Cheney Pushes Bush to Act on Iran

22 Responses to “Cheney Pushes Bush to Act on Iran”

1. John Kaiser on July 17th, 2007

   Well that settles it, if the Guardian said it, it must be true.

   Hi John, ……..But did you see that Bush’s ratings went up this week. Even after all the trash talk from the Dems and Media he still is cleaning the clock of the near historic lows of the Congressional popularity ratings in the teens. It is obvious that W isn’t going to alter his decision making program to please anyone. You got to give him that. HRC is chasing her tail all over the court to back her vote in Iraq, then to appease Move On, then to compete against Obama.

   We’ll just have to wait to see if the Guardian has it right about Bush now. ………. steve

2. matt on July 17th, 2007

   just wondering if you think that this would be the best utility for our time, resources and financial interests. dont confuse me with the anti-war left when i say this. personally, i think we are already over extended in iraq and afghanistan and this might only make us more vulnerable financially and structurally.

   i am not doubting the reliability of the above link, but just wondering if it would be wise. if we really knew in 2002 that iran was the bigger threat, why did we not go after them at that time rather than the targets on the east and west of iran?

   Matt……. the best utility of our time would be in building our economy, educating our children, building roads, healing the sick and collecting garbage, but in the end I think we must do what we should do. I assess that we can’t let Iran get a nuke, period. (I understand that there are those that are perfectly content to live with Iran being a Nuclear Power.) If that makes me a right wing extremeist as I’m sure Jim below assesses, so be it. I believe you must respond as a great nation by doing what needs to be done and not according to how difficult the task or steep the cost. History is rife with examples. What would be unwise in MHO would be to allow Iran to have the nuclear bomb and start dictating terms concerning Israel and US interest. I don’t think that would bother Jim below, but call me old fashioned, it would bother me.

   Regarding 2002 and our knowledge about Iran. You may reacall that in the State of the Union in January of that year Bush declared that Korea, Iraq and Iran were an axis of evil. [side note: it humors me when I run into people that don’t believe that, but consider that role to be occupied soley by GW Bush.] Sadam is gone, and contrary to what Bush’s critics were saying about multi-party talks, Korea just caved on Nuclear Reprocessing.

   If you go back to WWII after Pearl Harbor, Congress declared war on not only Japan, but Germany also, and as far as the European theater goes we immediatly invaded Morocco. I guess what I am saying is that when you start talking Military Strategy, it isn’t always one or two dimensional. Hypothetically speaking it wouldn’t strike me as contradictory to go in Iraq first as maybe the best way to deal with Iran, possibly even creating a scenario where we could bring additional pressure and maybe avoid open conflict. There is the social unrest in the population that might be best organized with a foothold in Iraq. This of course is random opining about a situation I don’t know about ……. nor does the left. I only know that you cannot look at our action in these situations in necessarily a linear fashion.

   I am aware that you, like me, have heard that charge against Bush relative to Iran being the real threat. Count on this, those that have offered this point (why invade Iraq if Iran is the real problem) as a illustration of how Bush is bad, have no actual interest in us reducing the Iranian threat wether it was before, after, or in lieu of Iraq. To them it is merely a touche’. Pretty sophisticated politics. …………steve

3. Jim on July 17th, 2007

   “Cleaning the clock”? I am amazed at the pride of extremely low ratings. Bush is low because of pretty much everything he does but most especially the war and Congress is low because they have not held Bush accountable for anything. A celebration of “at least we aren’t last.” That’s sad.

   Matt raises great points. We are already over extended and Cheney wants to push for more. After the dollar collapses, you’ll know who to blame.

   Between you and many of your repliers on the last two posts, you will need a handkerchief to wipe up saliva deposits on your chins. Really starting to get a hang of this war thing, huh? Maybe it will provide hours of entertaining ’shock and awe’ only this time it will be with nukes on a country that doesn’t have them.

   Jim………Essenially I must say “I give” your’re right. What we should do in a stituation is a function of how some people assess or current readiness. Accordingly we wouldn’t have entered WWI or WWII and look at the lives we would have saved there. After all it is only the US that is of bad will. When we surrender the so called “enemy” will dust off their shoes and walk away. I know there is not a brewing problem in the world that you would address unless it is on the beach in Alantic City. I hope that you are the President when Iran has the Bomb and starts making demands. I’m sure you’ll find a way to avoid conflict, after all that is the bottom line, isn’t it. Just like N. Korea did. Oh wait, strike that, N. Korea caved. Bush is like a broken clock, which is correct once in a while and such luck to have caused N. Korea to cave on the re-processing even when Bush refused Bi-Latteral talks like all the Democrats were demanding (without learning from Clinton). But luck is luck, so don’t give credit to Bush. ……..steve

4. Angel on July 17th, 2007

   hey Steve..long overdue if ya ask me!..great work!

