If George W. Bush was running five points ahead (or more) three days prior to the election here, and God forbid there was an attack accompanied by terrorist warnings that this was reciprocity for Iraq, would it turn the election around for the less popular party (as it apparently turned the election around in Spain)…or would it cause Bush to win by an even wider margain?
PAD
• 
PAD wrote: >>Wouldn’t it be ironic if terrorists blew up a train in the US in October, unaware that the train had been transporting bin Laden to Washington to reveal he’d been captured?
Geez, Peter! Stop with the “What ifs?” already! I take the train quite a bit, and I’m already like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs when I’m on board. You ain’t helpin’!
Russ Maheras
“It has been clearly established that darn near everybody in Washington (and around the world) thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”
Everyone might have believed there were some WMDs in Iraq, but only the Bush Administration made the claim that they knew there were WMDs in Iraq, and that there were enough of them to create an imminent threat that required a “pre-emptive” war.
“Aw, Tim, forget that angle already. It has been clearly established that darn near everybody in Washington (and around the world) thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”
Sorry, no takers.
Yes, I agree that most people THOUGHT there were WMD’s present.
Bush didn’t present the argument as a thought. The administration said emphatically that it was an established fact, that they knew exactly where they were, and that they represented such an immediate threat that we had to go to war because “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”.
That is overstating one’s knowledge to such a vast degree that I frankly think calling it a lie is reasonable.
Saying “well, the entire world thought this” is a specious argument. The entire world didn’t think this to such a degree that it justified toppling an entire country. If you want to launch an invasion, you better have more than a strong conviction.
(Hëll, the entire world thinks — overwhelmingly justifiably — that North Korea’s got a substantial WMD cache. Given that no one’s invaded them yet, said knowledge is clearly not enough to justify a war.)
I appreciate your concern for my arguments — honestly. I think good healthy debate is one of the best things we can all get here. But I’m not going to go along with you when you claim this particular item is unsupported.
TWL
And with the information at hand at that time, they had every reason to believe that.
My reply was to Robert Jung.
Russ, George Tenet, head of the CIA, has stated publically and repeatedly that his office reported to the President that it was possible that Iraq possessed WMDs, but that the intel was suspect at best. It was Bush and his inner circle who promulgated the idea that there were definitely WMDs in there, and that they posed an imminent threat to American interests. (Sorry, I remember Dubya’s speechifying in pushing his war – no hedging, no “well, there are other good reasons too”; no, Dubya sold this war to us on the basis of “clear and present danger”.)
‘Course, Dubya was pretty clear that Iraq was backing al-Qaeda, too…
I’m an empiricist, Ken. The bigger action you want to take in response to a belief, the better your proof has to be — and “we have every reason to believe X” is not a sufficiently strong argument in this case.
Al-Qaeda has “every reason to believe” that a radical Islamic theocracy is the best form of government on the planet. That doesn’t justify their actions.
(And no, I’m not trying to put the two on the same moral plane — just making a point.)
TWL
“Still a net loss of more than two million jobs since Bush took office. That sounds significantly unlike an upturn to me.
(And exactly when does the opportunity to blame 9/11 for everything stop, Ken? November 3rd?)”
Blaming one thing is not equal to everything, especially when it is reasonable to do so.
Again, it is on an up-turn if you a big picture view.
“Only if you ignore the fact that people who have given up and stopped looking don’t count in the unemployment percentage. If you look at the actual employment numbers, the job situation is pretty high on the Not-Good scale.”
At what percent will the unemployment rate, at the unrealistic 0%. No other president has been criticized while have a unemployment rate that is this low. There are jobs out there, even if you have to learn to say “Would you like fries with that?”
“Bull. Al-Qaeda is still doing just fine. The Saudi madrassas are still generating extremists by the bushel. The invasion of Iraq has encouraged extremism, not set it back.”
Then explain why other nations have stopped developing WMDs. Because we have shown that there will be repercussions and terrorism will not be tolerated.
“Honestly, Ken … can you define “what is best” here? Poll after poll shows that our standing in the world absolutely sucks beyond measure right now. Can you name half a dozen countries whose population supports American foreign policy? Not the leaders — the populations.”
Of those populations you would be hard-pressed to find many that understand American foreign policy. That is why they rely on their leaders and many of those leaders do support our decision.
