>> ^bookface:

I agree with Chomsky that it's highly improbable the GW Bush administration engineered the entire thing from head to toe, and it was never leaked. If there was any conspiracy happening it was more likely that GWB and friends simply left the back door and looked the other way in terms of security. Why go through the trouble of orchestrating a highly elaborate international black op when you can just ignore guys like Richard Clark, and count the days until something goes down? Perhaps what W was thinking while sitting in that school house on 9/11 was, "Heck, I didn't think they'd make SUCH a ruckus." Of course I'm speculating but I suppose I'm making Chomsky's point, too.


This. (thanks @bookface)

Think of the Iran-Contra scandal. Was Reagan involved? "I Don't recall."

"funds for the Contras, or any affair, the President (or in this case the administration) could carry on by seeking alternative means of funding such as private entities and foreign governments.[47] Funding from one foreign country, Brunei, was botched when North's secretary, Fawn Hall, transposed the numbers of North's Swiss bank account number. A Swiss businessman, suddenly $10 million richer, alerted the authorities of the mistake. The money was eventually returned to the Sultan of Brunei, with interest.[48]<-wikipedia

I agree with Chomsky that it's highly improbable the GW Bush administration engineered the entire thing from head to toe, and it was never leaked. If there was any conspiracy happening it was more likely that GWB and friends simply left the back door and looked the other way in terms of security. Why go through the trouble of orchestrating a highly elaborate international black op when you can just ignore guys like Richard Clark, and count the days until something goes down? Perhaps what W was thinking while sitting in that school house on 9/11 was, "Heck, I didn't think they'd make SUCH a ruckus." Of course I'm speculating but I suppose I'm making Chomsky's point, too.

Actually the stories about iraqi WMDs originated from an informant named curveball who presented this information to german intelligence (BND), but they quickly exposed him as liar craving for validation. The intel was given to allied intelligence agencies ALONG with the assessment. All other agencies just filed the info. All but the CIA which in full awarness of the phoniness decided to use it for Powell's speech. In my eyes that justifies or even compels to bringing the whole bush administration to court.

I won't deny the other two examples. I said already Obama isn't a hardcore progressive. I wouldn't even label him on a scale as progressive. Those are examples of where he isn't. If that's the indictment, no one is disagreeing with you.

Dude, how are you not getting this. Obama hasn't justified a single policy with Christianity. This guy sited directly his warped Christian beliefs in his manifesto. It's pretty clear as day the difference. Obama refutes the notion of the US as a "Christian Nation", etc. He's ridiculed by the Religious Right in fact for this. Isn't this pretty obvious?

Yes, it is accepted as collateral damage. Thank you for making my point. Were the attacks launched with the purpose of killing these civilians? NO! Was it the intention of Osama bin Laden to kill as many civilians as possible in the 9/11 attacks on purpose? YES! THAT is the difference. If Obama could conduct these attacks without killing innocent civilians, he'd do it in a heartbeat. If bin Laden could have killed 1 million American civilians instead of the number he did, he'd do it in a heartbeat. That's the difference. You're assuming that because civilian deaths occur, that how many people are killed in collateral damage never influences decision making. That's simply not true. You'll rarely ever achieve objectives without accepting some collateral damage, unfortunately. This is unfortunately part of being the President.

So we're gonna terrorize the population of Libya why exactly?! What would that possibly achieve in and of itself? That's utterly ridiculous.

It's against international law how exactly to be intervening in Libya? It was approved by the UN Security Council. Are you speaking to military strategy? So you're saying we should just put ground troops in there and go door to door, which will cause even higher casualties and more terrorizing of the civilian population? I don't pretend to know all the difficulties the military is facing when coming up with the best plan to achieve objectives.

It's silly to believe part of why we're in Libya is to help establish a democratic gov't there? Look, I was a big critic of the second Iraq war, but I don't doubt for a second part of why the Bush administration wanted to go in was to establish democracy in the region. It was a stated goal. You can call it silly all you want, but it is even within the US's self interests to have as Libya be a democracy. Why wouldn't we want them to be democratic?!

