problems worse. As Clinton did. You seem to be demanding that Bush “fix” the problems, yet claim his actions are making matters worse."**
I’m demanding that “Bush ‘fix’ the problems?” I think he claims that his action is intended to fix the Hussein problem, and you seem to agree with him. We started out with virtually universal support in non-Moslem countries following the WTC attacks. We are now down to something like 50% and that includes Turkey which is asking for payment for its support. I have no idea what kind of payment those military behemoths such as Latvia will ask.
Large numbers of the populations of Europe, including Britain, and the US don’t think the case has been made that a preemptive war is justified. That never seems to enter your thinking and you claim others are sticking their heads in the sand.
Finally there is this from you:
"I have asked you what he should be doing better to fix the problems."
Even if I were all wise and all powerful, I think it is pretty late to fix the mess. In another thread I suggested that I think a better course for GW would have been to go to the UN with a message like, “We’re screwing up guys. Hussein has been dicking around for 12 years, not living up to the Gulf War agreements and we need to sit down, collectively, and figure out a course of action.” It seems evident to me that GW would be in a much stronger position now had a course along those line been taken.
"This assumes that the opinions of the world, accept Saddam’s, that an armed Saddam is a menace and must be stopped is up for debate. Wich it is not. You can have the opinion that a Saddam with WMD is not a menace, I will not argue with that. But if that is your opinion then state it so that we do not go around in circles."
What the hell are you talking about that the “opinion of the world is that an armed Saddam is a menace” is not up for debate? I don’t think there is much opposition to the idea that, if armed as GW claims, Hussein would be a menace. But the “opinion of the world” certainly doesn’t seem united in favor of the GW solution, even assuming that they agree that Saddam is armed as claimed.
**"The correct way in the resolution was overwhelmingly stated as compliance, and willingness to dissarm by Iraq. **
Yes, support for doing something about Hussein’s non-compliance was “overwhelmingly stated” in the passage of 1441 and GW has even managed to piss away a lot of that support.
I don’t see the point in any more discussion with anyone who misstates my position and the position of anyone else who disagrees. That isn’t an exchange of views, it is just a wrangle and is a total waste of my time. And my time has practically no value.
an you please explain to me what you think “applies to such cases as GW’s performance to date” is exactly? Who performance is supposed to represent Bush in your anecdote? The Program Manager who is attempting to blame his predecessor? Or the Admiral?
Hypocracy abounds. I stated what i meant, yet you are attributing to me what I never said. The closest I cam to blaiming Clinton was when I mentioned the word “attributed”. And I meant that as his predecesor, the problems that he ignored and passed on could be considered as Clinton as the source because he ginored it. But then I stated this to make sure I was not misunderstood:
“The point is that Bush has not created any of it. Neither did Clinton. Clinton didn’t deal with it is what I am not happy about.”
[QUOTE]
I’m demanding that “Bush ‘fix’ the problems?”
That was as far as he got because the Admiral said, “Don’t blame your predecessor. It’s your job now. Tell me what you are doing to fix it.”
It is now GW’s job to fix it as best he can, not make it worse.
[QUOTE]
I don;t have a clue what you are demanding anymore. So that I don;t misstate your position, you tell me what it is you are trying to say. :rolleyes:
At what point does the lack of support invalidate war with Iraq? Once we get below 50% would it magically change the security counsels resolutions to dissarm Saddam? Does it change the fact that the opinion of the Administration that Saddam must dissarm, by force if necessary, As well as the Admin’s of the 49% of other countries that agree with him?
And who gives a shit what a large number of people think about the situation, especially considering that most of them think that even if Saddam has WMD out the wazoo and flaunting them it would not be a case for war. I told you that I would not argue that position and I meant it. A large number of people think we should invade Iraq right this second. And even larger number thinks it will be ok if we have a UN resolution with everything as it stands now.
Well then, you should have said so in the beginning.
Can you show me anywhere that the claim of just how much Saddam has has any factor in it? Where does it say that it is ok if he has a little bit, but alot would condone war? This is a anti-war arguement that I have heard quit a few times, can you tell me where you people get that assertion?
What country has changed it’s support for dissarming Saddam because Bush has pissed it away?
Saen: *t does not effect my life, and my friends an family, the way the terrorists and proliferation of WMD does in example of 9-11. Keeping your 401k safe may be more important to you than keeping me or the ones I love safe. But that would be your priorities wouldn’t it? Not mine…
You’re making the very optimistic assumption that invading Iraq would in fact actually “keep us safe”, or even safer, from the dangers of “terrorists and proliferation of WMD”. I very much doubt that that’s the case. Terrorism thrives best in political instability and chaos, and dangerous weapons are much more likely to be spread (and used) in the upheaval and disorganization that accompanies war. The political landscape in Iraq is very complex, and there are plenty of players in it who can be at least as dangerous as Saddam, given the freedom of action that war would provide. Moreover, support for anti-US terrorism will greatly increase if the US launches what is widely perceived as an unprovoked power grab in the Middle East.
