IRAQ WMDs & Tax Cuts

[jku]

Does anyone care that our beloved President, George W. Bush, is being maligned for things he didn't do? Everyone is getting on his case all the time for the WMD's and other issues. But is it really fair?

Let's face it, George W. Bush is an honest, ethical man who runs this country with a fair heart and good, reasonable judgment. Let's get off his case.

[dakotagopher]

Editorials are important and fine, but there's a reason they're on the Opinion page and not in the Hard News sections. They're slanted to the opinion of the writer. I try to never let editorials influence my view of the big picture. They can be quite interesting and entertaining, however.

My question, which has not yet been answered satisfactorily, is that if Hussein didn't have WMD, why did he kick out the inspectors in 1998, and why didin't he cooperate fully w/inspectors in 2002/2003?

Was he hiding something, or just playing poker?

The economy will recover. This stuff is all cyclical. did I spell cyclical wrong?

[jku]

Hi D-gopher - great to hear from you! :)

These are the facts - no politics:

- Bush knowingly LIED to America and sent brave soldiers into War for POLITICAL reasons, NOT to fight "terror," not to make America "safer," and definitely not to spread "democracy and free the Iraqi people." There are hard facts here vs. SPIN - this is a classic case. The CIA has been manipulated all along - those looking at the facts surrounding this "WAR" knew it in OCTOBER of 2002:
http://www.latimes.com/la-na-cia11oct11,0,2360915.story
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/06/10/national0138EDT0418.DTL

- Bush and his corporate cronies need Iraq to get re-elected. The contracts are tax-payer giveaways to huge donors, the oil is a giveaway to greedy energy interests, AND duped conservatives actually believe he is doing something to "fight terror"
With a bad economy, huge debt, corporate scandals, failed drug/terror wars - it would be hard to find a more failed Administration than this one.
What would he run on in 2004?

You want to see TRUE horror in America? Right now Bush will bend over to get re-elected, but the REAL wrath and greed waged over our America will come if he is re-elected.

- As for INSPECTIONS and HUSSEIN, and as to "WHY" he "kicked out" inspectors - Let's clarify what happened - HUSSEIN kicked out the AMERICAN members of the UN INSPECTION team, the rest of the Weapons Inspectors were allowed to stay.
Hussein believed the INSPECTORS were working for the CIA. Isn't the first rule of good intelligence work to NOT get caught?
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq99-7.htm
Why not improve the stealth of CIA information gathering, instead of going to WAR and risking American lives for a threat that didn't exist?

He didn't have the weapons Bush/Powell/Rumsfeld said he did. More time won't prove anything.
- Scott Ritter, former Marine and UN Weapons Inspector, has been against Bush and this war all along. He even VOTED for Bush, but has come to see what's REALLY going on here.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html

- The Administration wants more time, and let's give it to them - but top soldiers on the ground have said "THE WEAPONS ARE NOT THERE" - and Administration officials off the record (of course!) said they'd be "SHOCKED" if Iraq actually had usable weapons.

The trailer? That's a lie Bush told us again. Bio-weapons can be made in a TIN CAN, as well as an empty trailer! Plus bio-weapons have a SHELF-LIFE, like the milk in your fridge, or the MEDICATION in your bathroom. There wasn't a threat. If Hussein had the weapons Bush said he didn't, why didn't he use them when attacked?

Do you really belive Bush's lies D-gopher? Isn't it time to see the REAL deal here? It's about greed for money and power vs. morality and TRUE democracy.

They will frame it as a "political" attack - but it's not. The reputation of America as a global leader is on the line. The dissenting progressive opinion has always won out in the eyes of history - whether it was during Vietnam, Women's suffrage (all you female "conservatives," do you remember where the conservatives stood when your grandmothers fought to work and vote!?), McCarthy-ism, Civil Rights - the conservatives have been history revisionists on their record of fighting against progress.

You have a question as to what is at stake here, read it from a fellow conservative - Nixon's lawyer:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

As for the TAX CUTS - they're givaways to wealthy Americans.
The TRULY rich guys I know are well aware of what is going on here, why isn't the middle class conservative who will have to pay the INTEREST on this DEBT? And send their kids to college.
And pay a mortgage. And take care of their parents. And pay these tax "cuts" back with interest in less than 10 years time.

All the cheerful conservative "optimism" about the "economy coming 'round again" is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that Bush's plans for America are destructive to TRUE middle-class American values.

We need new reliable leadership that can get us back on top again.