It is progressive to intervene in a country to help protect human rights. Schools of geopolitical realism would have determined intervening in Libya to not benefit the US enough to justify involvement. Again, I'm not suggesting the entire reason we went in was to help the Libyan people. There are many reasons why. But one of them was to help the Libyan people. I fully accept there were geopolitical calculations as well. All of those things have to contribute to the decision making.

Was it progressive to partner with Stalin to defeat Hitler? If no, then FDR wasn't a progressive?! We did it because Hitler was a bigger threat than Stalin at the time. Once Hitler was out of the equation, we became enemies of Stalin. To think you can just make international policy based exclusively on progressive ideas is fantasy.

On this site, I've defended progressivism when under attack from people who think progressivism is Communist, doesn't work, blah blah blah. Progressivism, like other ideologies, provides a lot of answers and ideas to solving problems, but it is also imperfect, just like every other ideology.

So Obama isn't progressive in the slightest?

Are the following progressive in nature?

Ending "don't ask, don't tell."
Advocating raising taxes on the rich
Increasing availability of Medicaid
Preventing health insurance companies denying based on pre-existing conditions

He's a moderate. Yes, I fully accept you could give a big long list of things that aren't progressive he's done, too. He's a moderate, who leans left. That's why I get really irritated when QM and WP call him a socialist or communist because it's simply not true.

Oh man, where to start...

Amazing how all leftists are criminally corrupt, all of them, apparently. Just because you're a leftist, it automatically means you don't care about the people. On the face of it, patently absurd. Yes, some leftists are corrupt. No question about it. So are many capitalists, too. Doesn't mean either philosophy is bankrupt.

Obama's big gov't spending doesn't do anything for the poor and middle class. You mean, except saving jobs when the economy tanked, the vast majority went to the poor and middle classes. Other than that... LOL...

I'm totally sympathetic to the argument the stimulus may do more harm than good in the long run, but it wasn't done to shovel money into big bloated, criminally negligent gov't troughs. It was done to save jobs, and help the economy. Even if I disagreed with waterboarding, I wouldn't go around telling people the Bush administration did it because they loved the thrill of torturing people.

Leftist governments do not help with wealth distribution?! They just make it worse? I'm sure that's happened on occasion, but that's generally patently false. UN reports show the following:

In the U.S. the top 10% hold 70% of the country’s wealth
In France, the top 10% hold 61% of the country’s wealth
In the U.K. , the top 10% hold 56% of the country’s wealth
In Germany, the top 10% hold 44% of the country’s wealth
In Japan the top 10% hold 39% of the country’s wealth

France, UK, and Germany are significantly to the left of US in terms of their economic system without question. Japan is a weird beast, but still more socialist than we are. Their personal income tax rates are very low, but their corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world. They also have significant elements of socialism in their economy, such as universal health care, publicly funded education, transportation, etc., but there is also a lot of free market elements as well. They also have a progressive income tax, although it has become less progressive as years have gone by.

So, I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion.

Finally, let me explain why some such as myself favor a form of mixed economy with a blend of socialism and capitalism: it works better for virtually everyone - rich, poor, and the middle class. As a very simple example, universal mandatory education, which was not a part of US society until it was publicly funded, helped businesses in the end because it increased the skill set and productivity of workers, which allowed businesses to increase profits in the long run. Universal, compulsory publicly funded education is socialist in nature. And how can society afford this? Partly by progressive taxation, which you claim is "poor people" believing that they have a right to the rich's money. Well, guess what? It worked BEAUTIFULLY! Universal public education and a progressive income tax coincided with the rise of the US as a global economic superpower as those first generations of publicly educated people came of working age. Weird how that worked, huh?

Now, I know people such as myself you consider a "neolib", but we're actually moderates, many of us are well intentioned, as I'm sure is true about conservatives, and we also have quite a bit of facts on our side to back us up, too. Raising marginal tax rates on the richest 1% of Americans is socialist in nature, but doing it a small amount isn't tantamount to socialism. And socialist ideas aren't inherently bad either (same for capitalistic ideas).