   Hi Angel………Thanks, there are some like Jim above that are prepared to sacrifice Israel on the alter of Peace (as if that would do it), but not me………..steve

5. the Grit on July 17th, 2007

   Hi Jim,

   Bush’s approval ratings are low because the liberal media has spent several years pounding on him at every turn, and because the only thing Democrats can agree on is that they hate him. The approval ratings of Congress have little to do with Bush or the war, but are due to their inability to make good on the numerous promises that put them in office. While this does include Iraq, it goes far beyond that and, after months in office with nothing to show except a rather pointless increase in the minimum wage, the abysmally low opinion of the general public for Congress is only to be expected.

   Hi Steve,

   I’m still betting that Cheney will be out before the end of the year for “medical” reasons. That will give the Republicans a chance to move Rice into the office, from whence she will be a most useful running mate for whoever wins the primary.

   the Grit

   Hi Grit……….. Interesting possibility concerning Cheney’s retirement. I have often thought of that after the midterms, but I think Rice and Cheney are not of accord on the Iranian situation and that could be the rub……..steve

6. Jim on July 17th, 2007

   We shouldn’t have entered into WWI or WWII. Nobody can still explain me what we were doing in WWI but the war looked to be a stalemate and could have ended in compromise, but instead good old Woodrow entered the US and help decide the war. The unintended consequences of which was harsh restrictions on Germany and helped fuel the setup for WWII. WWII we entered only because FDR allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor. No, it is not only the US that is of bad will, but it is the US that needs to set a good example.

   No, if we leave the enemy will go back to fighting each other like they have for centuries. Bush says we can’t leave because “they” will follow us here, therefore we must stay. So we have decided to stay and just today a NIE comes out that al-Qaeda will strike the US. I heard Bush on air saying al-Qaeda is a serious threat, but they aren’t nearly as strong as they were before 9/11 because of all the great work we have done, but still a serious threat. This is called fear politics, just like they use to do with the color coded threat level system. Ratings go down, threat assessment goes up along with ratings. I’ll bet his ratings go up a little after this announcement today. Not that he even cares about that much, but it does add a little more political capital for him to spend in trying to propel us to war.

   Grit can blame the media all he wants, but that is a joke. I can quid pro quo you all the live long day with examples of liberal and conservative media bias. All media, Fox, CNN, all of them cater to a dumbed down, middle road America, mainly due to corporate sponsors. Sure Fox may be a little right of center and CNN maybe a little left, but they hardly venture far from a from a dumbed down, center road, double yellow line, entertainment promoting, reality shielding, American Idol concerned public. They all may as well be called INGSOC entertainment.

   Jim……..

   “WWI could have ended in compromise”

   Why am I not surprised here.

   ——————————————

   “unintended consequences of which was harsh restrictions on Germany and helped fuel the setup for WWII”

   Yeah, we can let the perps of war just carry on as usual. Any explanation of why Japan was the victim of the US?

   ——————————————

   “if we leave the enemy will go back to fighting each other like they have for centuries.”

   Jim, you have to be kidding me on this one. You haven’t obviously read their manifesto. I suppose 911 was just an accident on their part. You used to say at least that we were right to go after bin Laden in Afghanistan I believe. …..steve

7. Jim on July 18th, 2007

   So which is it? If we leave they follow us here and if we stay they are coming also. You are darn right we should have gone after Osama. The real question is why aren’t we still after him? Maybe we’ll come back to him after we have Iran under our belt? How can you go along with these ADHD foreign policies?

   I am not saying these radical Muslims are saints. What I am saying is that I don’t trust our government and specifically the neocons in control. The backbone of their philosophy is to promote myths. Myths that create or greatly exaggerate an outside enemy which in turn helps to solidify the American public behind a predetermined foreign policy. It is a fatally flawed ideology, just as much as radical Islam is fatally flawed. As long as we stay on this course, we will get exactly what we don’t want, but what the neocons want. That is WWIII. They like to define themselves by war and they detest peace. They praise Machiavelli, endorse situational ethics and believe in “noble lies” or “strategic deception”. How can you trust anything they say after reading this about them is my question? I think the answer is that people like to lied to, like to live in myths and false realities. For crying out loud here, they are telling you that they will lie to you. Not only that, they have a track record of lies. Their actions back up their words.

   The lyrics played at the beginning of Clinton administration was “don’t stop thinking about tomorrow”. I think Bush should have played lyrics from another Fleetwood Mac song to open his administration, “tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies.”

   On WWI, ok, maybe not a compromise, but at least a stale mate.

   I don’t understand your question about Japan being victim of the US.

   Jim………“If we leave they follow us here and if we stay they are coming also.”

   The answer is Yes, if we let them, because they are the aggressors. Is that hard t understand?

   The answer is we are after Osama, it is cute to twist the truth like you do. I think the latest newsreel sort of proves, certanially suggests he is dead. I am sure a complicated world situation can seem like ADHD to some that see everything through a simplistic prism.

   I have nothing to say about the irrelevant nonsense in your rant about neo-cons except you better stop letting your adhomenin perspective on the US get in the way of your ability to see what is going on in the world.

