Ironically, there is a concept called honesty. I am open, direct and honest with what I think. Like I said there is an opportunity for the situation with Iran to not get out of control. I don't respond to situations without thought, I don't get out of control, and I tell people directly what my concerns are. No one is under any obligation to listen to me or take me serious, all I know is that there seems to be a very familiar pattern. I felt Bush 1 failed to fully address the Iraq issue, Clinton did nothing and I supported and worked to get a man elected who I thought would address the Iraq issue. He did. He did what he said he would do, he was direct and honest about it. Now some of you have taken the mantra that "Bush lied" - my response is you folks had your heads up your asses. Who on this earth honestly did not think Bush was going to take out Saddam if he had a chance? I bring this up because I see the same pattern evolving. And, I guess I am trying to say - don't come back 4/8/12 years from now saying someone "lied to you".


You have your guy in office, he has a Nobel Peace Prize, now is his time, now is his moment. I hope it all falls into place, I hope it works.

LOL...in his first campaign, when did Bush address the Iraq issue?

I thought Bush ran on a foreign policy of no nation-building and fulfilling Reagan's "stars wars" vision. Terrorism and making Iraq the "central front on the war on terror" was an after-thought that took hold only after 9/11

Revisionist history is your idea of honesty?

'Fraid I must agree with DC here, mate. I was watching Bush very closely during the run-up to 9/11, because I had high hopes for (but little faith in) his campeign promises in regards to education funding, and because I was seriously concerned about his China-baiting. Terrorism only popped onto his radar post-9/11, and it later came out that he completely ignored not only Clinton-era wonks telling him Usama bin Laden might be a problem, but even specific intel from the Mossad about possible dates and targets connected to Arab flight-school students in south Florida. Terrorism was never even discussed by Mr. Bush except to point out that Mr. Gore's tax plan would require hiring "1500 new IRA agents" during a debate.

I remember thinking that I'd much rather deal with the IRA than the IRS.

I dont usually cite CATO, but Bush funded the Taliban in Afghanistan, just months before 9/11:

He absolutely did run on 'no nation building'.

Do you really need me to make the case? Are you saying that Bush on the Iraq issue took you by surprise? Did you not know the people who worked closely with Bush and what their views were? Did you ever listen to him talk about foreign affairs?



The nation building issue came up after the invasion. don't you remember that was the whole issue about his administration failing to plan. That was the issue with Chaney's comment about being greeted as liberators. That was Powel's comment about "you break it, you fix it". I had mixed feeling about the occupation or "nation building", but in the end I think it was the right thing to do. The "star wars" vision is still actually a part of what Obama is dealing with. Reagan's vision has lead to technology that helped during the first Gulf War and is giving Obama the opportunity to implement "mobile" missile defense as opposed to "fixed location" missile defense to make Russia more comfortable and still provide some defense in eastern Europe.


Like I wrote earlier, some of you had your heads up your..., and now you say I am revising history. So, you think Bush's 2002 state of the union address when he first used the term "axis of evil" was something that he just dreamed up after 9/11?

---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:34 PM ----------

Chaney was Sec. of Defense during the Gulf War under Bush 1. Afterward he said this:

Dick Cheney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When a person makes a comment like that what does it mean to you. Chaney was a hawk in terms of US involvement in the ME. You did not know that?

{added}

I started looking on the internet for some of Bush's comment on Iraq during the 2000 campaign, here is one I found without much effort;

This from Chaney:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...te.html?cat=37

When a guy says something like the above, what does it mean to you folks?

All of this is irrelevant. The American people were lied to for the reasons we went to war.

You probably posted this before my revision to my post before this one. Bush and Chaney seemed to very clearly say what their views were, and like I said I knew why I was working to get them elected. I felt Gore was going to be weaker on these issue than even Carter was.

