Illegitimate war = record deficit...again

[luckydevil]

Summary - We are NOT in Iraq because of WMDs, or because of Saddam's connections to Al-Qaeda, or anything else that the administration will cop to. We are there because the neoconservatives believe they can impose democracy on the entire region at the barrel of a gun.

agreed

and

That's why I have always argued that the war was a liberal war, not a conservative war. Neoconservatives are essentially Wilsonians.

[KevinthePRF]

Originally posted by luckydevil

agreed

and

That's why I have always argued that the war was a liberal war, not a conservative war. Neoconservatives are essentially Wilsonians.

This is one thing I find amazingly funny and true. Bigger government, bigger spending, for humanitarian reasons no less. And with zero accountability for our actions.

I don't see how anyone who thumps their chest as a proud American conservative can support this war.

Anyone ever read the Contract with America?

[Baculus]

The ballooning deficit is ridiculous, and it is amusing to see Republicans arguing that the deficit isn't THAT bad, nor is it a priority issue. Since when did we adopt this attitude? What ever happened to the Contract With America, the balanced budget, deficit reduction, and smaller government? That went out the door in the 2000 election. I remember the days when Democrats were described as "tax and spend," while it is obvious that the current Republican administration is "borrow and spend," just like the deficit-driving Reagan of two decades ago.

Are we going to bank EVERYTHING on the War on Terror, no matter the cost or sacrifice? Is that what this conflict has become: An open-ended war, with zero budget limitations?

Also, the tax cut will bloat the deficit larger as well, until, past the year 2010, it will simply be untenable. The Bush administration never was completely honest with the total size of the tax cut, and how much it will cost in Federal spending. It ended up being larger then Bush was stating during the 2000 campaign.

Also, and this is a topic that hasn't be examined, do we really know WHO we owe the deficit to, and what nations they represent? Do you know that CHINA is a major backer of our deficit spending? Do we really want to sacrifice our future, especially if this future will be partially owed by foreign investors? (Which, incidentally, has already had, with the creation of the Federal Reserve.)

This administration does not represent traditional fiscal conservatism at ALL. And it is odd, once again, to see Republicans scrambling to defend the President, even as they talk about conservative values. What happened to fiscal values?

When the shoe is on the other foot...Spend, spend, spend!

WMDs: Well, we found very small amounts. Where is the rest? Is it me, or has no one ever once said, "Whoops, our bad." Even Bush supporters just seem to dismiss this, as if it was no big deal.

KEEP in mind, during the 80's, the United States provided the means for Iraq to produce the WMDs. They were our leverage against the Iranians. The Iraq-Iran war ended, we became interested in regional oil interests, and, *bam*, all of a sudden we are saying to Saddam, "Hey, where did you get those weapons, anyways?" It is like selling a stolen pistol to a neighbor and then calling the police to report the firearm.

WE, the United States helped create the Iraqi situation, but this is a fact that many seem to forget. Just like folks seem to forget the ties to the Bin Ladens and the Taliban.

Is it me, or is there zero accountability in the government?

[Baculus]

Mad Mike, you forget that the camps that would have been struck were mostly in Kurdish controlled territory. And some of those camps are even know allowed, since the "terrorists" are really "anti-Iranian insurgents." The Bush administration, and CENTCOM, did not produce large amount of photos of terrorist training camps, other than the one in the NE, Kurdish-controlled area, did they? And what was that reason?

Mike, did you read any of Predicto's post on the orgin and the roots of the planning for conflict in the Middle East? (Good post, BTW, Predicto.) Did it every occur to you, Mad Mike, or any of the Bush supporters, that there may be OTHER motivations, other then the ones offered by the Bush administration?

[KevinthePRF]

Originally posted by Baculus

The ballooning deficit is ridiculous, and it is amusing to see Republicans arguing that the deficit isn't THAT bad, nor is it a priority issue. Since when did we adopt this attitude? What ever happened to the Contract With America, the balanced budget, deficit reduction, and smaller government? That went out the door in the 2000 election. I remember the days when Democrats were described as "tax and spend," while it is obvious that the current Republican administration is "borrow and spend," just like the deficit-driving Reagan of two decades ago.