What are you seeing that I am not?

[dakotagopher]

Well at least you pay attention JKU. You sure have lots of time to commit to this, sorry my responses are so slow. Most of the Bush Bashers (ha) are not well informed, nice to see you're backing up your opinions with lots of data.

Everything you're relaying is arguably logical (for the most part). That being said, I am reminded of the constant rantings that spewed forth during 8 years of Clinton from the likes of Limbaugh and other more moderate commentators. They all sounded pretty logical at the time too.

I was in college for many of those years, thus had time to pay pretty close attention to things politically. I clearly remember the near constant barrage of warnings that Clinton was ruining A) the present, B) any hope for the future, and C) America's reputation on a worldwide basis. Good lord, the whole operation was going to grind to a halt if we didn't watch out for his every policy move.

Basically, it was the same stuff that is now being said about W. Bush but with a slightly different spin. Seriously, look at the parallels.

In retrospect, most of it was (and still is) purely partisan. Clinton was overall an excellent domestic president, managing the economy very well (though a well trained monkey could have made the call to keep reapointing Greenspan), but I feel he was a train wreck from a foreign policy standpoint. History will judge that, as it judges all presidents on that aspect.

Anyway, at the end of 8 years of Clinton, the sky had not fallen. And I doubt that it will fall based on the policies of Bush.

At this point, I do not feel Bush has lied to the public. He has made policy statements that in hindsight are inaccurate. Show me a beltway politician that hasn't. Bush will have to deal with these issues come election time, and it will be interesting to see what regular people think then. Clinton made statements that, at the time he made them, he KNEW were inaccurate. Big difference, at least to me.

I also do not believe regular people are that stupid. This has been the rallying cry of the Left for decades, "people are dumb, thus we know what's best for them, let us run the show." When conservatives win an election the Left just uses it as further evidence of this belief, "look how dumb they are, they don't see that they're better off with us in charge." I've never understood that. It's like some weird self-feeding symptom or something. Amazingly arrogant.

Also, I must disagree that the "dissenting progressive opinion" (I love it how the Left labels themselves this way) has always won out historically. Had said Progressive Opinion had their say in the 1980s we'd still be mired in the cold war and Iraq would have owned Kuwait for over a decade now. Progressives in the 1930s and early '40s were the big voice promoting appeasement of Hitler. Would they have win out historically on that one had they succeeded?

Don't let youself believe that Progressives (I'll use your term, which i really do get a kick out of) have the hammerlock on the good ideas. Both ends of the spectrum have something to offer.

Lastly (I'm really rambling here, sorry, I'm on my 3rd straight 18 hour day at work, so a bit mentally disjointed), I just don't see how those weapons trailers are so easily dismissed. Right there you have, per the UN regs, full justification for the war. No? Somebody explain this to me like I am a two year old. Right now I feel like a two year old. That can type but has trouble with spelling big words.

Again - had we found the chassis for a nuclear bomb, absent only the plutonium, would that be dismissed as easily as the trailers are??????????

Trailers aren't nearly as sexy as a nuke, but Isn't it the same thing in Principle? No?

[jku]

Hey D-g - yeah, well I mentioned it here before that I work in news, and I have to pore through tons of material each morning and summarize it for Producers - its part of my job. But my conclusions based on what I'm reading/seeing aren't included in my summaries - but they sure as hell are here.
:)

I understand what you're saying about Rush. I listen to him, but Hannity more because I get off at noon and he's on then. They're shameless loudmouths - ALL STYLE, no substance. NPR is much more journalistic, fair, and ISSUES oriented. I don't care if Bill Clinton tried to seduce Paula Jones - what about jobs, social security, national security - things that MATTER!?
While Rush was bashing Clinton in the mid-90s, everyone laughed at him - we had a surplus, it was time of peace, there were plenty of jobs! College grads were getting SIGNING BONUSES back then! Now we have quite the opposite, and Rush is saying America is doing great!
What fantasy plane is Rush living on!? I want to go there too!

Funny thing is I'll be fine no matter what in terms of my personal financial/familial situation.
It's a lot of people I see on these lists around our age with non-union jobs, lower middle class backgrounds, dim job prospects - that I have sympathy for. We need to get this country back, the PEOPLE, and BUSH does NOT represent the people no matter what his "common man no-nonsense" bullshit salesman fascade says! He's only known a small minority of ultra-elites his WHOLE life, and that is all he really cares about.

