A History Lesson

[Freak Out]

Nothing was more embarrassing with the Petraeus report to the Senate then our own Senator Feingold asking a question of the general, then asking another one, then another on, then another one, then answering his own question himself without ever letting the general answer any of them. Feingold is an embarrassment to the State of Wisconsin. He has no clue what the hell he is doing. He is up for re-election and if you vote for him you are definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed.

I said the same thing about people who voted for Bush the second time.

[Freak Out]

I seriously doubt that the 60% story is true, this sounds like propaganda. That ad was so tone deaf, I doubt the Times was excited about running it.

If you read editorials in the NYT, they are far from moveon.org

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

I have very liberal views and have to say the moveon add was pretty sad. Petraeus is a stand up guy that has a tough job to do. I have no idea what his political views are but everything I know about him says he deserves a little more respect than that despite who his boss is.

Yep, economists are noted liberals. LOL

Not many, but noted left wingers include Krugman and Reich. It's pretty obvious that they are collectivists. And Krugman's commentary extends far beyond economics - similar to a right wing guy like Thomas Sowell.

Krugs economics are hardly liberal. It took a lot for him to come out politically. He didn't start out writing that way.

I miss being able to read Krugman online...but I heard rumblings of times select going the way of the Dodo? .....and the Times was beating the drums of war pretty loudly in the run up to the Iraq war. Very leftist shit.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

i would say NY Times news is slanted left, but complete.

Brooks is certainly conservative. By "sort-of" you must mean he is intelligent.

Krugman is moveonish, ya. He bores me. Dowd writes a gossip and dating advice column. She is a superb writer, though, I admire her way with words.

I was refering to the staff editorials as middle of the road.

[mraynrand]

I seriously doubt that the 60% story is true, this sounds like propaganda. That ad was so tone deaf, I doubt the Times was excited about running it.

If you read editorials in the NYT, they are far from moveon.org

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

I have very liberal views and have to say the moveon add was pretty sad. Petraeus is a stand up guy that has a tough job to do. I have no idea what his political views are but everything I know about him says he deserves a little more respect than that despite who his boss is.

Yep, economists are noted liberals. LOL

Not many, but noted left wingers include Krugman and Reich. It's pretty obvious that they are collectivists. And Krugman's commentary extends far beyond economics - similar to a right wing guy like Thomas Sowell.

Krugs economics are hardly liberal.

OK, you've convinced me.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I miss being able to read Krugman online.

Just email me the title of each editorial and I'll tell you EXACTLY what he is gonna say.
He's clever in his styling, but no great thinker. Like Maureen Dowd.

and the Times was beating the drums of war pretty loudly in the run up to the Iraq war. Very leftist shit.

Good point. Anybody who dismisses the Times as knee jerk liberal is not paying attention. Or listens to too much talk radio.

[Badgerinmaine]

Yowza! Was that dude a member of the PT Barnum cabinet or what?

hard to place that face. I see a little Alan Alda. Add a dash of Don Imus. And finally some forehead from Christina Ricci.

I think it's actually Pruneface, the villain from "Dick Tracy".

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I seriously doubt that the 60% story is true, this sounds like propaganda. That ad was so tone deaf, I doubt the Times was excited about running it.

If you read editorials in the NYT, they are far from moveon.org

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

I have very liberal views and have to say the moveon add was pretty sad. Petraeus is a stand up guy that has a tough job to do. I have no idea what his political views are but everything I know about him says he deserves a little more respect than that despite who his boss is.

Yep, economists are noted liberals. LOL

Not many, but noted left wingers include Krugman and Reich. It's pretty obvious that they are collectivists. And Krugman's commentary extends far beyond economics - similar to a right wing guy like Thomas Sowell.

Krugs economics are hardly liberal.

OK, you've convinced me.

would be hard to convince you of anything. The simple facts are that Krugman hardly falls into the moveon camp. He has stated many times that he doesn't believe the bush admin/cheney intentionally lied, etc.

He is a neo keynesian. He worked for Reagan. He was critical of the "new economy." Worked for Enron. He is hardly a socialist.

His economic views regarding Bush were pretty simple..large deficits created by tax cuts, iraq spending, increased public spending were unsustainable and would create a major problem. Regardless of his political views, i don't see how one can say that isn't sound economics.