“Yes, hospitals will generally accept someone in dire need even without insurance — but immediately thereafter, rates go up so that those of us who do have insurance have to cover the costs. It’s not like the hospitals just eat the costs.
Why this country seems incapable of seeing that a single-payer system works well and works efficiently is utterly beyond me. “
Whether it works better than our current system remains to be proven. But to cripple the economy over this issue is not wise thinking. As you have agreed, nobody is turned away.
“At what percent will the unemployment rate, at the unrealistic 0%.”
Should be:
At what percent will the unemployment rate be acceptable, at the unrealistic 0%.
Robert wrote: >>Everyone might have believed there were some WMDs in Iraq, but only the Bush Administration made the claim that they knew there were WMDs in Iraq, and that there were enough of them to create an imminent threat that required a “pre-emptive” war.
And Tim wrote: >>Yes, I agree that most people THOUGHT there were WMD’s present. Bush didn’t present the argument as a thought. The administration said emphatically that it was an established fact, that they knew exactly where they were, and that they represented such an immediate threat that we had to go to war because “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”. That is overstating one’s knowledge to such a vast degree that I frankly think calling it a lie is reasonable.
And Jonathan wrote: >>Russ, George Tenet, head of the CIA, has stated publically and repeatedly that his office reported to the President that it was possible that Iraq possessed WMDs, but that the intel was suspect at best. It was Bush and his inner circle who promulgated the idea that there were definitely WMDs in there, and that they posed an imminent threat to American interests.
Oh, so now he’s not a “liar” — he’s an “intentionally exaggerator,” or “intentional misleader.”
You see, from my vantage point as an independent, I think that’s all a bunch of 20-20 hindsight hooey, based on biased viewpoints. If you read the Democratic quotes about WMD on Snopes, you’ll see that people who literally loathe Bush were just as bamfoozled by the intelligence reports about WMD as the Bush administration. And I find it laughable that people actually believe a Gore administration would have been so much more astute with the exact same intel reports. It’s very possible that Gore would not have seriously considered invading Iraq, but not one of you, or me, or anyone else, for that matter, will ever really know for sure. Hëll, for all we know, Gore may not have even invaded Afghanistan, and the Taliban and ol’ Osama may have caused far more terrorist havoc than they already have. The fact is, you all are just speculating, and whipping yourselves up in a frenzy, because you just don’t like Bush. Personally, I hate partisan bickering, because absolutely nothing gets analyzed rationally.
The failure in Iraq, in my opinion, was not with White House or Congress, it was with the intel community. Regardless what Tenet says, the system broke down somewhere, and hopefully the flaws are going to get fixed — and FAST!
Russ Maheras
Economy? Great for the billionares, bad for everyone else.
Ah, the ever popular class-warfare tactic that has been used since the dawn of time. kind of like the “republicans will take away your social security” which Kerry has already used in a speech in FL.
Besides which the economy hasn’t seen these kind of productivitly levels since the last tax cut by Reagan.
Unemployment? Three million jobs lost that aren’t coming back.
I still can’t see where the 3 mill # is coming from by looking at the bureau of labor & statistics site. Besides which, 5.6% is what the level was @ during the ’96 campaign with Clinton. Nobody complained as much then. (Consistency people.)
International diplomacy? Only if “pìššìņg øff the rest of the world” counts.
Better than selling nuclear secrets and rocket science to china for campaign funds.
And who the hëll cares what other countrys really think of us.
Health care? Not even on the radar.
Because universal/state-paid for health care is such a success in Canada and in other countries where the lines are so deep you have to wait weeks for a critical operation.
It seems like alot of people are under the assumption that capturing/killing OBL will mean the end of Al Queda. While he may be their defacto leader at the moment, fundamentalists have a way of Martyring their leaders. As we’ve seen from other evidence these terrorists have a very loooong memory as well, one of the transgressions of Spain was their participation in the crusades. Taking OBL out will to me hardly affect the war on terror other than give we americans a head on a pike. Granted yes their defacto leader will no longer be leading, but whats to stop another OBL from rising up in his name? We aren’t exactly making freinds with the populaces of the extremist areas. Maybe their leaders but not the populace.
Okay, lots of stuff here. First, Ken.
I say:
“Still a net loss of more than two million jobs since Bush took office. That sounds significantly unlike an upturn to me.