I consider myself part of American people, and I don't feel like I was lied to. Maybe you did, but I for one did not.

i wasn't going to post again to this thread as it has devolved onto "feelings" again, as if what matters about the obvious falsifications at the levels of data and interpretation that the bush people in the run-up to the iraq war was not the demonstrable problems with what was done and said, but rather whether you or i or someone else was dispositionally inclined to see these problems as amounting to lying or some such. so that the thread has come to is basically whether you like or do not like the application of the word "lie" to the bush administration--which is really just another way of talking about whether you supported the war in iraq or not.

there's nothing else happening here.
to my mind, the demonstrable falsification of data and the incoherences of interpretation made the case for invading iraq false.
you can quibble about what label you see as best following from that all you want, but there's no getting around the facts of the matter.

Unless you know of a different defiinition to the word "lie" then you were lied to. False information was presented to the American people(including you), for the justification of invading iraq. Whether you "feel" iraq was a bad place or saddam was a bad guy is utterly irrelevant.

I looked at the information presented and said to myself, "WMD or no WMD, it doesn't matter if that is true or not, Saddam Huessin should have been removed from power during the first gulf war."

You feel chafed for being lied to, it's not much different when Bush I did with NO NEW TAXES, Clinton did with IS or SEX, or Obama doing it now with BETTER TRANSPARENCY. I don't. I know the politicians are going to lie. That's part of their job, and it's going to happen again.

Intentions are not the same as actions, I'm more interested in judging by actions, not the intentions. His intent was to remove Mr. Heussein from power at any cost, I understood that from the beginning.

I was too young to remember no new taxes from bush. I do remember the definition of "is" nonsense. And I don't agree with Obama on most of his policies. But when I'm lied to, I don't care who does it, I will call them on it and they will loose all credibility in my view. Bush lied, it's been proven. Whether you think his lies were justified or not is irrelevant to the fact that he lied.

The bigger point is related to what we learn from history. It seems some can not see the folly in their view or their attempts to not take any responsibility for what happens in this world.

In some cases a broader view is required.

---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------

"There will be consequences"
"...you mean get him out of there?" I would like to...
"he is a danger"
"very serious consideration to military action - to stop that activity?

Again, when people say stuff like that what does it mean to you? Remeber they said it during the 2000 campaign. And then when they ask Congress for authority to use military force, what does that mean to you?

Come on folks??? This is crazy.

There has NEVER been a threat from Iraq to the American people...ever. This has been proven. So when someone said that we were in danger from Iraq, they were lieing.

Do you really not see reality? Or do you live outside of it in some way?

No I do not see your reality. I have never been so wrong in my life until I started posting on TFP. I guess I just make shit up. Bush/Cheney never thought Iraq under Saddam was a threat. The inspection program was a big success. Saddam never violated UN sanctions. In fact Saddam never invaded Kuwait. Saddam had no interests in WMD. Saddam never fired SCUD missiles into Israel. Saddam never fired upon US military planes. Saddam never diverted billions of dollars from the oil for food program. Saddam never cheered terrorists and offered $25K to the families of suicide bombers. Saddam never used WMD against his own country men. Bush never asked for authority to use the military because he (we) thought Saddam was a threat. Members of Congress never believed Saddam was a threat. Bill Clinton never believed Saddam was a threat. Hilary Clinton never believed Saddam was a threat. Other nations, like England and almost every other nation in the ME, did not think Saddam was a threat. The intel on WMD was conclusive and clearly showed Iraq had no WMD and no program.

I just live in an imaginary land where I just made all that shit up. I am glad I come here to be brought back to reality.

Thanks.:rolleyes:

Anytime:thumbsup:

The problem with your line of thinking, and those like you, is that you ignor the facts. You feel that there was some perceived threat against us when it has been proven there wasn't. You feel that he had to have WMD's even though it was proven he didn't. I can't argue with your feelings on this issue because they are irrelevant. I can only argue the facts. And those facts point to us(including you) being presented with false information before the war started.