Are we going to bank EVERYTHING on the War on Terror, no matter the cost or sacrifice? Is that what this conflict has become: An open-ended war, with zero budget limitations?

Also, the tax cut will bloat the deficit larger as well, until, past the year 2010, it will simply be untenable. The Bush administration never was completely honest with the total size of the tax cut, and how much it will cost in Federal spending. It ended up being larger then Bush was stating during the 2000 campaign.

Also, and this is a topic that hasn't be examined, do we really knowWHO we owe the deficit to, and what nations they represent? Do you know that CHINA is a major backer of our deficit spending? Do we really want to sacrifice our future, especially if this future will be partially owed by foreign investors? (Which, incidentally, has already had, with the creation of the Federal Reserve.)

This administration does not represent traditional fiscal conservatism at ALL. And it is odd, once again, to see Republicans scrambling to defend the President, even as they talk about conservative values. What happened to fiscal values?

When the shoe is on the other foot...Spend, spend, spend!

WMDs: Well, we found very small amounts. Where is the rest? Is it me, or has no one ever once said, "whoops, or bad." Even Bush supporters just seem to dismiss this, as if it was no big deal.

KEEP in mind, during the 80's, the United States provided the means for Iraq to produce the WMDs. They were our leverage against the Iranians. The Iraq-Iran war ended, we became interested in regional oil interests, and, *bam*, all of a sudden we are saying to Saddam, "Hey, where did you get those weapons, anyways?" It is like selling a stolen pistol to a neighbor and then calling the police to report the firearm.

WE, the United States helped create the Iraqi situation, but this is a fact that many seem to forget. Just like folks seem to forget the ties to the Bin Ladens and the Taliban.

Is it me, or is there zero accountability in the government?

This pretty much sums up my disdain for the Bush administration. Nice post Baculus. I don't think conservatism is an awful idea, I just think Bush is an awful conservative. Slash taxes, increase government spending, pay with credit. Or social security bonds when available. Anyone who can agree with this philosophy must spend most of their time filling out every "preapproved!" offer they can get their hands on.

[NoCalMike]

This is sort of unrelated, more to do with Bush's agenda, but if he is so concerned with Social Security running out in 20-whatever year......why doesn't he do the following:

Lift the cap on SS tax. As of now you are only taxed up to 87k for Social Security. Take that cap off.

Sign a bill or law or act stating that the government cannot steal errr..."BORROW" funds out of the SURPLUS that Social Security creates.

See, to me, until the government makes a commitment to leave their hands off the Social Security surplus funds, I can never take them seriously when they say they are concerned about Social Security.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Baculus

Mad Mike, you forget that the camps that would have been struck were mostly in Kurdish controlled territory. And some of those camps are even know allowed, since the "terrorists" are really "anti-Iranian insurgents." The Bush administration, and CENTCOM, did not produce large amount of photos of terrorist training camps, other than the one in the NE, Kurdish-controlled area, did they? And what was that reason?

Mike, did you read any of Predicto's post on the orgin and the roots of the planning for conflict in the Middle East? (Good post, BTW, Predicto.) Did it every occur to you, Mad Mike, or any of the Bush supporters, that there may be OTHER motivations, other then the ones offered by the Bush administration?

And the US didn't even originally want to dismantle the MEK. The terrorists that the State Department said Iraq was helping before the invasion. I am not even sure what happened to the MEK after the US invasion, were they even handed to Iranian authorities?

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Baculus

Mad Mike, you forget that the camps that would have been struck were mostly in Kurdish controlled territory. And some of those camps are even know allowed, since the "terrorists" are really "anti-Iranian insurgents." The Bush administration, and CENTCOM, did not produce large amount of photos of terrorist training camps, other than the one in the NE, Kurdish-controlled area, did they? And what was that reason?