Ken:
Again, it is on an up-turn if you a big picture view.
Whose big picture? What are your benchmarks?
Yes, the stock market is up. Yes, the unemployment percentage is down. That’s about it.
The dollar is weaker than it’s been in ages, the deficit is half a trillion strong and growing, the actual number of adults out of work is growing, and lots of surveys show that Americans in general are profoundly jittery about where we’re headed economically.
I’m not sure where that big picture is hanging, but it’s not in my house.
Me:
“Only if you ignore the fact that people who have given up and stopped looking don’t count in the unemployment percentage. If you look at the actual employment numbers, the job situation is pretty high on the Not-Good scale.”
I note that you basically ignore this point completely. The single percentage denoting unemployment does NOT tell the whole story.
Ken:
No other president has been criticized while have a unemployment rate that is this low.
Possibly because the last time the rate was this low, it wasn’t because people had quit looking.
There are jobs out there, even if you have to learn to say “Would you like fries with that?”
Please, please, please suggest this as a campaign slogan for Bush/Cheney. On the list of Winning Campaign Mantras, “there are jobs out there, even if you have to learn to say ‘would you like fries with that?'” is pretty low.
Me:
“Bull. Al-Qaeda is still doing just fine. The Saudi madrassas are still generating extremists by the bushel. The invasion of Iraq has encouraged extremism, not set it back.”
Ken:
Then explain why other nations have stopped developing WMDs.
Prove to me that they have. (Many indications are that Libya was planning to pack it in anyway, BTW.)
If we back up for a moment and assume you’re correct, though … is that really how we want to get results? “Do what we want or we’re going to come over and kick your ášš” isn’t something we tolerate when the mob does it to a greengrocer — why is it something we think is sound governmental policy? Is a foreign policy based on intimidation and fear really that appealing?
Me:
“Honestly, Ken … can you define “what is best” here? Poll after poll shows that our standing in the world absolutely sucks beyond measure right now. Can you name half a dozen countries whose population supports American foreign policy? Not the leaders — the populations.”
Ken:
Of those populations you would be hard-pressed to find many that understand American foreign policy. That is why they rely on their leaders and many of those leaders do support our decision.
Okay, I don’t even know where to begin here.
1) Your argument implies that other countries’ populations are idiots who will trust their leaders implicitly. I sure as hëll don’t believe that about our country — why would I believe it of others?
2) It’s also self-evidently wrong: there were mass demonstrations in the streets of the UK and Spain when Blair and Anzar supported the invasion. Polls indicated that a little over half of the UK and 80-90% of Spain’s population thought their leaders’ decisions were crap.
Me:
“Yes, hospitals will generally accept someone in dire need even without insurance — but immediately thereafter, rates go up so that those of us who do have insurance have to cover the costs. It’s not like the hospitals just eat the costs.”
I note again that you ignore this. All you responded with is essentially “so I’m right, no one gets turned away.” That’s a short-sighted viewpoint: the system as currently existing is not one that’s viable in the long-term. If more and more of the population loses health insurance or has to drop it due to the cost, the only way for the system to sustain itself is for the remaining people in the system to pay sky-high prices and subsidize everyone else.
You have to see that’s not viable.
(As for “to cripple the economy over this issue” … where exactly is the evidence that switching health-care systems would do that? So far as I can see, it’s just scare tactics.)
This is getting rather long, so I’ll respond to others in a separate post.
TWL
Robert, you didn’t mention three other reasons not to vote for Bush;
1) The near 100% liklihood that the next Attorney General won’t trample over basic civil rights and the Constitution ala Ashcroft.
2) About that unprecedented budget deficeit…which even a fair number of respected conservatives are pointing out as evidence of administration failure (to put it bluntly, it’s become pretty clear that the Bush administration isn’t a conservative one in the fiscial sense, but a bought and paid for/cronyism one).
3) Bush’s hypocritical treatment of the Armed Forces vis a vis tours of duty, pension and other benefits, National Guard extended callups, and banning any press coverage of Iraq casualties being returned to the US (and not making any effort to acknowledge those casualties’ duty for their country).
Russ writes, on the WMD’s-as-imminent-threat issue:
Oh, so now he’s not a “liar” — he’s an “intentionally exaggerator,” or “intentional misleader.”