And who gives a shit what a large number of people think about the situation
Anybody who recognizes—as you seem not to—that the rest of the world plays a huge role in what happens to us in the US. This isn’t some kind of action movie where it’s just the hero hunting down the bad guys and the rest of the cast conveniently stays out of the way. This is real life, and what the rest of the world thinks of us is crucial to how successfully we can fight terrorism or wage war.
So you think Bush is dealing with it? You know, defense is just as important as offense. So why is George Tenet still director of the CIA? What’s with all those promotions at the FBI, many of them people who had blocked terrorism investigations before 9/11? Why the foot-dragging on investigations into intelligence failures? (Nominating Kissinger to head the panel = one of the most repulsive acts by any president, ever).
Where is the accountability? When a case manager fails to report child abuse, s/he is held partly accountable – even though the parent clearly deserves most of the blame. The same logic should hold for intelligence. And 9/11 was a clear, massive intelligence failure. So what has Bush done to improve our intelligence system, besides sending all the wrong messages to our agents in the field?
You’r making the pessimistic assumption that it will make matters worse. Do you ignore the value of taking an agressive stance against rougue states and WMD? Do you not see that it lets the world know that the US will not tolerate illegal and nefarious production or usage of those weapons?
The US has never made it a policy to fight terrorism by appeasement or not pissing people off. I do see the value of not pissing them off, yes. But once we start making policy decisions in that direction, and attributing terrorism to strictly that source, then we should go all out with it. Stop supporting Israel, pull our troops out of the Mid-East, and completely cut off all relationships to the countries in the region. Because no matter what we do we will piss people off. If we can concievably do that without too much instability, I am all for it. But, that is once the US makes the stance that fightg terrorism is best faught by not pissing people off. And if it means that the isolationism of the US is they key to the eradication of terrorism, I am all for that move. But that dog don’t hunt either.
Excuse me, but “a large group of people/population” is not the rest of the world.
Ringo, my apologies for the tardy response.
My mistake on this, too. I’ve been going over the FY2003 Omnibus budget bill Bush finally signed late last night and the new FY2004 budget.
The ANWR reference is in the FY2004 proposed budget.
See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/interior.html for an overview.
Speaking of the FY2003 budget, there are a few sleight-of-hand tricks going on because we are approaching a debt ceiling. Bush has so far refused to request a ceiling raise so the government is shuffling money around, until at least April when the ceiling must be raised or the entire economy will crap out.
Elimination of civil service protections come to mind, as well as competitive sourcing.
Bush almost got his way with eliminating all civil service protections with the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security. In claiming the Dept. needs a flexible hiring authority to meet security needs, this also creates a political workforce. Homeland Security employees will be pressured to make decisions and enforce laws based upon political pressure and not a rule of law.
Bush is also accelerating a long-standing A76 program where federal agencies are required to make themselves competitive with the private sector. And if the private sector can do a better job, the work is contracted out.
Bush’s accelerated A76 is called competitive sourcing where agencies are under severe timetables (September 30, 2003 deadlines) to justify their work or risk having entire work areas contracted out and federal employees laid off. If the agencies cannot complete their studies in time, the default is a contractor takes over in 60 days (December 1, 2003). It is possible for more than half of the federal workforce may lose their jobs by the end of this year, to be replaced by lower-paid contract workers. I am aware of several studies requiring 18 months to complete for a full, fair and objective assessment to be made, are being slashed in order to be completed by the end of September. Under the Bush program, if the study is deemed inadequate, the work is contracted out automatically.
This will not lead to a reduced tax burden. On the contrary, this type of contracting-out costs the taxpayers more money along with a downgrade in service quality. A recent piece (can’t find he cite right now) in the NY Times(?) about the Dept. of Energy’s outsourcing reveals massive budget waste attributed to outsourcing.
While previous presidents have pushed for cost accountability, A76 and better business practices, Bush is on a fast track to privatize at all costs. Remember that almost all Shuttle operations are contracted out. NASA is under pressure to justify this contracting out in the wake of the Columbia disaster.
Keep in mind that while you continue to blame a previous president, out of office for more than two years now, every president must wear the burden because it’s on their watch. Good or bad, whatever happens to the country while someone is president ocurs on their watch.
Or in 2005 when there is a new president, will you attribute anything bad happening to the new president or the previous one?
No. The people who ran the Federal Reserve during Carter’s administration trashed the economy. The people who ran the Federal Reserve during Reagan’s administration fixed it. The Federal Reserve basically determines interest rates, and Presidents have little or no say in the running of the Federal Reserve.