Mike, did you read any of Predicto's post on the orgin and the roots of the planning for conflict in the Middle East? (Good post, BTW, Predicto.) Did it every occur to you, Mad Mike, or any of the Bush supporters, that there may be OTHER motivations, other then the ones offered by the Bush administration?

Did you read anything I wrote?

One of those camps was Salman Pac, about 30 miles south of Baghdad. The rest were found along the rout to Baghdad which to refresh your memory was from the south to the north. The Kurdish territries were to the north and just to further clarify the Kurds didn't control much of that. In fact they were none too happy about the AQ camp that was located in the north.

As for predicto's post, I already responded to him on the last page, go back and read it if you can stop flapping your lips for a moment.:laugh:

[Baculus]

For ANYONE that wants to learn more about the NeoConservative roots, I would URGE you to watch the excellent, highly-accalimed BBC production, The Power of Nightmares, which you can see, at least part of it, from the following link:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm

You can also download it as a BitTorrent.

Did you read anything I wrote?

One of those camps was Salman Pac, about 30 miles south of Baghdad. The rest were found along the rout to Baghdad which to refresh your memory was from the south to the north. The Kurdish territries were to the north and just to further clarify the Kurds didn't control much of that. In fact they were none too happy about the AQ camp that was located in the north.

As for predicto's post, I already responded to him on the last page, go back and read it if you can stop flapping your lips for a moment.

I'd like to hear more of these camps, since they aren't often discussed. Do we have pictures of these camps, either from on the ground or satellite? How do we know the nature of these camps? And where was the existance of these camps revealed? Did CENTCOM or the administration discuss these camps without, well, any further material that showed their actual existence?

The Kurds controlled northern Iraq area more then the Saddam administration did, that for sure.

BTW, your line or two line responses, Mad Mike, didn't say much, so how am I supposed to listen when you really didn't say anything? Perhaps if you had actually flapped your lips and SAID something, I could have listened!

After all, you really don't seem to know much about the PNAC - it is a model for an activist, interventionalist, expanionist United States. And you linked to a PNAC page with, ugh, a quote from William Kristol. :-P

[Baculus]

Here is a link of the camp that Mad Mike mentioned:

http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/826.html

I was actually reading about this camp, though I didn't recognize the name. Some intelligence sources thought that the camp was actually used to train the Iraq special forces. Or, as this defector says, perhaps it was used for training volunteers from different nations, aka a terrorist training camp.

[visionary]

Gahhh, I think there must have been a couple of things you said here that could possibly resemble the truth...but heck if I can find them...talk about making things up as tyou type...geez.

Originally posted by IbleedBurgundyNGold

This war has nothing to do with freedom! Not one single thing! Al Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq until we started our "Shock and Awe" campaign that has shocked and awed no one. And please...you really care about the Iraqi citizens and what Saddam was doing? I have news for you - none of that weapon nonsense you mentioned had a snowballs chance in hell of happening. And there was plenty of evidence to suggest it - it's just that those in the Bush admin who were hell bent on going to war in Iraq ignored any evidence that suggested that there really wasn't a threat in Iraq (and there was alot of it).

Comparing WWII to this fabricated military action is like comparing Mother Teresa to some millionaire who works in a soup kitchen once a year on Thanksgiving. What a joke.

Apologize? I don't think so. It's George Bush who should apologize for the death of over a thousand Americans who needlessly lost their lives in this farcical war, and for the thousands more who were injured beyond repair, and to the entire country for putting them in a financial situation that will take decades to get out of.

[flyingtiger1013]

"Is it me, or is there zero accountability in the government?"

100% accountability-every 2 years...backed by the 2nd amendment.

[SnyderShrugged]

Hey! Wasnt all of this hashed out prior to November?

I think the decisions have alrteady been made and the final outcome is this....