I’d go along with that.
You see, from my vantage point as an independent, I think that’s all a bunch of 20-20 hindsight hooey, based on biased viewpoints. If you read the Democratic quotes about WMD on Snopes, you’ll see that people who literally loathe Bush were just as bamfoozled by the intelligence reports about WMD as the Bush administration.
Which I and others have accepted, Russ. You’re arguing with a straw man here.
The point was and is that only the Bush administration decided this threat justified an invasion. The intel didn’t change substantially from 1999 to 2003 — it’s not like the threat was any more looming in ’03 than it was four years earlier. What changed, then, to bring about a war?
So far as I can see, the answer is that the people viewing the intelligence information had a different goal in mind. Paul O’Neill’s made it pretty clear that the administration had ousting Saddam in mind from day 1 — as such, I don’t think it’s a stretch at all to say that the decision-making is much more of a problem than the intelligence.
And I find it laughable that people actually believe a Gore administration would have been so much more astute with the exact same intel reports.
Not astute. Prudent. Obviously there’s no way to know for sure, but I very much doubt that Gore would have followed the same path. If nothing else, he’s so much of an internationalist that he certainly would have made a far stronger effort to bring other countries on board.
But, as you say, that’s not something anyone can really know.
Personally, I hate partisan bickering, because absolutely nothing gets analyzed rationally.
I agree, and I’ll readily cop to being part of that on occasion — but actually, I don’t think this conversation has been such, or at least most of it. It seems fairly calm and rational from where I sit.
Balder says a lot of things (most of which don’t really fit the “fairly calm and rational” criterion above), but there’s one thing I definitely wanted to respond to:
And who the hëll cares what other countrys really think of us.
I do. A great deal. So should you.
On a practical level, we’re not going to be the greatest military superpower forever — Rome didn’t last and neither will we. The attitude of “I’ve got enough power to get what I want, so who cares what others will think?” is one that I think dooms itself to failure sooner or later — and on a far more epic scale than trying to keep allies.
I find it more than a little arrogant to assume that America is so superior to everyone else that we don’t need to worry about how we’re viewed. We’re a great country — but we’re not all-knowing, all-seeing or 100% pure. Nobody is — and taking the position that we are is really just setting ourselves up for a fall.
I’m not suggesting that we always do what everyone else would like us to do — there certainly can be times when the rest of the world might oppose us doing something that really needs to be done. I accept that some people think this is one of those times, though I don’t.
But saying “who cares what others think of us” is a view that’s so myopic as to be permanently blind.
TWL
Tim wrote: >>And who the hëll cares what other countrys really think of us.
I do. A great deal. So should you.
FYI — The “Who the hëll cares” quote wasn’t mine. It was Balder’s.
Russ Maheras
I know, Russ — if you look a line or two before the quote you’ll see that I attribute it to him.
Thanks for keepin’ me honest, but I’m blameless this time. 🙂
TWL
Ah, the ever popular class-warfare tactic that has been used since the dawn of time
Performance indexes don’t vote; people do. Don’t whine to me about “class warfare” when your favorite politicians are favoring one class over another.
I still can’t see where the 3 mill # is coming from by looking at the bureau of labor & statistics site.
Try Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/work/careers/2003/10/01/cx_da_1001topnews.html
Besides which, 5.6% is what the level was @ during the ’96 campaign with Clinton.
That’s because the Clinton Administration also counted the folks who stopped looking for work. The Bush Administration changed this a few years ago, to not count folks who are not actively searching for employment.
From http://www.jobbankusa.com/News/Unemployment/unemploy122903a.html — “The nation’s official jobless rate is 5.9%, a relatively benign level by historical standards. But economists say that figure paints only a partial
Robert, you didn’t mention three other reasons not to vote for Bush
I’ve got an entirely laundry list of reasons, Tom, but only so many hours in the day. 🙂
The polls (dubious as they are)switch back and forth per newsbyte. Are so many people so uninformed, stupid and malleable??
If you think elections are bad, try a jury trial sometime.
Robert wrote: >>And as it stands, even the United States’ General Accounting Office says that Americans pay 40% more than Canadians for health care, even while Canada is equal or superior in patient satisfaction, quality of care, and outcome of care.