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Besides, leftists really don't care jack-crap whether or not the bottom 5% actually ever moves out of the poverty level. The crocodile tears about the 'poor' is a bunch of propoganda they use to advance higher tax rates - which help the poor only in the barest, most marginal, subsistence-only way. Neolibs use the poor as a manure shovel to trowel money into bloated, criminally negligent government troughs. Obama's entire regime is demonstrable proof that huge government spending accomplishes nothing for the poor or middle class. In fact, higher taxation & spending accomplish the exact opposite of 'helping' the middle class. Leftist governments do not help with wealth distribution. If anything, wealth disparity is frequently much worse under leftist systems. "Rich" person money does more good funding private-citizen billionaire prostitute crack snorting addictions than it does in government.
So I reject the neolib premise that money "must" be shunted from the rich to government, or society is somehow less fair. Frankly, it is none of your cotton-pickin' business or mine what rich folks so with their cash. Neither poor people, nor the middle class have any right to anyone else's money just because they're jealous that someone else has more of it. If a guy is rich, it is their decision what to do with their money. Donate to charities, invest it in businesses, or use it to murder puppies - whatever - it's THEIR cash - not yours. Same goes for companies and corporations too. Just because a company is earning truckloads of cash doesn't mean you have any right to one jack-sprat cent of it.

@NetRunner, well, let's assume the government never lies and their version of the story is 100% accurate. Granted. How did they expect OBL to surrender exactly? Surely if this was a "capture or kill" order, then they must've offered a chance for him to surrender, right?

Their first story was that a gun battle occurred, then later it was revealed he was unarmed. Also they claimed he used his wife as a shield, then later it came out that he didn't. So, the real story is he was unarmed and asleep when they stormed in and shot him. I'm curious when and how was he supposed to surrender and get his day in court?

Too circumstantial for you? Okay. How about Obama's track record? In 2009 military commanders told Obama's Administration they were able to located and capture one of the most wanted leaders of Al Qaeda, Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan. Instead of capturing, Obama's Administration said they wanted him dead. And the SEALS bombed him from the sky. No arrest attempt.

And the drone aerial attacks have increased over Pakistan under Obama, according to Long War Journal, a website dedicated to tracking the attacks. They estimate that the drones over Pakistan have killed almost 1500 people. Not capture, killed. Innocent people live there in tribes. Murdered as a casualty. But look at you and people like Yogi, the brave people who're out of range of danger that just don't give a fuck about those who are targeted and murdered - unless of course it furthers your political agenda, right? Yep.

Most damning is the time when Obama's Administration authorized the assassination of US Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. He wasn't even Osama. He was some radical cleric they gave "explicit" authorization to murder without due process. That's your guy, Obama, side-stepping the rights of people like a pro authoritarian fascist.

Osama's murder without trial looks like more bloodthirsty progressivism to me. Hiding behind civil righteousness. By contrast the Bush Administration "captured" (not killed) thousands of suspected terrorists. And we all hated him.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Xax:
Which way is the wind blowing today, Senator?

Of all his inconstancies, this is not one of them.

I think McCain deserves credit for being a Republican who's chosen to tell the truth, when the rest of his party wants to lie about the facts. I also think he deserves credit for consistently saying the right things about torture.
But when it came time to vote on Democratic legislation to put the brakes on the Bush administration doing it, McCain voted with his party and helped keep it from passing. He's also towed the party line that the people who ordered, carried out, and gave legal cover for torture should not face any sort of consequences for their actions.
So, while I credit McCain for saying all the right things on this topic, I don't think he deserves too much in the way of accolades for his "stance" on torture, because when push comes to shove, he's chosen party loyalty over principle.



I agree (BTW it's "Toed" not "Towed")

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Xax:
Which way is the wind blowing today, Senator?

Of all his inconstancies, this is not one of them.