   Don’t make me laugh with those lyric analogies ……….and my point about Japan being a victim is that surely when they attacked us it was because we were the bad guy by some reckoning. I heard one guy arguing that because we put a steel embargo on Japan when the invaded Indochina (instead of attacking them in defense of indochina) we set the stage for our own downfall leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Talk about contorted reasoning. I have to say the more you talk, the more I fear Ron Paul because I know you are a strong supporter………steve

8. matt on July 18th, 2007

   just wondering something about burden of proof and what is considered constitutional for declaration of war. is it mandated by law that the president has to proove his case for military action before congress can appropriate finances and send forces? or, can the pres send them on a mission and let congress either fund them or give them nothing in an effort to send them home.

   as an example, the pacific theatre in japan was an easy proof for war, but how did it work for vietnam?

   also, under what circumstances would it be beneficial to release info not fit for public consumption in the event it would compromise our troops and strategy?

   i dont want to engage in any ad hominem attacks on the current adminstration, but i do think it is rellevant to ask where the burden of proof for military action is.

   one concern that i have had with this adminsitration that is necessary to address is how spending seems to be out of control. if we would engage in another war effort, would we be obliged to raise taxes to pay for it and possibly conscript troops. please dont think i am being alarmist or anything, i just wonder how we can manage it with our current resource base.

   that being said, i do have tremendous concerns over the n. korea, syrian, iranina and venezuelan threats. we can all argue till we are blue in the face about the why’s and how’s of this trouble, but i think all can agree that the stated countries are working toward our downfall.

   ————————————————–

   Matt………..

   ”just wondering something about burden of proof and what is considered constitutional for declaration of war. is it mandated by law that the president has to prove his case for military action before congress can appropriate finances and send forces? or, can the pres send them on a mission and let congress either fund them or give them nothing in an effort to send them home.”
   
   The idea of “burden of proof” and the constitutional declaration of war are sort of incongruous. The Constitution has no prescription for the declaration of war. It simply says in Article One, Section Eight: “The Congress shall have the power to………. declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water” In short, Congress could declare war this afternoon on lets say Mali (in Africa). I doubt this would happen, but it is possible within the context of the power of the Congress to do so for little or no reason. Of course they would need the capitulation of the President to actually prosecute a war since he is the “Commander in Chief” and there is a potential violation of this loosely defined concept of International Law, but still our Constitution isn’t subordinate to even International Law. Some say that we haven’t “formally” declared war since WWII, but I take exception to that. If you look at Section 8 of Article 1 and see the inclusive list of Congressional authority of which declaration of war is one, you would have to conclude that merely an act of congress enabling any of those items is sufficient. I claim that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the empowerment of the current action against Iraq qualify. Nobody has been able to show me how the Congress who has the power to declare war hasn’t done so when they “authorize” and invasion and fund a war since there is no formal prescription in the document that empowers them.
   ————————-

   as an example, the pacific theatre in japan was an easy proof for war, but how did it work for vietnam?

   Again “burden of proof” is not necessary, but In the case of Vietnam, Congress passed the “Gulf of Tonkin” resolution that authorized the President Johnson to pursue a war in Vietnam. This is largely know to be the result of the manipulation of facts and outright lies by the administration, but there seems to be evidence for at least one of the two alleged incidents that it was based on.
   —————————

   also, under what circumstances would it be beneficial to release info not fit for public consumption in the event it would compromise our troops and strategy?

   You say “to release” I am assuming you mean “not to release.” Good point here, but it doesn’t impress the far left and nor even some Libertarians.

   —————————

   i dont want to engage in any ad hominem attacks on the current adminstration, but i do think it is rellevant to ask where the burden of proof for military action is.

   Essentially “burden of proof” is a different question and threshold for 535 individuals. In short what information or proof does each Congressman (person) require as their personal standard in order to lend their support to a Declaration of War, whether it be a formal “Hear ye, Hear ye, Hear ye sort of thing or to vote as Hillary, Kerry, Edwards and others to permit Bush to attack Iraq, similar to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

   ——————————

   one concern that i have had with this adminsitration that is necessary to address is how spending seems to be out of control. if we would engage in another war effort, would we be obliged to raise taxes to pay for it and possibly conscript troops. please dont think i am being alarmist or anything, i just wonder how we can manage it with our current resource base.

   Good point here……..the administration is no model of fiscal responsibility. My hunch is that they choose to go this direction in order to appease the left in Congress in the effort to “get along” and “get other things done” I think it is a fatuous idea to think that they could have purchased “goodwill” for the left this way. Taxes? The best thing that can be done with taxes is to optimize the receipt of taxes by good economic policy, not a desire to fund this or that whether it is a war or otherwise. To raise taxes as a means to try and create revenue to fund war, health care, poverty programs, highways ………. what ever is nonsense. We should be about optimize federal revenue by realize as history has proven repeatedly that low taxes stimulate a strong economy which produce the maximum or optimal revenue stream to government. I don’t know if you have ever studied the “Lafer Curve” (I am sure it will draw some giggles from some uninformed readers of this blog……..I may post on it someday) But in short it proves that raising taxes to increase revenue is counterproductive in many cases and our history of changing “marginal” tax rates proves this over and over.