Hmmm. Couldn’t that be because Canadians (including doctors)earn 40 percent less than people living in the U.S.? After all, why do you think Hollywood shifted so much of its film production there? Just curious…
The polls (dubious as they are) switch back and forth per newsbyte. Are so many people so uninformed, stupid and malleable??
Well, they *are* different people being polled each time, so it’s not like the a handful of the same thousand people are changing their minds every day or so.
Rob
Well…..everyone is going at everyone else to see who’s right and why. It’s irrelevant.
The irony of this whole world situation is that America is, for better or for worse, likely married to Iraq for a very very very long time, whether you, I, or anyone else likes it or not.
So let’s focus on the reality of the here and now and get down to the task of rooting out the instigators of the attacks and eliminating them. That’s job one.
Chris Galdieri and Jerry (I assume Lewis, since he’s so funny…)
All you have to do to see proof of the theft in 2000 is note the “protestors” that stopped the counting of Florida votes. That photo has been enlarged, and every person in it has been positively identified as a Republican Party functionary or Republican official. Not to mention the Republican-staffed Supreme Court.
And the remark about “delivering votes to the President” was made by the President of Diebold, another Bushie. It certainly helps that the voting machines by Diebold and Halliburton divisions do not have a “paper trail” to verify the votes, and that the hacking software to change the vote totals is already distributed on the Internet.
It’ll take me a few days, but I can find the photo for you. In the meantime, you might amuse yourself with some of the Flash animation (and accompanying facts) from http://www.bushflash.com – if you dare.
I notice neither of you commented upon the disenfranchisement of black voters. Obviously, that’s a theft that even you can’t deny.
Maybe I am a bit late, but being a spaniard I would like to point that it seems that it was not the terrorist attack itself, but how the government managed the situation and hold the information to backup the version they considered better to their interest, what might have “forced” many people to vote against the government.
Not to mention that the polls during the last week of campaign (that could not be published those days, but can now) gave a draw between both parties, before the attacks.
Someone ask for numbers of voting in Spain:
Here they are:
2004 Year
Total votes:77,21%
Abstention:22,79%
Blank: 1,57%
Invalid: 1,01%
PP 9.630.512 votes
PSOE 10.909.687 votes
———————
2000 Year
Total votes:68,71%
Abstention:31,29%
Blank: 1,57%
Invalid: 0,68%
PP 10.321.178 votes
PSOE 7.918.752 votes
(more information: here )
I think my “hermano” Victor Jim
Heh. Here’s one of MY paranoid nightmare scenarios.
We already know that it’s illegal to change who’s on the ballot within 30 days of an election, right? Or thereabouts?
Some in the tin-foil-hat crowd maintain that Paul Wellstone was killed (and, in other sides of that same crowd, that either the Bushes or the Clintons have had dozens, if not hundreds of people killed… anyway, that’s where I’m going with this…)…
… so what if John Kerry and his VP have a plane crash (accidental or arranged) in the two weeks before the election?
That’s too late to change the ballot, and I presume Bush would have to win, as who (other than the ignorant who didn’t hear about it… and you know there’d be at least a few)… would vote for Kerry once he’s dead?… I admit, I’d be tempted…
… ‘course, Ashcroft lost to a dead guy recently…
Anyway, that’s how I (in paranoid mode) think it could go down.
Mind you, I don’t think that that’s what WILL happen… just that that would give Bush a pretty much iron-clad victory… unless, of course, the dead guy stayed on the ballot and WON….yech.
You think the 2000 election was a mess? I shudder to think of the consequences of a deceased Kerry beating Bush anyway.
Please, this is NOT a serious thought… just a musing I had yesterday about possible win-win scenarios for the Republicans.
On the sort of subject of the current administration lying or intentionally deceiving, did anyone watch last night’s The Daily Show? Granted, I don’t know what to believe when I watch the show (though I love it), but there was a bit near the beginning about fake news reports the administration ran promoting (I think) the new health care thing. It was also on the topic of a major (and they presumed intentional) flub in admitting just how much it would cost. Granted, all this is fuzzy cuz that’s a little late in the day for me these days (now that my son sleeps through the night and wants to wake up at 5am to play).
Monkeys.
And as it stands, even the United States’ General Accounting Office says that Americans pay 40% more than Canadians for health care, even while Canada is equal or superior in patient satisfaction, quality of care, and outcome of care.