There is no arrogance on the left, and what is perceived as "arrogance" is really a thoughtful analysis of REAL issues (look at THE NATION MAGAZINE vs. NEWSMAX) - The LEFT is the party of hope, fairness, and understanding; this country can be better, more equal, and we can use our tremendous wealth as a nation for OUR common good, instead of using our tax money as WELFARE to wealthy companies!

The GOP CLAIMS middle class values, but then falls in line with greed, elitism, arrogance, cronyism, bigotry, and self-interest.

If I was smart, I would master the Republican shtick, and get a job doing press for the GOP. It's really easy - focus congressional investigations on blow jobs and FORGET that 150 soldiers died for Bush's re-election campaign. How can Congressional Republicans dismiss an investigation into the WMDs as "politics"!? People died to supposedly protect our country from those weapons that we know now didn't exist! Shouldn'twe give that the highest scrutiny!?
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-US-Iraq.html

FACT is my friend, we've found nothing. If we found a nuke chassis, that would be SOMETHING! The soliders on the ground have found nothing. Our intelligence knew there was nothing before they went in - and now BUSH/Rummy want to blame INTELLIGENCE for errors in IRAQ!! ISN'T THAT LIKE OJ looking for the REAL KILLER?

THIS SUMS IT UP FOR ME:
Hey, dude, where's
Osama bin Laden?
Where's Hussein?
Where's the W.M.D?
Where's our JOBS?

[pisces2473]

I want to know where are the Democratic talk show hosts??? I heard Clinton say something a few months ago about how all the syndicated talk show hosts are Republicans. I think someone later said that the only Dems were Donahue and Howard Stern, lol.

[jku]

Let's make that .5 liberal talk show hosts...
Donohue is off the air, and not because of ratings - the real deal is MSNBC wanted to go more conservative to keep up with FoxNC - FNC has been doing great ratings wise. Scarbo"roid" got hired, and they went straight-laced - no more Green Party candidates. Behind the scenes - MSNBC guys are a pretty cool liberal bunch.

Stern supported the war, and although I love him, he knows nothing about politics.

Just an FYI, Fox is not about the right-wing so much as trying to get ratings. If they could read Karl Marx all day on Fox and get better ratings, they'd do it.

FNC is so wonderful/annoying depending on what ideology you subscribe to - and that keeps people watching.

It's ALL about ratings - C.R.E.A.M
CASH RULES EVERYTHING AROUND ME

[coll214]

jku- These two statements you made pretty much sum up any response for me when people say how great Bush is:

"THIS SUMS IT UP FOR ME:
Hey, dude, where's
Osama bin Laden?
Where's Hussein?
Where's the W.M.D?
Where's our JOBS?"

"The GOP CLAIMS middle class values, but then falls in line with greed, elitism, arrogance, cronyism, bigotry, and self-interest."

[pisces2473]

I have to agree with you, Coll. Jku is right on target :)

[coll214]

I'm not blaiming Bush alone for those things. It's just that his reasoning for going to war were for those very reasons listed, and he's yet to produce proof of ANY of them. Yes, Hussein's no longer in power, but where is he?? I for one would like proof of either his demise or his hiding. And then when you look at his other policies like cutting back money for veterans benefits DURING war time, HUGE tax write offs for large corporations, cutting back research for better fuel efficiency and many other environmental laws, attempting to raise acceptable pollution levels for companies, etc. I like him even less, and that's before mentioning the economy!

[reva_544]

Yes, let's not get started on Bush and the economy until you can tell me something he could do differently that would help...

And I'm tired of hearing about how these large corporations get all these "HUGE" write-offs because George Bush is president and he wants all his hoity-toity homies to think he's the greatest leader this country's ever seen. Those laws have been around for a LONG time. Plus, many states offer these companies to operate state tax free as long as they stay located within that state and keep the jobs there. I haven't heard anything about this on these boards...or is George Bush in charge of tax legislation in these states too?

Bush has been in office for three years and has already gotten TWO tax cuts through Congress. I think that's pretty damn good considering how long it takes for Congress to do ANYTHING.

Bush is the President of these United States, but lets remember, that even though he's "leader of the free world," he is NOT doing it on his own. He doesn't have the power to do much of anything by himself!

[jku]

What could he do differently? First, he could get rid of the tax "cuts" altogether. Tell us how it's a cut if it has to be paid back in less than 10 years time WITH interest - while at the same time impacting every service we rely on a good government to provide to its people.