   ————————————

   that being said, i do have tremendous concerns over the n. korea, syrian, iranina and venezuelan threats. we can all argue till we are blue in the face about the why’s and how’s of this trouble, but i think all can agree that the stated countries are working toward our downfall.

   Amen, but I don’t think some of the Paul supporters agree with your conclusion here……….right Jim?

9. matt on July 18th, 2007

   i think the lafer curve was arthur lafer right? i studied him in mathematics as a point about attempting to find maximum points on curves. once the second derivative is 0, you are at the max. i think it had some tricksters in class upset because they tried to bring into it the sociology of what was fair and who is most able to pay. however, the math never lied about people getting to a place where they are less willing to take on the risk of getting a lower reward on their investment.

   so, do you think that if another operation was to begin, somewhere the money would stop funding projects. i suggest earmarks be eliminated and use that money to finish our work in iraq before iran would even hit the floor for discussion. or, would bush halt the pay of representatives until a monitary resolution is met? could that result in an impreachment attempt?

   Matt, correct……….Arthur Lafer Stanford University. What you mentioned is exactly what I meant when I said that we’ll probably get some snickers from some NSL blog readers. The historic attack on the Lafer curve is to introduce social architecture to the debate. The (arthur) Lafer Curve does not attempt to establish spending priorities or any type of predicate for “social justice,” just Government Receipts optimization.

   You have looked at this from a Mathematical perspective in College. I have studied it from an Economic perspective. The essence of the Lafer Curve is pretty much axiomatic in my view. Those that challenge it really just miss the point and are basically arguing for increasing taxes without regards to the economic impact. This is derived from people, even the Congressional Budget Office, who tend to evaluate everything in a linear fashion.

   In other words, if we raised $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion) dollars with the current tax rate and we increase the tax rate by 10% we will get $1.1 Trillion. This is such nonsense it is embarrassing that we even have to still address it. The Republicans in Congress since the 90’s have been trying to get the evaluation of fiscal policy of the country changed to “dynamic” scoring. That is, the changes that Government makes will affect what actions people in a free country will take. The Democrats in Congress were very unhappy with this because they have long held the hammer over the voting population with a populist appeal by saying that tax cuts only benefit the rich. They cannot afford to be exposed on the point that tax cuts often increase receipts and produce jobs whether they benefit the rich or not.

   Here is a Great Example (I have referenced this before). There was a time when the Democrats wanted to increase tax receipts so they decided that their social agenda could be best funded by raising among other things a “luxury” tax on the “rich.” They were to do this by placing a heavy tax on the sale of Yacht and Private Airplane to consumers. This tax reduced government receipts from this source to almost zero. It nearly killed the domestic aircraft and yacht industries altogether and resulted in massive layoff. The result was so bad that Congress later revoked the taxes. [I suppose it was against the backdrop of the ultra liberals claiming that this was a tax cut for the rich]. But this wasn’t a tax cut for the rich because they weren’t paying the tax to begin with. They purchased their aircraft and yachts overseas. The overseas workers confiscated our US jobs. So raising taxes doesn’t always or even usually increase tax revenues to the government. This is why that the Bush tax cuts during his early administration is strongly increasing income to the government at this time. We are in a deficit situation not because of the tax cuts (it increased revenues) but because of the 1) Clinton era recession, 2) war on terror, and 3) runaway discretional spending.

   The left doesn’t seem to get it that increasing marginal tax rates do not optimize tax receipts. If they understood that they would spend time studying the internal data to determine the best tax rate to generate the most revenues in order to finance their spending priorities. Raising Revenues and Spending are two separate propositions and the mere desire to increase spending (even for war) does not mean we can or should increase marginal rates until the supply and demand lines cross in some linear fashion.

   In short you have to first maximize revenues and then fight over spending priorities, but not try to enhance you ability to spend on those priorities by increasing taxes because such effort is doomed to failure. In such cases we have less government income and greater government needs because they now have to fund social programs for more unemployed people because they tried to solve math for increased spending in establishing the tax code and not maximizing receipts.

   As you mention on the other side of the ledger (i.e. spending) is halting earmarks. If they want to argue of spending priorities, I would agree this would be a good place to start. But looking at your needs is not the place to start with tax policy, it is a fools game. …………steve

10. writer chick on July 19th, 2007

    Hey Steve,
    Great reading and debate. I’ve nothing to add. Just enjoyed the read.
    WC

    WC……..thanks and thanks for taking the time to read……..steve

11. Jim on July 19th, 2007

    No, I agree that N. Korea, Syria, Iran and Venezuela threats are a concern. Just not concern enough to invade all of them. Heck, we have installed and funded dictators, leaders and regimes more vicious than any of those guys. Some come to mind like Pinochet, Osama, Saddam and the contras.

    So, what do you have to say about the neoconservative philosophy? Any issues with what I have said?