Couldn’t that be because Canadians (including doctors)earn 40 percent less than people living in the U.S.?
I am highly confident that the trained, professional accountants at the GAO have factored in basic rules of international accounting, such as adjusting figures for median incomes and currency conversion rates, Russ.
If you actually have some facts to support your claim that the GAO was totally clueless in their assessment of US-vs.-Canadian health care costs, I’d like to see a cite. Otherwise we’ll have to assume you’re merely reciting “Top 10 Conservative Lies About Canadian Health Care” out of your rectum.
James, very bizarre scenario indeed. Ralph Nader (assuming he makes the ballot this year) would reap the massive windfall of a large number of Kerry voters should Kerry be “conveininetly” removed from the race that late in the game….
Avoid 2000’s spectre Kerry, get Nader as your VP so he doesn’t siphon off votes…
So, has everybody forgot that it was just a year or so ago (if that long even) that the Bush Administration was saying how UNinportant it was to capture Saddam?
Bush’s ášš is in the hot seat, and the wáņkër knows it.
Thomas Reed: What the fark does anything you posted have to do with the lunatic assertion that the US has Bin Laden in custody and is just waiting for some opportune moment to announce it?
Hey, maybe the Republican operatives who have Bin Laden are the same ones who were going to disrupt Ross Perot’s daughter’s wedding in ’92…
To capture Osama, even.
Man it’s been a long day.
Robert wrote: >>I am highly confident that the trained, professional accountants at the GAO have factored in basic rules of international accounting, such as adjusting figures for median incomes and currency conversion rates, Russ.
If you actually have some facts to support your claim that the GAO was totally clueless in their assessment of US-vs.-Canadian health care costs, I’d like to see a cite. Otherwise we’ll have to assume you’re merely reciting “Top 10 Conservative Lies About Canadian Health Care” out of your rectum.
Go back and read what I said. I claimed nothing — and merely asked a question. And even if the GAO did adjust for currency conversion rates, I’m going to ask the question again, “Isn’t it possible that doctors in Canada make 40 percent less than they do in the U.S.?” Hollywood, as I said, moved a lot of their production to Canada for financial reasons. Part of it was probably of course, tax breaks, which they could not get in the U.S. (especially in overtaxed California), but part of it is also probably because salaries are lower in Canada (because they probably employ more non-union labor). I don’t know any of this for a fact, but that’s by hypothesis. Industries generally don’t move from one country to another if it is going to cost them MORE to operate there.
Also keep in mind that I am not a conservative. I rarely ever vote a straight ticket in any election. And I find it very telling that when I question a conservative’s stance on something, it is immediately assumed I am a liberal; and likewise, when I question a liberal’s stance, it is immediately assumed I am a conservative.
Russ Maheras
Then explain why other nations have stopped developing WMDs. Because we have shown that there will be repercussions and terrorism will not be tolerated.
One nation, Ken, not nations plural. Iran is still pushing forward with their nuclear program, Syria is still standing firm in their support of terrorists, Pakistan just pardoned a guy who was pratically selling nukes on ebay, and North Korea has a nice stockpile.
But, hey, Colonel Moe, who hasn’t been a significant factor in the Middle East since the Reagan administration has agreed to give up his WMD.
Hooray!
After all, why do you think Hollywood shifted so much of its film production there? Just curious…
I’ll satisfy your curiosity: Weak Canadian dollar combined with government subsidies for film making.
Not that your point had anything to do with the Canadian health system.
Heh, again.
What if Quaddafi / Khadafy / whatever was just waiting for a good PR opportunity to say “look, I’ve got no more weapons, see!”… and it happened to be timed to coincide with Saddam being gone?
He’s certainly enough of an opportunist to announce something that, maybe, he was planning to do anyway at a time it would curry favor with Washington… again, not something I know for sure, just a speculation.
Bush would win by a landslide.
Which I suspect is going to happen anyhow. God help us.