1. War was not illegitimate and was justified legally, morally, and even internationally. There was no big Bush "lie". The Iraq war is not unilateral, Unilateral means by ourselves with no help from other nations.

2. The general, normal, voting public decided these facts as true by voting the way they did, and by absolutely zero accusations coming to fruition. If all of the so called horrible actions really happened, why hasnt the DOJ jumped all over it yet?

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

And you say "No link between Al Qaeda and Iraq has even been shown to have possibly existed, much less proven." Have you lost your mind? Please show me any reputable source who will agree with you. I will accept any democratic politician... show me the quote.

Reality, what a concept. :doh:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

The first paragraph of the article:

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Excerpt:

Bush's Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), sought to profit from the commission's finding. "The administration misled America, and the administration reached too far," Kerry told Michigan Public Radio. "I believe that the 9/11 report, the early evidence, is that they're going to indicate that we didn't have the kind of terrorists links that this administration was asserting. I think that's a very, very serious finding."

Is that what you were asking for, or did you want something different?

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

The first paragraph of the article:

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Excerpt:

Bush's Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), sought to profit from the commission's finding. "The administration misled America, and the administration reached too far," Kerry told Michigan Public Radio. "I believe that the 9/11 report, the early evidence, is that they're going to indicate that we didn't have the kind of terrorists links that this administration was asserting. I think that's a very, very serious finding."

Is that what you were asking for, or did you want something different?

Don't you think his direct links to the 9/11 commission reports and Deulfer reports are the most credible? The Washington Post is not a source of information here, they are reporting their interpretation of the original reports that Mike has al;ready given us. Heck, the quote you posted was actually saying that Kerry wanted to capitalize on the information himself! What more do you need to see?

[visionary]

I love the nonsense posted here saying that neo conservatives think that freedom and democracy must be brought to every country in the Middle East at the barrel of a gun. That is just false speculation and bs...

There is not a single person probably in the world that thinks that war is neccessary with every nation. It just happens that Iraq was a special case, similar to Syria, which may eventually need outside intervention for liberation. Other places like Iran (because of their governemnt and a possilbe backlash by the huge pro-US crowd there that could ruin our prestige among them ), Saudia Arabia, Pakistan and such would be horrible places to launch a war of liberation and even the neo-cons know that.

Every country needs a different solution, they choose war with Iraq...it may not have been a perfect solution or perhaps even a good one, in hind sight, but it was the best option available, taking into account the country and the minscule chance of a sucessful homebred revolution.

[Baculus]

I think we are also getting away from the main topic, which is the economic issue. So, let me ask those who are Bush supporters, or do not see any issues with deficit spending: Do you support the Bush administration's spending policies, no matter the outcome? And do you see a need for long-term strategy when it comes to the issue of the deficit and national debt? And, in light of these questions, do you consider yourself fiscially conservative, or is the idea of an activist United States (which, ironically, was a criticism of Clinton) is more important then prudent Federal spending?

[Larry]

Originally posted by NoCalMike

The left argued that Saddam was succesfully contained, and did not have the capacity to make WMDs even if he wanted to and planned to. We had plenty of air raids any time anything suspicious come up. The inspectors supported this theory as they were unable to find ANYTHING, then Bush & the Neo-Cons administration goes and pulls them out before they finish because his "Attack Iraq" plan was already in motion and nothing, especially the TRUTH was going to get in the way of it.

Actually, your history is not quite correct.

The UN inspectors were finding WMD programs, and WMDs.

Unfortunately for the neo's, all the programs and WMDs they kept finding had beendestroyed.

They found warehouses of chemical warheads for Scuds. Bombed during Desert Storm. (We'd intentionally left one warehouse intact, because our intel said there were WMDs in there. The inspectors checked the building, and couldn't find a single trace of WMDs, or any chemical residue at all. Untill an informant told them that all the WMDs were in the other warehouse, that'd been bombed. They check the rubble, and Voila!.)

Bush reaction: Saddam needs to prove that all the WMDs have been destroyed.