    Jim, tell me in black and white. You are perfectly content to (in the end) co-exist with a Nuclear Iran. Right? Bottom line is I’m not. I’m willing to do something about it and your not. I think we have had this discussion elsewhere. As I’ve said before I am not going to humor your neocon drivel…….steve

12. M2 on July 19th, 2007

    The thrust of neoconservatism aims at US military and economic domination the world.

    A short and unintimidating summary of the neoconservative agenda can be found in an excerpt from the website of the American Interprise Institute, a Washington think-tank that advises the Pentagon (Vice President Dick Cheney’s wife, Lynn Cheney currently sits on AEI’s Board of Directors):

    “Influential neoconservatives, including Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Douglas Feith, and Richard Perle, have been arguing for years in favor of an assertive U.S. strategy in the post-Cold War world. In 1997, they and other like-minded intellectuals organized the Project for the New American Century, which urged then-President Clinton to confront Iraq. “America was being too timid, too weak, and too unassertive in the post-Cold War world,” Kristol argues. “American leadership was key to, not only world stability, but any hope for spreading democracy and freedom around the world.”

    “This war is about the neoconservative view, the idealistic view, the Wilsonian view, that the world would be a better place if only America can make it that way.” The neoconservatives advocate a paradigm shift in which the United States spreads American values by asserting American power-by force, if necessary.”

    SOURCE: http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.16723/news_detail.asp

    The name the movement gives this US empire, “Pax Americana” is taken from the name for the British Empire (”Pax Britannia”) - which was taken from “Pax Romana”, the name for the Roman Empire. They used to refer to their invisioned future as a “beneficent hegemony”. These are nice soft sounding phrases, but after examining their policy papers, editorials and letters, one sees that it’s just a dressed up way of saying “American World Empire”. Actually, they include space too, as they want to “pave the way for the creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces - with the mission of space control.” (Rebuilding America’s Defenses, page 12.)

    M2……..”This war is about the NeoConservative view?” I thought it was about the Facists Islamists view, after all I think they were acting on their designs for the west long before the Neoconservatives as you like to say came into power. [I know we can now get a reciting of the mantra that we funded Osama, Saddam, maybe even Castro and others.] And even if we should hate neoconservatives, should we surrender our freedoms to the Islamofacists? I think history has shown that Clinton may well have been too timid except from 30,000 feet from where he could protect the Muslims. (Jim W., talk about intervening in foreign affairs.) M2, You didn’t say it, but one could conclude that if it wasn’t for the neoconservatives we would have no problem from the facist Islamists. What makes you think so? ………steve

13. plodon on July 19th, 2007

    I think the latest newsreel sort of proves, certanially suggests he is dead.

    Fresh stuff from the AQ #2, but 5-year-old stuff from OBL at a time when a morale boost from him is sorely needed by AQ? Yeah, that sure would seem to indicate Bin Laden has gone to his eternal reward.

    plodon……….yep……..steve

14. Jim on July 19th, 2007

    The philosophical backbone of neoconservatism is drivel? Like I said before, people love living in their myths. That would be like believing in the Gospel without reading the four gospels or becoming a Christian without knowing what sin is. Hello? You are way more intelligent than that.

    You point out something Clinton does to me as if I am a defender of him. That is the false right-left paradigm. Someone who disagrees with Bush, neoconservatives or even conservatives, doesn’t automatically put them in the Clinton, liberal, Dem or neoliberal camp.

    ” And even if we should hate neoconservatives, should we surrender our freedoms to the Islamofacists?”
    Wrong! No one is asking to hate but, did the so called Islamofacists give us sneek and peek, damage habeas corpus, secretly spy on us, pat downs, Patriot Acts, Military Commissions Act, John Warner Act and others? These erode our freedoms and another attack will give the neoconservatives (or whoever else is in power) more reasons to take more from us as long as people don’t see through the ploy. We are in a cycle of attack, take freedoms, attack, take freedoms, attack, take freedoms and so on. It is eroding before our eyes. And heaven forbid those in power would actually want to take our freedoms, because they have a proven recipe for it. Allow an attack, just like they did at Pearl Harbor.

    Jim, …The drivel is the constant ad hominem attacks on the individuals that serves to divert the point of this post, comments and discussion. I believe what I am trying to discuss here is the need to deal with Iran, not the so called evilness of neoconservatives. If Clinton was in office and on the hunt for the Terrorists (don’t laugh too loudly) I’d be supporting that effort as well. My support of pursuing the war on terror has nothing to do with my support or lack of it for the neocons. That thread of discussion is a red herring as far as I am concerned.

    Your antecedent “so called” to the word “Islamofascist” also tells me something about where you are coming from. Since it is indisputable that they are Islamists your beef must be with the word fascist. I wonder if you or other readers of NSL would expect you to have used antecedent “so called” if I had used the word fascist in association with the neocons and you were commenting on that.