Just for the record, Libya’s abandonment of WMDs appears to have been prompted by negotiations performed under the Clinton Administration, and had little to do with George W. Bush, al Qaeda, or the Iraq war:
“In fact, Libyan representatives offered to surrender WMD programmes more than four years ago, at the outset of secret negotiations with US officials. In May 1999, their offer was officially conveyed to the US government at the peak of the ’12 years of diplomacy with Iraq’ that Mr. Bush now disparages…
“From the start of President Bill Clinton’s administration, Mr. Gadaffi had tried to open back-channels, using various Arab interlocutors with little success. … At the first meeting, in Geneva in May 1999, we used the promise of official dialogue to persuade Libya to co-operate in the campaign against Osama bin Laden and provide compensation for the Lockerbie families. …
“The fact that Mr. Gadaffi was willing to give up his WMD programmes and open facilities to inspection four years ago does not detract from the Bush administration’s achievement in securing Libya’s nuclear disarmament. However, in doing so, Mr. Bush completed a diplomatic game plan initiated by Mr. Clinton. The issue here, however, is not credit. Rather, it is whether Mr. Gadaffi gave up his WMD programmes because Mr. Hussein was toppled, as Mr. Bush now claims. As the record shows, Libyan disarmament did not require a war in Iraq.“
Link here: http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm
So, to summarize: Clinton did the work, Bush takes the credit, Republicans lap it up.
“We all now that Saddam Hussein has Weapons of massive destruction”.
“You can be sure”.
“All the Spaniards can be sure that I’m telling the truth”.
“The WMD do exist and you will see them”.
“The Spanish government has information that the government of Saddam Hussein has biological and chemical weapons and links with terrorism. It is threatening the peace and security of the whole world”.
“The government of Irak has WMD”.
Jos
Den wrote: >>I’ll satisfy your curiosity: Weak Canadian dollar combined with government subsidies for film making. Not that your point had anything to do with the Canadian health system.
Nice guess, but I prefer facts. So, I dug into it myself, this time, using a Canadian health care system example.
According to Human Resources Development Canada, the wage range, IN CANADIAN DOLLARS, for registered nurses in Ontario, is $18-$33.
According to the Employment Development Department of California, the wage range, IN U.S. DOLLARS, for registered nurses in the state of California, is $18-$30.
Note that for similar high-cost areas in respective areas of the U.S. and Canada, the wage range of registered nurses is almost identical, but it HAS NOT BEEN ADJUSTED FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN EXCHANGE CURRENCY RATES.
It presently takes $1.33 Canadian to buy one U.S. dollar, which means registered nurses in Ontario DO make an average of 25 percent LESS than their counterparts in California.
Hence, my suggested hypothesis that health care across the border may be significantly less than it is in the U.S. primarily because most of the people employed there make significantly less money, is not at all far-fetched. As a matter, it is almost intuitive, which is why I can’t understand why an anti-Bush-policy person would bring this issue up in the first place. If I was going to attack someone’s policy, I’d be a bit more selective about it. Why are drugs manufactured in Canada cheaper than in the U.S.? Probably for the same reason pants manufactured in Bangaladesh are cheaper than those made here.
By the way, the only reason I mentioned the Hollywood angle is because I had first-hand experience with a number of people who had shifted their film operations over the border to save money on salaries and fixed costs. They were compelling anecdotes, but hardly scientific, which is why I originally said, “my hypothesis.”
Russ Maheras
Chris Galdieri wrote: “Thomas Reed: What the fark does anything you posted have to do with the lunatic assertion that the US has Bin Laden in custody and is just waiting for some opportune moment to announce it? “
Ah, NOW you mention what you wanted to get specific about. Instead I had to pull up all the other points I’m right about before you get specific. Okay…how about the surprise “release of the Iranian hostages” that Reagan pulled out, almost the day after Jimmy Carter lost his election? (Although I disliked Reagan, at least he won an election; Bush didn’t.)
There’s also the fact that American troops didn’t find Saddam Hussein; other foreign troops found him and the entire “dramatic capture” was staged by the US. But then, so was Saddam’s whole existence. Here’s a neat little Flash presentation that explains it all:
http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
With the Unelected Monkey willing to pull off such fake events, pulling off a fake capture of Osama for an “October Surprise” isn’t lunatic. It’s practically certain.
Russ, they may make less after the exchange rate, but they also don’t have to pay huge amounts for health care creating a net gain.
“Also keep in mind that I am not a conservative. I rarely ever vote a straight ticket in any election.”
Stop hiding under that pseudonym. We know it’s you Bill O’Reilly.
Seriously though, almost every post of Russ’s that I have seen happens to be fairly conservative.
Nice guess, but I prefer facts.