The UN finds a receipt showing that Saddam bought (approx. I'm going from memory) 100 medium-range missles from Russia. They ask the Iraqis where the missles are: "What missles? We have no missles." They search, they can't find them. They ask again: "What missles?" They keep searching. Eventually, they ask again: "What missles?" "These missles. (show receipt)" "Oh, those missles. We destroyed them." "Where?" "Nobody knows."

Eventually, an informant tells them where to look. They dig a hole in the sand, and they find a burried pile of scrap metal. They dig through the pile, and they find missile parts. Many of the parts have serial numbers. Back to the factory in Russia for more paperwork. Eventually, they identify components that can be traced to 97 of the 100 missiles. (And a lot of unidentified scrap metal).

Bush reaction: Saddam needs to prove that all the WMDs have been destroyed.

In short, the UN found evidence which suggests (but can never prove) that Saddam had been systematically destroying WMDs (and the paperwork, and all the other evidence) for ten years.

But, your assertion that the inspectors were unable to find ANYTHING is incorrect. They were finding things, they just weren't finding what Bush wanted.

[Baculus]

I love the nonsense posted here saying that neo conservatives think that freedom and democracy must be brought to every country in the Middle East at the barrel of a gun. That is just false speculation and bs...

It was recently revealed that plans for some sort of military action is being planned for Iran. Now, we have idea of the nature of such military strikes if they did occur, whether it would be an airstrike, which wouldn't be the first time, or boots on the ground, which I don't think we'd have the extra manpower to achieve. Of course, that is, if such action did in fact take place.

[Baculus]

The left argued that Saddam was succesfully contained, and did not have the capacity to make WMDs even if he wanted to and planned to.

Well, since this issue appeared to be in the thread: Both Colin Power and Rice said that Saddam was contained. If this was the case, how come the administration back-pedaled? It seems to be giving mixed signals, if you ask me.

[Predicto]

Fine, visionary. If we invaded Iraq as a war of liberation, which I fully believe we did, why all the BS about non-existent WMDs and de minimus connections between Saddam and Al-Quada?

MadMike and Skin-n-vegas: the "evidence" of a pre-war Iraq-Al-Qaeda link that you are citing us is so minimal in the big picture, it's not even funny. There were many, many more connections between Al-Qaeda and Pakistan, Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia, Al-Qaeda and Iran, Al-Qaeda and Sudan etc. than there were involving Iraq. Iraq was our target for entirely different reasons, reasons that this Administration did not believe it could sell to the world or to the American people.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Larry

Actually, your history is not quite correct.

The UN inspectors were finding WMD programs, and WMDs.

Unfortunately for the neo's, all the programs and WMDs they kept finding had beendestroyed.

They found warehouses of chemical warheads for Scuds. Bombed during Desert Storm. (We'd intentionally left one warehouse intact, because our intel said there were WMDs in there. The inspectors checked the building, and couldn't find a single trace of WMDs, or any chemical residue at all. Untill an informant told them that all the WMDs were in the other warehouse, that'd been bombed. They check the rubble, and Voila!.)

Bush reaction: Saddam needs to prove that all the WMDs have been destroyed.

The UN finds a receipt showing that Saddam bought (approx. I'm going from memory) 100 medium-range missles from Russia. They ask the Iraqis where the missles are: "What missles? We have no missles." They search, they can't find them. They ask again: "What missles?" They keep searching. Eventually, they ask again: "What missles?" "These missles. (show receipt)" "Oh, those missles. We destroyed them." "Where?" "Nobody knows."

Eventually, an informant tells them where to look. They dig a hole in the sand, and they find a burried pile of scrap metal. They dig through the pile, and they find missile parts. Many of the parts have serial numbers. Back to the factory in Russia for more paperwork. Eventually, they identify components that can be traced to 97 of the 100 missiles. (And a lot of unidentified scrap metal).

Bush reaction: Saddam needs to prove that all the WMDs have been destroyed.