    “did the so called Islamofascists give us sneak and peek, damage habeas corpus, secretly spy on us, pat downs, Patriot Acts, Military Commissions Act, John Warner Act and others”

    Of course not the Islamofascist didn’t give us those, they just created the necessity to utilize more effective methods in seeking them out. Every time the country takes steps about fighting terror you guys scream your liberties are being eroded (although I doubt you can demonstrate any incident of abuse). You don’t seem to care that it has been effective in rooting out a lot of terrorists and their plans. I suppose that doesn’t impress you because it wasn’t your personal family that has been saved. I was drafted in the army….do you want to comment on how that is an erosion of my liberties. My father was drafted in WWII, how is that not a similar erosion of his liberties (I know WWII was wrong for us to enter-see above) much more so than Echelon screening telephone switching to trace where calls from know overseas terrorist are ending up.

    You seem to be suggesting that we are complicit in the allowance of 911 (like Pearl Harbor-speculative) and you don’t have any evidence of this, but such accusations also serves to propagandize the population with the hopes that ulterior political motivations might be achieved. ……steve

15. matt on July 19th, 2007

    in the event cheney would push for military action on iran, would congress be able to take disciplinary action against him? impeachment has been thrown around with bush and iraq, but could congress pull either of the actions off.

    also, has there ever been a time in our history where a tax cut was given during wartime? i say this because i am wondering when and by who and when the bills will be paid. as far as fiscal responsibilities goes, dont you think trying to do both was shortsighted budget management. wouldn’t it have been better to get the finances first, plan a strategy for when we ousted saddam, and convene a bipartisan panel for our involvement after the iraqi elections?

    i know that tax reciepts did go up, but so did spending. thus, if we were to embark down the same path with iran, three expensive campaigns could devaste our treasury and make us more vulnerable to asian countries holding our debt.

    just some thoughts with really few good answers

    Hi Matt…….. Cheney pushing for military action on Iran would not be a crime (neither treason or bribery nor high crime or misdemeanor) it is essentially a lobbying activity. Military action on Iran would be initiated by Bush as far as legal accountability would go, but having said that…….yes, the House of Representatives can Impeach a President or Vice President for any reason their collective will sees fit. To exaggerate the issue, Bush could be sworn in on January 20, 2001 and the House of Representatives had the Constitutional power to Impeach him the next day, but the conviction could come only by the U.S. Senate. The Senators don’t have to conform to anything but their collective judgment in convicting the President. There is a template of “cause” for impeachment, which is “treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.” This is so broad that it means from the worst crime imaginable to practically nothing (which some misdemeanors are). What actually constitute a high crime or misdemeanor in this case is again soley the prerogative of each individual Senator.

    “also, has there ever been a time in our history where a tax cut was given during wartime?”

    There is a recent example of tax cuts during war time, and it is during the current administration. Taxes were reduced coincidentally during a war (Iraq) in order to stimulate the economy and create employment and optimize receipts to the Treasury. The result was just that not withstanding the war time footing of the country.

    “the finances first, plan a strategy for when we ousted saddam, and convene a bipartisan panel for our involvement after the iraqi elections?”

    You see here, you are again linking tax policy with spending priorities. It is hard to say (purely speculative) as to what might have been better, but the cost of prosecuting a war doesn’t change (other than up due to inflation) based on the financial condition of the country at the time of the war. We should be about having an optimal tax policy with or without a war AND we should be about defending the country as we assess the risk with or without regards to the financial condition of the country. In short it is hard to explain the co-mingling of these two concepts in the same economic breath. We should always be optimizing the economy and government receipts and we should always be willing to defend the interest of the US and our allies without regards to the status of the former. The rest of the items you discuss such as bi-partisan strategy for elections after Iraqi elections does not in my opinion go to the question of tax policy and spending priorities.

    Because tax receipts go up and Congress (and the President) choose to spend even more than that does not argue for an alternate (higher) tax structure. As I said yesterday, that is counter-productive. It may however argue for different spending priorities and limits. The devastation you refer to will not be ameliorated by increasing taxes and thereby causing some additional unemployment and lower government receipts. It purely argues for curtailing discretional spending.

    In the 1940’s we embarked on a multi-theater war for which we were not fully prepared to engage in spite of lacking the resources for which to adequately fund it. The political assessment at the time is that because the US needed to fight this war, such decision couldn’t be compromised based on the condition of the Treasury. Accordingly the US pursued the War in the Pacific and Europe and funded it largely through debt. That debt is still on the books. Sort of like saying “would you rather be in debt or a dead duck?” FDR chose debt as the answer to that question. [I know Jim W. is opposed to the answer that FDR chose as well as the one we made in WWI, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.] …….. steve

16. matt on July 19th, 2007

    so, i guess your take home message about spending and taxes is that the government does not run thier financial house the was a civilian who desires fiscal accountability would?

    i will let this go so that you and other can move on to the next next when you have it ready

    Matt…….Well, that would be true, because it is driven by political concerns in order to insure incumbents jobs. Somebody help me out here, but was it Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain) that said something like ” when the voters realize they can vote themselves benefits then the country is doomed to collapse” paraphrase……….steve

    UPDATE: Oops, I did the research myself, the above wasn’t penned by Samuel Clemens at all, actually it is not know who penned it though internet sources often credit Alexander Tytler and sometimes others, and the exact words are:

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.”