I gave you facts. The reason why so many TV shows (particularly syndicated ones with limited budgets) are filmed in Canada is because of the favorable exchange rate and the fact that the Canadian government does give subsidies to film and TV production. Ask anyone in the business and they’ll tell you that.
You can be smug all you want, but don’t tell me I made a guess when I gave you facts.
You’re analogy towards health care costs and the entertainment industry is faulty. There are more reasons than just lower wages for why Canadians pay less for health care than we do. Their single-payer system means the government picks up a lot of the costs, plus they negotiate prices for drugs, something our new Medicare bill that Bush was so proud expressing forbids the US government from doing. Meanwhile, the American consumer is forced to carry most of the R&D costs for new drug development.
Those are facts, not guesses.
Ben wrote: >>Seriously though, almost every post of Russ’s that I have seen happens to be fairly conservative.
It may seem that way, but because most of those who post here are fairly liberal, I don’t HAVE to argue any liberal points — there are 20 people arguing those points for me! So generally, I only end up posting here when I disagree with the majority on something.
FYI — I won’t be able to post here for awhile after this particular post, so don’t think it’s because I agree with all of you. 😉
Russ (Not Smug, Just Feisty) Maheras
[James wrote: Here’s one of MY paranoid nightmare scenarios… what if John Kerry and his VP have a plane crash (accidental or arranged) in the two weeks before the election?]
I think the chances are good that Kerry would win under those circumstances — especially if there was any significant public suspicion that the death had been arranged (and with some people already suspecting some kind of October surprise, the convenient death of Bush’s opponent would be almost certain to prompt such suspicions among many folks).
Why would people vote for Kerry if he were dead? There are 2 things that should be borne in mind: (a) vice president, and (b) electoral college.
(a) Vice president. Whoever Kerry chose as a running mate would still be on the ticket. If Kerry had been elected prior to dying, the VP would be elevated to president. If Kerry dies before being elected, I’m not sure it still works that way, but it could make a great case for the Supreme Cou– uh, scratch that.
But let’s say Kerry picks someone whom many of the public prefer to Bush. Kerry’s death would likely make this person even more popular, and there might be a public perception that a vote for Kerry is a vote for his veep. They’d be wrong, in my opinion, because of–
(b) The electoral college. This would be one of the rare cases where this group actually serves a purpose. If Kerry were to die shortly after being elected then the electoral college would need to decide who to install. (That, by the way, was the idea for the Matt Helm novel The Interlopers– that an assassin is poised to kill the president-elect before the electoral college meets, throwing the US into chaos.) So it seems reasonable to me that the electoral college would have the same responsibility if a candidate who had died before the election were elected. Since the electors would be selected based on which candidate for president people had voted for, a vote for Kerry would obviously be a vote for electors who would have voted for Kerry if he were still alive and who thus would be more inclined to vote for someone of similar beliefs, such as Kerry’s veep.
Assuming Kerry does a reasonable job of picking a veep, most of Kerry’s voters would be inclined to vote for the Kerry ticket over the Bush ticket, and quite a few waverings and undecideds might come over to the Kerry ticket out of sympathy for Kerry and suspicion of Bush.
— Which means that, if there were a conspiracy to assassinate Kerry prior to the election, there would need to be another key element to it in order for it to be successful in electing Bush. It would not be enough simply to kill Kerry, but it would need to be done in such a way as to create suspicion that the death had been arranged by his own vice presidential candidate.
Now that is something to get chills thinking about…
To throw some wood on the fire…
There are elections to be held on Saturday in Taiwan. They are electing their president and voting on a referendum for peace or something with China (yeah, like China cares).
Anyways, there was an assassination attempt on the current President & VP of Taiwan today.
I wonder how the vote there will be swayed by this.
And no surprise, but China was withholding news of this “incident” from their own people.
Well, Taiwan voting results are in.
The president barely won, like 50.1% to 49.9%.
Sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it?
Yet, with the assassination attempt, his opponent is crying foul, saying the results are not valid due to sympathy.
With the scenario that some described here, an attempt on Kerry just before the election, I wonder if the same would happen – Kerry wins by sympathy, Bush cries foul.
But I suppose as long as it doesn’t come down to Florida deciding who’s president…
I wonder if Republicans have the ability to express any emotion aside from greed and disgust…