I think McCain deserves credit for being a Republican who's chosen to tell the truth, when the rest of his party wants to lie about the facts. I also think he deserves credit for consistently saying the right things about torture.

But when it came time to vote on Democratic legislation to put the brakes on the Bush administration doing it, McCain voted with his party and helped keep it from passing. He's also towed the party line that the people who ordered, carried out, and gave legal cover for torture should not face any sort of consequences for their actions.

So, while I credit McCain for saying all the right things on this topic, I don't think he deserves too much in the way of accolades for his "stance" on torture, because when push comes to shove, he's chosen party loyalty over principle.

>> ^DuoJet:

This question was answered during the Bush administration. Ironically, this was a question the press failed to pose during the Bush administration, when it was most relevant.


Always relevant no matter who the "new guy" is.

This question was answered during the Bush administration. Ironically, this was a question the press failed to pose during the Bush administration, when it was most relevant.

>> ^shagen454:

It'd be more possible for class war if they didn't already have our nuts twisted up in the palm of their hand. It'd be more possible if working class people would wake up and see that Obama is a joke just as much as the Bush Administration was and that the two party system in general is just a fucking corporate scam.


It'd be more possible if people everywhere realized that right-wing/conservative/libertarian ideology is entirely about consolidating the dominion of the rich and powerful over the rest of us, and adopted a generally left-wing view of the world.

Once that happens, yes, people would notice that Democrats aren't really left-wing, but this is something the left says all the time.

The issue here isn't that an insufficient number of liberals will talk smack about Obama, it's the millions of people who think the biggest problems in our country are that taxes are too high on businesses, government aid to the poor is too generous, and worker safety regulation is a tyrannical imposition on liberty.

>> ^shagen454:

It'd be more possible for class war if they didn't already have our nuts twisted up in the palm of their hand. It'd be more possible if working class people would wake up and see that Obama is a joke just as much as the Bush Administration was and that the two party system in general is just a fucking corporate scam.


in b4 an obvious troll trolls you

It'd be more possible for class war if they didn't already have our nuts twisted up in the palm of their hand. It'd be more possible if working class people would wake up and see that Obama is a joke just as much as the Bush Administration was and that the two party system in general is just a fucking corporate scam.

Leadership and goofballs? Obama isn't exactly a good president or a bad president, but it's hilarious to me that total right-wingers like QM fail to see how tremendously horrible the Bush Administration were. They keep hanging on, when in reality the 'crats and the 'publicans are all a bunch of whores sucking from a gigantic corporate/military tite. If you want to do some real political commentary QM why don't you show us how similar the parties are instead of coughing up the same old tea-bag nutter-buddy rhetoric? They want you to fight about their "differences" so they can both continue having the same agenda - corporate wealthfare, making the rich richer, fuck everyone else. They have no ethics or spines and they just love manipulating the public into believing there is a clearcut dividing line. Obama ran on what democrats should sort of be. But, he has hardly delivered.

What we need is what Martin Luther King said so long ago, "Radical economic reconstruction." What the Tea-baggers believe in as their movement is a movement that is bought and sold by huge corporations, that is all it is and nothing more. It is just their corporate money corrupting your minds and poisoning everything.

Impeachable offense is a high crime or misdemeanor.

War Powers Act of 1973 allows the President to use US military power for up to 90 days without a declaration of war or mandate by Congress.

This is not an impeachable offense. It's perfectly legal as laws stand. Even if you argue the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, you can't impeach a President for doing what's legal now.

Disagreeing with his decision to intervene in Libya is fine. That's a part of a healthy democracy - to question and dissent. A lot of people however need to understand an offense is NOT impeachable just because they disagree with it. I thought getting involved in Iraq was a bad idea, but that's not an impeachable offense.

I thought Bill Clinton having an affair with an intern was pretty horrible, but it's also NOT an impeachable offense. His lying about it under oath, which I honestly didn't really care about, IS impeachable because it is perjury.

The Bush administration could have been impeached for outing a CIA operative, which is treason.