While i can see how his political views (and sometimes it does appear that he blames everything on bush) can lead some to dismiss his economic work, but that would be akin to tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

[mraynrand]

I said you convinced me, what more do you want? Actually, you didn't, I looked it up myself, because sometimes I get the loons on the left confused. I still dislike Krugman immensely, but he does have 'mainstream' economic credentials. That doesn't change the fact that he writes opinion pieces like he's a collectivist. While he's critical of Bush's spending he still favors expansion of 'entitlement' programs at the expense of military spending for example.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I said you convinced me, what more do you want? Actually, you didn't, I looked it up myself, because sometimes I get the loons on the left confused. I still dislike Krugman immensely, but he does have 'mainstream' economic credentials. That doesn't change the fact that he writes opinion pieces like he's a collectivist. While he's critical of Bush's spending he still favors expansion of 'entitlement' programs at the expense of military spending for example.

I thought you were being sarcastic. My fault.

[Kiwon]

Reality bites, don't it?

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=5592

[mraynrand]

I seriously doubt that the 60% story is true, this sounds like propaganda.

The official explanation is that they give a discount to all non-profits on advertisements.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What is really fun about the whole thing is that a conservative group put out an ad with the photo of the towers and saddam. No matter how many times it has been proven the two were never linked.

How about apologizing for continuously try to fool the american public.

[Kiwon]

Memory troubles?

Still more memory troubles?

Okay, do you remember now?

[mraynrand]

What is really fun about the whole thing is that a conservative group put out an ad with the photo of the towers and saddam. No matter how many times it has been proven the two were never linked.

How about apologizing for continuously try to fool the american public.

People continualy get this wrong. 1) Iraq was the number 1 foreign policy issue prior to 911. It was an unresolved (and to my thinking) intolerable situation that needed to be resolved. 2) Bush and Cheney and the rest of the administration NEVER linked Saddam operationally to 911. 3) It was well understood by ANYONE who had bothered to do even the minimal amount of reading that the case for war with Iraq wasn't primarily due to direct links to al Qaeda, but well-known links to ongoing terrorism in the mideast, allowing terrorists to remain in country, etc. Read Pollack's book, "The Gathering Storm" - a pre-war book that carefully and completely outlines the case for war. 4) Bush continually drew - and continues to draw - a direct link between 911 and the type of countries that allow terrorism to thrive. Such countries as Afghanistan that allowed the Taliban to thrive, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Pakistan, etc. People throw out the lame argument that 'why don't we invade Iran or Packistan - they're worse than Iraq.' That's so pathetic. It was clear that Iraq was easier to topple, and were it not for the weak-kneed congressional Democrats, it would be seen as a great strategic advantage - operational base in the mideast, influence over vast oilfields, the possibility to positively influence a muslim nation. All these are legitimate national security issues and goals. Going into Iran N.K. or Pakistan have unique problems and concerns.

The U.S. press continually focused on WMDs and 911. Many Americans saw a connection between Iraq and 911. People who knew the most - the congressional leaders who had access to the same intelligence that Bush, Britain, Australia, etc. also concluded that toppling Saddam was a good idea. People who paid attention realized that the threshold for tolerance for guys like Saddam and countries like Iraq had been lowered by 911. Saddam DIDN'T HAVE TO BE OPERATIONALLY LINKED to 911 and he didn't have to have a nuke ready to go in two months to see that he was a significant threat, and that securing Iraq was an important strategic move. 911 and Saddam were clearly conceptually linked, and most people understood that, even if there were those that were misled to believe that Saddam was directly involved in 911. To me, the fact that Iraq provided passports for the 1993 WTC bombers (who killed 6 and wounded 1000 more), and provided safe haven for the 1993 WTC bombing chemist should have been enough to g and take him out even before 911. But again, the 911 slaughter hadn't happened yet and that LOWERED THE THRESHOLD FOR TOLERANCE. Similarly, many Americans didn't want to fight WWII, but Pearl Harbor made them realize that the threat of countries that weren't operationally linked to the pearl harbor bombing had to be dealt with. Sure, there's a huge difference between the strength of threat of a WWII Germany and a weakned Saddam Hussein, but the world had changed to where a Saddam could help a terrorist with anthrax or a nuke hide out - or he could help aquire the same materials and/or finance such terrorist with his oil for food money. Again, the circumstances changed and even though Saddam looked weaker, there were plenty of reasons for taking him out.

As I've said before, you can disagree, and I've heard good arguments for what we could have done instead of invade Iraq, but for anyone paying reasonable attention prior to the war, the connection between 911 (or better put, the causes of 911 or the circumstances that allowed 911 to happen) and Saddam's Iraq was clear.

----
As an aside, I should point out that I think there was no direct connection between Saddam and al Qaeda planning or carrying out 911. However, you argue that it has been proven that there was no connection. That's untrue. What is true is that no compelling/overwhelmingly convincing proof has been found that there was an operational connection. It's still formally possible that they worked togther in some capacity that has not yet been uncovered. Many have argued that bin Laden would never work with a secular guy like Saddam. That's just silly. bin Laden types worked with the U.S. to get rid of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. There's no reason to think that Saddam and bin Laden wouldn't have worked together if it had been to their mutual benefit. It's been pointed out by many that the U.S. worked with Saddam when it was to our benefit to counter Iran. We currently are 'working with' Pakistan for the same reason. Like we worked with the Soviet Union to get rid of Germany in WWII. That's the way it goes sometimes.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What is really fun about the whole thing is that a conservative group put out an ad with the photo of the towers and saddam. No matter how many times it has been proven the two were never linked.