Perhaps for those you don't speak "Cowboy", the moderator of the 2000 Presidential Debate on foreign affairs should have asked a few follow-up questions, so after this:

CPD: 2000 Debate Transcript

Perhaps a follow up would be:

Mod: You say what Clinton was doing with the sanctions, inspections, working through the UN, and stuff is, like, a failure and you want to get "him" out of there, do you mean, like, actually remove him from power? Do you actually mean Saddam?

Bush: Yes and Yes.

Mod: Ahhh, how would you, like, do that?

Bush: After getting Congressional authority to invade Iraq, I will invade Iraq.

Mod: Do you, like, actually think Saddam is a threat.

Bush: Yes.

Mod: But, but, you have not seen the super top secrete intel reports that liberals will say you hid from them, you know the reports showing Saddam is not a threat, has no WMD, is peace loving.

Bush: What?!?

Mod: So, if you get an opportunity, you are going to invade Iraq and take Saddam out of power.

Bush: Yes.

Mod: You mean, actually do something that will cause him to no longer be in charge in Iraq?

Bush: Yes. How 'bout those Rangers?

Mod: You can't be serious, we need to tell every liberal in the world that they are not hearing this right now, and certainly not liberal Congress people who will be for the war before they are against it. La, la, la, la, la...

Bush: What?!?

Mod: You know, you can't say that you will take him out, then ask Congress to give the O.k., and actually think that they would believe you? and that you would actually, like, take him out. You mean take him out to a ball game or something, right?

Bush: What?!?

Mod: You know, they have to have a reason to not take their share of the responsibility, along with every liberal in the world. Liberals have to be victims of something.

Bush: If Saddam cooperates with the UN mandates and the inspections there won't be a problem.

Mod: Wait, wait, wait, you know he is a Middle eastern man, don't you? You, know if he complied he would be embarrassed and that we can't have that - he has to blow smoke.

Bush: What?!?

Mod: Let's move on...

Gore:...then if we don't cut carbon, the world will end by 10/12/2009,...

Mod: What?!?

My point exactly. You can't argue using verifiable facts and data because they will not support your conclusions. So you in tern make up this little SNL skit which is totally irrelevant. But that's the only language you seem capable of speaking...irrelevancy.

It may be irrelevant, but it is funny as hell. I am be the only one who laughs at my humor, but I have a good time.:thumbsup:

Some reports are now saying the recession is over. Hopefully unemployment goes down soon. If unemployment drops to acceptable levels over the next 2 years people will likely view Obama's presidency as a great success (considering the free fall that the economy was in when he took over).

Just because growing government, taxing small business, and taxing the middle class has NEVER created private sector jobs before - hey, don't let that stop you from your fantasies. Knock yourself out.

We have a President who does a pre-game spot for Monday Night Football and does not have a war strategy and has an economy with unemployment near 10%, with many more underemployed or are simply out of the job market and not counted. But the bigger question is related to the job killing philosophy of those in control in Washington. Just as predicted with the increase in the minimum wage, teen unemployment increases.

Minimum Wage Increase Leads to Higher Teen Unemployment Rate - WSJ.com

That bastard. Next thing you know he'll have cleared brush for half of his term...

I am curious. Do you agree that raising the minimum wage would have a negative impact on employers hiring unskilled workers?

I am not suggesting there are not other factors that can effect employment of unskilled workers, nor am I commenting on "living wages" or other issues related to compensation - but that if you looked at that one issue what is the impact? Raising the minimum wage may very well be worth while for some people, but I wonder if it is possible for liberals to acknowledge that there is another side to the issue and that some people would be negatively impacted.

Then I wonder, if you can acknowledge the "trade-offs", why do you side one way on the issue at the expense of the other side. My view on this issue is to give as many people as possible an opportunity to get their "foot in the door", let them get training, experience and an opportunity to climb up the ladder. I think "livable wages" come from true marketable labor skills, and that is the best way to fight poverty.

in most cases, "unskilled workers" have no capacity to "climb the ladder".