Saen: *Do you ignore the value of taking an agressive stance against rougue states and WMD? Do you not see that it lets the world know that the US will not tolerate illegal and nefarious production or usage of those weapons? *
If the US had a consistent policy about it, then it might have. At present, the impression we’re giving is that we won’t tolerate “rogue states and WMD” unless
– it’s a country that already has WMD, like North Korea or China, in which case we’ll negotiate;
– it’s a country that is nominally our ally even though it harbors and supports anti-US terrorism, like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia;
– it’s a country whose invasion would give us no significant strategic advantage, like Libya or Somalia.
As it is, the common interpretation of our actions worldwide is that we’re gearing up to invade Iraq because we can, because it’s got resources and a strategic position that we’d like to control, and because we can’t get our hands on Osama bin Laden and need to take it out on somebody. (Many Muslims are also inferring that we’re just out to destroy Muslims.) There’s no point going to war to “let the world know” something if the message the world is actually getting is something different.
Cite?
Yeah yeah, and welfare reform proposed by the pubies has fullfilled all of the armageddon tpe prophecies the dems was absolutely certain would happen. I am fed up with scare tactics from the left, as well as right. Bush’s propsal will not constitute the collapse of the government or infrastructure that is planned for possible outsource. And any attempts to convince me of things that are agenda driven such as this is a waste of breath.
I repeat, I am not blaming Clinton as a cause per se. I am blaming him for doing nothing. Do you understand that? I can write a 5000 word essay explaining that position if you cannot understand what I have repeated over and over. I also blame Bush Eldar for not taking out Saddam when he had the opportunity and cause. I blame him for not helping the Kurds when he promised to do so. In no way did I even hint that Bush should abdicate responsibility to his predecessors, so would you please stop implying that to me?
Damnit! If you didn’t intend to imply any blame for Clinton why bring up his name at all? Do you really think that you can weasel out of the clear intent that is in that post?
My problem with a preemptive war is this. The probability of an attack damaging the US is being bet against the certainty of casualties in a war. I think that in order to make that bet, the probability of damage from a potential attack has to be high. Considering the unreliability of the analysis of intelligence data as to the intentions of a putative enemy, my number would be around 100 to 1 that such an attack would occur. In any case I think it should exceed 50 to 1.
I don’t think it has been shown that the odds for an attack by Hussein are anywhere near such a number.
With a requirement for odds that great, I think a lot more thought should be put into possible alternatives. I simply will not accept the dichotomy that we either do nothing or go to war as being the only two choices.
Did you really just blame Bush for stock market losses in 2000? ON the subject of the economy, let me ask a question. What exactly did you expect to happen when the internet bubble burst? Did you really think that the soaring indexes were going to stay at their hyperinflated rates?
The economy is a shining example of another Clinton mess left for his successor. You know he should have tried to talk down the economy from the rediculous speculation that was happening, but instead he chose to bask in the numbers, no matter what they foretold.
I’m no economist, Texican, but it was Bush and Cheney who first bandied about the “R-word” in the fall of 2000. Since consumer confidence is a major factor in economic health, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to assess a certain amount of blame on the incoming administration for performing a rather blatant act of CYA, intended (IMHO) purely for the consumption of rabid conservatives who suddenly realized that blaming everything on Jimmy Carter is no longer necessary.
Are you fucking dense? Or do you intentionally chose not to read large parts of posts you are replying to?
In every one of my posts about the subject here I fucking intentionally clarified what I was fucking talking about in attributing it to Clinton. Inckuding the original post about it. If you want to actually read the whole posts I wrote you may get a clue. If not :
You got that fucking right. Go waste someone elses time pal.
Ha, if Bush thinks that invading Iraq while actively screwing the Kurds would be liberating to them, oh boy. Watch for the Kurds to join al-Qaeda.
Now, I’ve said this before, but anyway…
What grinds my 'nads personally is how fooled I was. Fuck me for stupid. In the 2000 election, I was pretty easy about it. I still preferred Gore, having never voted for a Republican in my life. But I remember telling my son that this election wasn’t that big a threat, it was center right against center left, Kang versus Kodos.
I had no idea. Clue free. He isn’t merely mediocre, he is a disaster. I see a man who has pretty much drifted along, the Man Who Fell Up. Worse, I see a man who believes that romantic Bushwah about how a man can have greatness dormant within him, just awaiting a crisis to bring forth a Leader of Men. God help us all, the silly little twit thinks he’s Churchill.
Not to mention the fact that near that same time, the price of oil started to mysteriously rise, thus harming the economy even more. Remember how, prior to the elections, gas shot up steadly? Rising energy costs drive up the cost of everything.
And here is the cite for that claim. (PDF file. sorry).
Damn it. Forgot the link…