    ….. steve

17. the Grit on July 20th, 2007

    Hi Steve,

    As to declaring war, don’t forget the War Powers Act that was passed back during the Cold War. Under it, the President has authority to take whatever military action he/she deems necessary for 30 days (90?) The intention was to allow an US response to a nuclear attack that destroyed Congress, however, over the years, our politicians have grown to like letting the Commander In Chief take the heat for minor military actions, like Clinton blasting an aspirin factory to ruins or Reagan invading Grenada, so neither side wants to cancel it.

    the Grit

    Hi Grit…….Glad you came by since Matt at the Envoronmental Coffee House said you were my Shepherd. You and I are often on the same page. I had comments on the War Powers Act in my outline for the long rants I wrote to Matt and Jim. I decided to omit them since they wandered too far from Matts (not the Coffee House) direct questions. I was already out there pretty far. You are right this is part of the law of the land and the term is 60 days with an additional 30 day kicker under some circumstances. And you are EXACTLY right that it has become a comfortable retreat for the Congress, especially the Democrats until they can get the drift of the politics and then take their stand on matters. And you are right about this point too …. it does give the President legal authority to take what ever military action he chooses and do so legally (ipso facto because the War Powers ACT is the law that says so) and the cowards in Congress don’t have to put their name to it. ………steve

18. Daniel on July 22nd, 2007

    Cheney Pushes Bush to Act on Iran

    LOL

    Wasn’t Cheney and his new con lot who pushed Bush to act on Irak . Don’t they ever learn?

    Or was it Israel who pushed Cheney…?

    I found this interesting reading to share

    The Arrogance of Empire.

    At a certain point the signs become impossible to ignore. The force of disinformation increases to a fever pitch and begins to present absurdities that we haven’t seen since Saddam was planning to send exploding, toy airplane drones across the American landscape. Now they are coming through Mexico the same way the Black Panthers were once coming through Canada after Ross Perot http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/fbi-iraqis-bein.html

    I won’t list all the booga booga because there is so much of it. Surely all of you have heard about Chertoff’s gut and Al Qaeda being now as strong as they were pre-9/11. The fact that there is no Al Qaeda in the sense that we are given to understand it, except as an administration construct doesn’t matter much; after all, Bush says we are now fighting the same people who did 9/11 in Iraq at this time.

    Some of us are fighting the instigators of 9/11 but that would be the bloggers and American citizens who oppose the neo-con agenda. 9/11 was either carried out or allowed by those controlling the American government. I won’t detail this. It has been exhaustively detailed to the point of nausea in thousands of locations and there is no longer any doubt of who was behind it; however it may have gone down.

    We are hearing every day that Al Qaeda in Iraq now plans on attacking the American homeland. We are also hearing that Hizbollah is likely to do the same. It’s no coincidence that anyone and everyone named are Israel’s perceived enemies.

    Then there is the world news of various instabilities in many locations. We are hearing that the Turks have 100,000 men deployed along the Kurdish/Iraqi border; no, wait, it’s 250,000 men. http://www.nysun.com/article/56022?access=579224

    Earlier we heard that the Israelis are training the Kurds http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5364982.stm which creates an interesting condition given Turkey’s long cozy history with Israel.

    Meanwhile Pakistan is moving toward a state of emergency http://hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/FullcoverageStoryPage.aspx?id=203af8ec-5e85-46a2-a667-221481b3d3e9LalMasjidstandoff_Special&&Headline=Pakistan Govt may impose emergency

    We hear that the ‘put to call’ ratio is at the highest level in 12 years http://www.bestcashcow.com/stocks_-_options_-_mutual_funds/all/dans/puttocall-ratio-at-highest-in-12-years-fast-money-folks-not-worried

    To put it conservatively, “the joint is jumping”. Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and the father of Reaganomics says that the Bushitas are likely planning a false flag event in order to declare martial law http://theprogressivemind.info/2007/07/paul-craig-roberts-impeach-now-or-face.html everyone should read this compelling article. Meanwhile, presidential candidate, Ron Paul has echoed much of the same and this has been widely reported in many places.

    Okay, enough with the links. You can get a whole lot more from the best website on the internet for breaking news from ignored locations- http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ , a casual study of the last week’s articles, available there, will give you as many disturbing parallels as you could possibly desire.

    All that remains to discover is where and when. ‘Who’, ‘what’ and ‘why’ are clear as crystal. Be afraid.

    Here in our time… here are the excesses of Empire. A handful of arrogant and powerful men and women and their army of corrupt lackeys and mouthpieces are diligently employed at staging another treasonous event in order to more further consolidate their ill gotten gains and control over the peoples of the world.

    There is a profane complicity at work, without which, their efforts would be much harder to achieve. I speak of various world leaders in the European Union. There is no doubt that they are aware of what is taking place, just as they know what happened. It is a mystery to me how this has gotten to such a pass.

    What is needed is for more key individuals in positions of power to speak out. What is needed is for high ranking members of the military and government to come forth and protest against this relentless juggernaut that imperils us all. It is not that this is not happening to some degree. People everywhere are speaking out and among them are many respected government and religious leaders. Members of the scientific community are speaking out. Members of the academic community are speaking out. The problem is that the majority of the world media is in bed with this international criminal organization.

    Controlling the flow of information has always been the key to success for any fascist enterprise. We are on the brink of tremendous change and there is no telling, at this point, what the resolution of this change may be.

    Many of us have known that this was a key year. Somewhere between now and next summer, whatever this cabal intends is certain to occur. Unfortunately, most of the world is content to base their awareness of events on what is reported by the captive media which not only does not report the news, it manufactures it.

    The internet is our most powerful weapon of resistance. The more noise we make, the more likely we are to be heard.

    It is testimony to the extreme arrogance of these deluded souls that they are so transparent in their run-ups and manipulations. You would think that even a child would see through these parlor tricks. In the end it is this exaggerated hubris of temporary empire that will be their downfall. In the words of Nietzsche, “those whom the God’s would destroy, they first drive mad.” Make no mistake, they will fall. The unfortunate thing is; what will remain in the aftermath? One has only to look at Uganda after Amin, or any of numerous other examples to see what I mean.

    The banality of the common individual is as much to blame as anything else. The crass superficiality of entertainments; the pursuit of personal gain on the one hand and the fear of loss, as well as fabricated bogeymen on the other tells the sad tale. There would be no big rats in power without a lot of other rats devoted to the same ends in their little theaters of operation.

    I am an optimist. I believe that no matter how dark the road there is a warm and friendly inn at the end. I believe that the struggles and challenges that face humanity always result in something better even when the cost is great. I fear that the cost will be great. I fear this profound, impending lesson will leave us sadder than we have been in a long time. I don’t know what we can do to lessen the impact or turn the horses short of the cliff. I have long felt that if everyone just stopped working, stopped going to work, in a massive international protest that that would be the most effective tactic. For whatever reason, that has not occurred. At some point in the not too distant future we may wish that it had

    Daniel…….You have a lot to say her and a lot of drivel. But one only needs to read your comment below

    “Some of us are fighting the instigators of 9/11 but that would be the bloggers and American citizens who oppose the neo-con agenda. 9/11 was either carried out or allowed by those controlling the American government. I won’t detail this. It has been exhaustively detailed to the point of nausea in thousands of locations and there is no longer any doubt of who was behind it; however it may have gone down.”

    So I’m just going to file you in my tabbed section titled “Fruits and Nuts.” I hope they keep you away from pointed objects. You are obviously some type of wack job with an agenda to propagandize the world by revising history to sanitize the depraved culture of the radical islamists arabs & persians. ……steve

19. M2 on July 22nd, 2007

    Drivel . 1: drool 2: talk stupidly - n: nonsense

    Propaganda . the spreading of ideas or information to further or damage a cause

    That “Fruits & Nuts” section must be massive…

    The blog looks like it’s been pretty active of late Steve. I imagine it’s only gonna get more interesting.

    M2……I see you have a pretty current dictionary. Thanks for the clarification. I think this thread is starting to wear out and were getting some of the Radical Islamic apologists starting to show up.

    I comment and correspond with a religiously fundamental Islamic guy on his blog in London. He is a pretty nice guy and what I would say “westernized” somewhat that doesn’t go anywhere near where this guy Daniel does in transference of radical Islamic responsibility on others………..steve

20. writer chick on July 24th, 2007

    Hey Steve,

    Lots more to read, since my last visit. I think you’ve done a great job of answering the questions and keeping the debate going. But it must be exhausting.

    I found it ironic though that people who seem to oppose often accuse you of doing the very thing they are doing - falling for conspiracy theories, etc. as though they somehow have a pulse on the ‘real’ story.

    Good reading.

    WC

    WC……Thanks for coming to this post again and catching up and for you applause. We do get a couple of nut jobs here once in a while, but I suspect they think the same of me, no sweat………….steve

21. plodon on July 24th, 2007

    Speakin’ of Iran - how about that Iranian hostage crisis?

    No, not the one back then, the one goin’ on now:

    http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/iran-american-hostages-1781070-iranian-death

    plodon……….yeah, this is another reason why they must be dealt with. This is another feeble attempt to get the world to settle with them for less than ceasing their nuclear “energy” ambitions. If they can intimidate the various polar groups in the world to cutting deals on hostages and trade they can neutralize (they think) the ability for the west to deal with them seriously. After all, they have heard the rumblings out of Hollywood and Washington DC and they can’t be faulted for drawing this conclusion. We used to call it aiding and abeting. Now we call it Democratic politics……….steve

22. Tammi on July 29th, 2007

    Steve,
    I’m with writer chick singing the praises of your blogging and comments. I’ve enjoyed your blog since you first started. You’ve even picked up a couple of cute trolls. You really should be pleased with yourself. Your blogging friends apparently are.

    Tammi…….There you go again, your making me blush again, but thanks and thanks for the frequent visits……steve

Leave a Reply