How about apologizing for continuously try to fool the american public.

People continualy get this wrong. 1) Iraq was the number 1 foreign policy issue prior to 911. It was an unresolved (and to my thinking) intolerable situation that needed to be resolved. 2) Bush and Cheney and the rest of the administration NEVER linked Saddam operationally to 911. 3) It was well understood by ANYONE who had bothered to do even the minimal amount of reading that the case for war with Iraq wasn't primarily due to direct links to al Qaeda, but well-known links to ongoing terrorism in the mideast, allowing terrorists to remain in country, etc. Read Pollack's book, "The Gathering Storm" - a pre-war book that carefully and completely outlines the case for war. 4) Bush continually drew - and continues to draw - a direct link between 911 and the type of countries that allow terrorism to thrive. Such countries as Afghanistan that allowed the Taliban to thrive, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Pakistan, etc. People throw out the lame argument that 'why don't we invade Iran or Packistan - they're worse than Iraq.' That's so pathetic. It was clear that Iraq was easier to topple, and were it not for the weak-kneed congressional Democrats, it would be seen as a great strategic advantage - operational base in the mideast, influence over vast oilfields, the possibility to positively influence a muslim nation. All these are legitimate national security issues and goals. Going into Iran N.K. or Pakistan have unique problems and concerns.

The U.S. press continually focused on WMDs and 911. Many Americans saw a connection between Iraq and 911. People who knew the most - the congressional leaders who had access to the same intelligence that Bush, Britain, Australia, etc. also concluded that toppling Saddam was a good idea. People who paid attention realized that the threshold for tolerance for guys like Saddam and countries like Iraq had been lowered by 911. Saddam DIDN'T HAVE TO BE OPERATIONALLY LINKED to 911 and he didn't have to have a nuke ready to go in two months to see that he was a significant threat, and that securing Iraq was an important strategic move. 911 and Saddam were clearly conceptually linked, and most people understood that, even if there were those that were misled to believe that Saddam was directly involved in 911. To me, the fact that Iraq provided passports for the 1993 WTC bombers (who killed 6 and wounded 1000 more), and provided safe haven for the 1993 WTC bombing chemist should have been enough to g and take him out even before 911. But again, the 911 slaughter hadn't happened yet and that LOWERED THE THRESHOLD FOR TOLERANCE. Similarly, many Americans didn't want to fight WWII, but Pearl Harbor made them realize that the threat of countries that weren't operationally linked to the pearl harbor bombing had to be dealt with. Sure, there's a huge difference between the strength of threat of a WWII Germany and a weakned Saddam Hussein, but the world had changed to where a Saddam could help a terrorist with anthrax or a nuke hide out - or he could help aquire the same materials and/or finance such terrorist with his oil for food money. Again, the circumstances changed and even though Saddam looked weaker, there were plenty of reasons for taking him out.

As I've said before, you can disagree, and I've heard good arguments for what we could have done instead of invade Iraq, but for anyone paying reasonable attention prior to the war, the connection between 911 (or better put, the causes of 911 or the circumstances that allowed 911 to happen) and Saddam's Iraq was clear.

----
As an aside, I should point out that I think there was no direct connection between Saddam and al Qaeda planning or carrying out 911. However, you argue that it has been proven that there was no connection. That's untrue. What is true is that no compelling/overwhelmingly convincing proof has been found that there was an operational connection. It's still formally possible that they worked togther in some capacity that has not yet been uncovered. Many have argued that bin Laden would never work with a secular guy like Saddam. That's just silly. bin Laden types worked with the U.S. to get rid of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. There's no reason to think that Saddam and bin Laden wouldn't have worked together if it had been to their mutual benefit. It's been pointed out by many that the U.S. worked with Saddam when it was to our benefit to counter Iran. We currently are 'working with' Pakistan for the same reason. Like we worked with the Soviet Union to get rid of Germany in WWII. That's the way it goes sometimes.

C'mon. The bush admin put them together often. And, with the direct purpose of confusing the american public. You and i both know that the majority of americans aren't savvy when it comes to foreign countries, foreign policy, or even our own country.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

The public believed this because this admin conflated the two.

"I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." - Bush

Must be nice for you to dismiss Clarke's assertion that Bush wanted/demanded a link between the two.