My first job (on a payroll) was when I was 16 at McDonald's I made about $2.10/hour (1976), my first day I cleaned the lobby and the bathrooms and had to be trained on doing that. A year later I was an Assistant Manager. I made money and saved money for college. Now we have your attitude and stuff like this:

Banning fast food in poor neighborhoods. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine

Are liberals as stupid as they appear to be? Do they really not think things through? Do they not see the consequences of their actions? Why don't they want poor urban kids to get jobs?

It was Bush who signed the last minimum wage bill increase in 07... so what does that have to do with Obama's performance so far?

how boot-strappy of you.

now do the math: how many minimum wage workers does each McDonald's have compared to asst. managers?

it's the myth of upward mobility; in the conservative, pro-business mindset, EVERYONE has the opportunity to move limitlessly upward until they own their own business or become a CEO. it's just not true. your anecdotal evidence doesn't change that

yep that's why there are people who are crossing borders and willing to illegal aliens in a foreign country. no I'm not talking about just America, people are doing this all over the world, it's called looking for opportunity and trying to get one. but apparently it's too bootstrappy to be for realz.

Why does everything go back to Bush with you folks? I don't care who signed the bill, in my view it has hurt unskilled workers in particular urban teens.

Perhaps because this thread is about Obama's performance so far.

But of course, you took it off on a tangent again...as you do with nearly every discussion.

There are actually some jobs in between and higher level jobs, an actual career path. Some people actually get an offer to go to Hamburger U.

McDaonald's has about 30,000 restaurants worldwide. Each restaurant may employee 50 or more people, some part-time

Stop changing the words. "limitlessly"?!? People have limits, but in order to know their limits, they need opportunity. No one who starts at the lowest wage will stay at the lowest wage if they have any skills at all.

---------- Post added at 11:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 PM ----------

My post was in reference to unemployment, which is a current issue and a current concern. This is related directly to how people will measure Obama's performance. Bush can no longer have a significant impact on policy and legislative issues. But you know that, seems you just can't get Bush off of your mind.

You're confusing issues here. If what Ace is claiming was true, folks wouldn't need to come here. They could just work their way up the sweatshop ladder.


This isn't directed toward you, but since you brought up the term "bootstrap" I feel the need to say it. The funny thing about picking yourself up by your own bootstraps is that it's physically impossible. That's right. The metaphor that is used to describe the pursuit of the "American Dream" refers to a physically impossible phenomena. They might as well use the metaphor "Flowing water uphill" or "Violating the second law of thermodynamics."

how about actually having some ambition instead of just expecting something to be handed to you and rewarded for it being handed to you?

Students Paid to Go to Class and Get Good Grades - TIME

Is that comment in reference to anything, cyn? Are you accusing me of being an ambitionless French primary school student?

no i was continuing in the not directed at you and pulling yourself up by the bootstraps, and showing that you don't have too, since we want their healthcare, we'll want their education system too.

The concept has been abbreviated. Bootstraps are ingenious little things that make putting on your boots a lot easier. Putting your boots on is, or can be for some, your first challenge (especially if your boots are not broken in from use), be smart use your bootstraps, go to work, don't look back, don't sweat the small stuff, smile/laugh enjoy life.

France has higher social mobility than the US, fyi.

And I love the radical relativism of some here. Truth or untruth apparently are not supposed to be based on evidence, but how one "feels" about the world. That certainly makes discussing this useless, right? I mean, how can you argue with "feelings"

If we want France's healthcare system we must want to stop wearing deodorant and to start making smelly cheese.

---------- Post added at 09:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:51 AM ----------

The point I was trying to make to Ace was this: just because SOME of the minimum wage workers will have a skill set that allows them to be promoted to better paying jobs doesn't mean we shouldn't consider the higher % that don't. Rejecting the idea of a livable minimum wage based on the one guy at each McDonald's who will get a promotion seems (wait for it....wait for it....) elitist to me