How can anyone not see that this is a huge payback to the wealthiest Americans, like my friend's family - the billionaires. They know what's up, why don't we?

Let's call it what it is - a loan of a few hundred dollars to the middle class to BUY their vote for the 2004 election - but it will be paid back by you and me, with punity.

And what about the tax cut impacting services in the states? There is no relief in that bill for hurting state economies. The economy is weak, and consumer spending is suffering - there is no faith right now. We need new leadership.

BTW, how can anyone defend the HUMMER CLAUSE - giving a $100,000 break for gas guzzling SUVs - its a two-fer payback to the auto and oil industry. He SHOULD be telling them to start giving us better mileage and sharper designed vehicles, thus decrease our dependence on oil as a source of energy altogether!

How did Saddam pay for those glorious palaces anyways? He wasn't selling dates.

And Bush does have a lot of pull - he scared one half of 25% of America into voting these GOP crooks into office in the first place, by pushing a bullshit WAR that hasn't made a single person any safer.

States do provide breaks for business, and it does keep jobs. That's a good thing and not a point of contention. I don't see Bush doing anything to promote State's rights other than tell them that it's their right to suffer - do you realize 50 states are bankrupt?

And it's not a good thing to allow trans-national corporations to incorporate in the BAHAMAS while doing business in America! They get a break on taxes that they have every obligation to pay.
What about sending good, honest manufacturing jobs overseas - does Mexico and China ring any bells?
If he loves America, why isn't he providing a plan to give incentives to companies to keep jobs in America.

These right-wing crooks YELL America, but whisper Chinese!

America has tremendous power. Overseas, we're the rich people on the Hill everyone talks about. What we say, goes. It's that simple.

We don't need this corrupt, maniacal, greedy warmonger representing a country that has done so much good for so many for so long.

Don't believe the lies - like lottery ticket, is you scratch past the surface of these plans, it says "LOSER" - and that LOSER is the American public...and the world.

[reva_544]

Originally posted by jku
do you realize 50 states are bankrupt?


Still not seeing how this is something Bush is responsible for...do you think this happened overnight? God forbid we think about the possibilty that this could be a lagging effect of events that occured during the Clinton administration.

Fact is that tax cuts DO stimulate the economy. THAT is a fact! People are bitching about the economy now because they want a quick fix now. Read your own posts jku! Bush gave them what they asked for...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The economy is cyclical. I feel sorry for every poor bastard that finds himself in office when the economy takes a downward turn. I hate being blamed for things I can't prevent too...

[coll214]

The problem with the tax cuts is that the lower income people who need it the most won't see it. I know that obviously the less you make, the less you're going to get in a tax refund, if at all.....but still. A tax cut is just going to put this country more in debt. Personally, I'd rather see the money go towards other programs like education. We're just going to pay for it later anyway; say after the 2004 election.

[dakotagopher]

JKU - I can defend the so called "Hummer clause." I personally know a couple of dozen small businessmen, guys that bust their ass to make $40 to $50 grand a year while providing a half dozen jobs each for other people, that have been able to substantially upgrade their businesses because of the new depreciation laws. This law wasn't passed for the oil/auto industries - it was passed to stimulate investment in capital equipment for businesses. This typically results in higher profit margins which result, long term, in higher taxes, more job creation, etc.

Incidentally, I like the Hummer but would never buy one because of the increased overhead from fuel & insurance. Saw a JD Power report the other day that listed Hummer owner's biggest complaint about their car as Cost of Fuel. Seriously. What did these people think was going to happen when they bought the thing? It has a 37 gallon tank. At $1.50 per, that's $55 per fill up. Wowie Zowie.

[dakotagopher]

Quote
_________________________________________

The problem with the tax cuts is that the lower income people who need it the most won't see it. I know that obviously the less you make, the less you're going to get in a tax refund, if at all.....but still. A tax cut is just going to put this country more in debt. Personally, I'd rather see the money go towards other programs like education. We're just going to pay for it later anyway
_________________________________________

Lower income people don't need a tax cut. They don't pay much in taxes. What they need is a living wage. Most truly poor pay no income tax, so a tax cut for them is moot. What will help them is making enough money to provide the opportunity to enable them to climb to the next social strata if they desire to do so.

I must agree, Education is the key. Free education for all is what built this country. I disagree that we should keep pumping money into the existing system though, without some fundamental changes to the system.

RE a tax cut putting us more in debt - this is not necessarily so. Tax cuts stimulate the economy. Period. There is no argument on this. The argument is to what degree do we cut taxes on the wealthy (since any tax cut of significance will include the wealthy, since they pay the bulk of the taxes to begin with). The question is this: has taxation on the wealthy passed the point of diminising returns? Might society be better off if the wealthy paid fewer taxes?

The knee jerk reaction, of course, is No. But if you look at the historical picture, you can't be so sure. There seems to be a growing consensus in the economic community that the boom of the 1990s may have been a result of Reaganomics ("trickle down economics"). Many will howl with rage at the very thought that Reagan had it right, but what if he did? Interesting.

[jku]

A note to Reva and D-Gopher - what I wanted Bush to do to stimulate the economy was a break for one year on PAYROLL taxes - the money taken out of our paychecks every week.

Instead what he did was use the guise of "economic stimulus" to give a greater tax break to the wealthiest Americans.

It's called BUBBLE-UP economics - the opposite of TRICKLE DOWN. Reagan/Bush I left their office with the country in a mess - do you remember talk of the massive deficits when we were in junior high?

Clinton raised taxes on the ultra-wealthy right away and that got us out of the deficit. That money then made its way back into the economy. There isn't an economist out there (except in the White House) who thinks TRICKLE-DOWN is a good thing! It was a goofy theory written on a cocktail napkin, and somehow Reagan fell in love with against the advice of all economists at the time.

Show me one smart economist who supports Bush/Reagan's economic policies? Reagan's best move was limiting the scope of government in the economy - but the GOP took that ONE great thing and have won three elections on it. There is no BIG government anymore - if anything, Bush has created more of it against what Reagan would have done with the Office of Homeland Sec.

Reva is right - its not fair for a President to get blamed for a bad economy, but that's how this country perceives it. We as a country love to "blame the guy on TV."

From here on out - as the country continues to suffer - its ALL Bush's fault. He got his GOP majority in Congress, and all his bullshit tax cuts passed.

He can't blame this on 9/11 anymore, and come next summer when the economy is still hurting - if he tries to blame it on 9/11 and NOT his tax cuts - WE as REAL Americans must call him out on the lie.

Have you guys seen John Kerry speak? He's gonna team up with Evan Baye and save this country. We as young people MUST support them and stop listening to the brainwashing drivel coming out of this Administration!

www.johnkerry.com
http://salon.com/tech/wire/2003/06/13/fuel_standards/index.html

[reva_544]

Thought it might be worth while to mention that the U.S. economy grew at a rate of 2.4% last year...

I realize that lots of people have lost jobs (my area has been terrible), but I don't think we're at "suffering" just yet.

[jku]

Thanks Reva - but let's not get ahead of ourselves. You're not giving all our friends on this list the whole story about that number. ;)

This country is SUFFERING under Bush - there's no two ways about it. We need a new Administration fast.

2002: A Hobbled Recovery

The U.S. economy improved last year, but you wouldn't have known it by the Russell 3000® Index and the Nasdaq composite respectively returning -21.5 percent and -31.5 percent, the third consecutive year of negative returns for the overall stock market (the longest such string since the early 1930s). The markets, in part, reflected the uncertainty surrounding economic data. After experiencing a mild recession in 2001, the economy began to grow again in 2002, although erratically and at rates well below historical norms. During 2002, real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) grew 2.4 percent, as traditionally reported using annual averages. But comparing fourth quarter 2002 with fourth quarter 2001, real GDP grew 2.9 percent, a rate well below the historical growth norms for the first year of recovery (see chart "Real Gross Domestic Product Annualized Percentage Change"). Inflation, however, reliably registered only a modest increase (to 2.4 percent in 2002 vs. 1.5 percent in 2001), mainly due to higher energy prices.

http://www.tiaa-cref.org/siteline/siteline_gen_2_140_54414.html

Also a final note on the TAX CUTS and who benefits from an article in the Sunday NY TIMES:

"[Bush] often had onstage with him a couple with two children and an income of $40,000 or $50,000 whose taxes would be cut by more than $1,000, mostly because of the increase in the child tax credit.

But the indisputable fact is that the bulk of the tax cut will go to the wealthy. A study by Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal research institute whose calculations have gone unchallenged, found that half of all taxpayers would get a cut of less than $100 a year this year and that by 2005, three-quarters would get less than $100.

On the other hand, almost two-thirds of all the tax savings will go to the wealthiest 10 percent of taxpayers, and the richest 1 percent will get an average tax reduction of nearly $100,000 a year."