In short, the UN found evidence which suggests (but can never prove) that Saddam had been systematically destroying WMDs (and the paperwork, and all the other evidence) for ten years.

But, your assertion that the inspectors were unable to find ANYTHING is incorrect. They were finding things, they just weren't finding what Bush wanted.

Good posts Larry, but the major problem in your note are the lines "Bush Reaction- Sadaam needs to prove..."

Sadaam was demamnded to do just that, "Prove It" by 17 UN resolutions. It wasnt President Bush's rules, it was the requirements by the UN and the entire international community.

Why are you ignoring that Sadaam broke the rules he agreed to post gulf war?

What purpose did the UN have to impose rules that they wouldnt ever enforce?

What happens the next time the security councel imposes "rules" on a rouge state? Credibility anyone?

[Baculus]

MadMike and Skin-n-vegas: the "evidence" of a pre-war Iraq-Al-Qaeda link that you are citing us is so minimal in the big picture, it's not even funny. There were many, many more connections between Al-Qaeda and Pakistan, Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia, Al-Qaeda and Iran, Al-Qaeda and Sudan etc. than there were involving Iraq. Iraq was our target for entirely different reasons, reasons that this Administration did not believe it could sell to the world or to the American people.

Right. It all seems to be forgotten that 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, where a lot of the idealism behind Al Queda stems. What ever happened to the direct ties betwen Osama Bin Ladens home country and terrorism? If we are going to start striking every country for ties with terrorism, we also better start with this one, considering the ties with have with Bin Laden, Al Queda, among other organizations. And then we can start with some of our friends who also have ties with terrorism organizations.

Some folks seem to think it is so cut and dry, and so black and white - maybe it would be if our hands hadn't be been involved in some rather shady dealings in the past.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Predicto

Fine, visionary. If we invaded Iraq as a war of liberation, which I fully believe we did, why all the BS about non-existent WMDs and de minimus connections between Saddam and Al-Quada?

MadMike and Skin-n-vegas: the "evidence" of a pre-war Iraq-Al-Qaeda link that you are citing us is so minimal in the big picture, it's not even funny. There were many, many more connections between Al-Qaeda and Pakistan, Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia, Al-Qaeda and Iran, Al-Qaeda and Sudan etc. than there were involving Iraq. Iraq was our target for entirely different reasons, reasons that this Administration did not believe it could sell to the world or to the American people.

I agree, there are lots of other regional connections between AQ and their leadership. Unfortunately, that isnt the debate. We arent discussing the level of conatcts, only if there were some or not. There were. Period.

Why do you guys constantly lean on the arguments of "why didnt we attack SA? Why not Packistan? etc, etc,."

It's not apples to apples. There is strategy and long range military planning that we cannot, ever see or understand.

It's fooolish to think of it otherwise.

Iraq was the target for the reasons that we all see. It was winnable, it is central to the region, it was dangerous to leave them alone, we thought they had WMD's along with everyone else, we know Sadaams horrible history of torture etc, I could go on and on.

For you to claim that the rumor mill and assumptions on the nay sayers are legitimate, you must also acknowledge that Liberation was just and right to do too.

[NoCalMike]

Originally posted by Baculus

Right. It all seems to be forgotten that 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, where a lot of the idealism behind Al Queda stems. What ever happened to the direct ties betwen Osama Bin Ladens home country and terrorism? If we are going to start striking every country for ties with terrorism, we also better start with this one, considering the ties with have with Bin Laden, Al Queda, among other organizations. And then we can start with some of our friends who also have ties with terrorism organizations.

Some folks seem to think it is so cut and dry, and so black and white - maybe it would be if our hands hadn't be been involved in some rather shady dealings in the past.

Bush go after his billionaire oil-buddies? Highly unlikely.....

Saudi Arabia supports terrorism, emotionally, and financially and makes NO DENIAL of it, but since they have so much money, stocks and bonds invested in our markets, they won't be attacked. Like usual, money talks :puke: