Posted by Charity on March 27th, 2009

The mantra of the Obama administration.

And they don’t intend to let the AIG crisis pass without using it to justify expanding the powers of the federal government.

“Our system failed in fundamental ways.  To address this will require comprehensive reform. Not modest repairs at the margin, but new rules of the game.”

So said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner before the House Financial Services Committee.

“The days of light-touch regulation are over,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Frank said the financial and economic catastrophes of the last 18 months had created a new political consensus in favor of tighter financial supervision. Mr. Frank said he hoped to pass a bill “very soon” to give the federal government “resolution authority” to seize control, restructure and shut down troubled financial institutions.

The public has been worked up into a frenzied outrage over the AIG retention bonuses, resulting in protests and death threats, and is waiting for the government to remedy the injustice.

What a perfect opportunity to expand government’s power.

Even President Obama has expressed outrage over the AIG bonuses.

As it turns out, it was the Obama administration itself that requested language in an amendment that would allow for these bonuses to be paid after the company received a government bailout.

But we don’t know who knew what, and Treasury Secretary Geithner has already been caught lying about the matter to Congress.

Then we find out that some of the people getting these bonuses – people who were not involved with the credit default swaps that caused the crisis at AIG – have been putting in 14 hour days for no pay, despite other offers from more stable companies, with the understanding that these bonuses would come.

Don’t expect the mob to care.  It’s time to hate the rich.  They deserve whatever happens to them.  They are greedy and responsible for all of your problems.

We’re in the middle of a crisis!

And you can be sure that your government will not waste it.

16 Responses to “Never Waste a Good Crisis”

  1. One area I’ve found common ground with you, Charity, is the concept we over regulate small business and under regulate large business.

    In that line of thought: when we’re dealing with “too big to fail” we need to regulate them out of existence. There is no other viable avenue in my opinion.

  2. Funny, you seemed to be silent on the many times Bushco exploited a crisis (9-11/Iraq etc.). Double standards.

  3. It’s not a double standard. I did not blog about national politics very much back then. I started this as a locally-focused blog. I didn’t really start focusing on national politics until the election.

  4. “In that line of thought: when we’re dealing with “too big to fail” we need to regulate them out of existence. There is no other viable avenue in my opinion.”

    How about breaking them up into smaller entities whose individual failures won’t be catastrophic?

    Businesses get big for a reason, usually because they are doing a lot of things right. ‘Regulating them out of existence’ doesn’t help anybody.

  5. The difference between “breaking them up into smaller entities” and ‘Regulating them out of existence’ is purely semantic.

  6. Bob .. that would take regulation, correct?

    Businesses get big for many reasons, Bob, and no … it’s not always because they’re doing the best at something. Sometimes they’re just the least expensive and earning their megabucks off cheap/slave labor in far flung regions of the world.

    That said, however, I’ll argue that at a certain size (the “too big to fail” metric works for me) any business, no matter how excellent their model, is more a danger to our democratic republic than it is a benefit.

  7. Dear Ms. Tensel,

    For all the times writers and thinkers, critics and philosophers, use the word “Orwellian,” one would think it would be reported that Mr. Orwell was a socialist. In one sense this is deeply ironic, for his writings are often cited by anti-socialists as prescient: the socialists are all about control. But in another sense there is nothing ironic at all, since one would expect that a socialist would be the most clairvoyant about socialism’s many dangers (assuming Orwell could see that socialism leads to totalitarianism).

    Before the 2008 election I wrote a rather chilling piece about something Orwell wrote. I will not take credit for the chill; the iciness comes from Orwell’s own pen. You’ll see that he is very much an inspiration for what is playing out before our very eyes.

    Seriously, check out the whole quote.

    _______________________

    What I think we are seeing in the Obama Administration is the institutionalization of ENVY. Envy is a powerful force in human life; we swim in envy. Certain social structures have been born precisely to manage the invidious forces we experience daily. Barack Obama is where he is precisely because of envy, and it is his party that fuels envy at every turn; the Democrats in many ways are dismantling the very structures that keep envy at bay. The egalitarianism Democrats adore (at least the left-leaners among them), MUST be rooted in envy; it surely is NOT rooted in fact — or in nature. “Look what they have that we don’t! That’s not fair! They make too much! Such disparity!” — these are all envy’s voice. Virtually all acts of “social justice” find their origin in envy. But the sick part of envy — as distinct from jealousy — is that envy does not need to have what others have. Rather, envy delights in seeing those who have MORE at least lose some portion — it matters not how much — of what they have. It’s an “If-I-Can’t-Have-It-Then-No-One-Else-Should” ethos. Taxing the rich, for example, appeases this god, this demon called envy.

    But only for a moment.

    Peace,

    BG

  8. Dear J.D. Ryan,

    I wonder what you mean. How did the Bush Administration exploit 9/11 and Iraq? Are you suggesting that Bush’s “rush to war,” a rush so swift it took him 18 months to get boots on the ground, is somehow equivalent to Barack Obama’s “we-must-act-now!” economic policies? Bush DID take 18 months to challenge America’s alleged enemies in Iraq; Obama DID act immediately — about 1 minute after taking the oath of office — in signing legislation to “stimulate” the economy before the alleged demise of our entire country (and he did it so swiftly neither he nor his fellow Democrats had time to read his stimulus bill — an oversight that led to his embarrassing AIG bonus scandal).

    Let it be said here: In great haste, Barack Obama has already launched several preemptive strikes against apparent — and not decisively known — economic threats. To many of us, he’s cherry-picked the intelligence presented in nearly every economic report. Where are his alleged economic weapons of mass destruction? (Perhaps they’ve been spirited off to some bunker just over the border.)

    Or are you suggesting that Bush used 9/11 to manufacture a connection between 9/11 and Iraq? Tell me you’re not suggesting something so dismally revisionist.

    Sincerely,

    BG

  9. “How did the Bush Administration exploit 9/11 and Iraq?”

    Please! You think that the majority of people that voted for GWB in 2004 that thought that Iraq had WMDs when we invaded them (they didn’t), that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 & Al-Qaeda (they didn’t), that we “found” WMDs in Iraq after we invaded (we didn’t), etc., etc. thought those things just because they were watching Fox “News”?? No, they thought those things because the Bush Regime kept saying or inferring those things, which were all totally false. In less than two years, we went from being attacked by Al-Qaeda to attacking a country that had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or 9/11. Why?? Because the neo-cons in the Bush Regime blatantly exploited 9/11 to do something that they always wanted to do…”finish the job” in Iraq.

    “Obama DID act immediately — about 1 minute after taking the oath of office — in signing legislation to ‘stimulate’ the economy before the alleged demise of our entire country”

    Really…one whole minute after taking office the stimulus bill magically passed both houses of Congress & landed on Obama’s desk??

    “Where are his alleged economic weapons of mass destruction?”

    So, the USA hasn’t been in a recession for over a year now, there hasn’t been a massive amount of jobs lost during that time, and there hasn’t been a massive collaspe of the housing & financial sectors of the U.S.’s economy?? Sure, sure…everything would have been just fine if we had just let everything slide along like Bushy Boy wanted to…

    “Perhaps they’ve been spirited off to some bunker just over the border.”

    LOL…you mean like those “Iraqi WMDs” that weren’t spirited off to Syria because they never existed in the first place??

    “Or are you suggesting that Bush used 9/11 to manufacture a connection between 9/11 and Iraq?”

    LOL…this doesn’t need to be “suggested” my friend…it’s already established history, period.

  10. Dear “Mister Guy,”

    Why choose a pseudonym now? (Especially at this moment when “established history” is on your side.) What, are you afraid of history? Are you afraid to actually present yourself a staunch ally of the obvious narrative you’ve embraced?

    Sometime in the next day or two (I am a dreadfully busy soul) I will show you the “established history,” and I will show that you’re a victim. A victim in hiding.

    And a coward. (In hiding.)

    Sincerely (and not in hiding),

    BG

  11. Thanks for letting us know that you have NO facts to bring to the table Mr. Gnade…either now or in the future…just more Right-wing nonsense…

  12. Dear “Mister Guy The Pusillanimous,”

    You could not be more predictable than if you announced your every move beforehand.

    Let’s look at your “established history,” shall we?

    Perhaps we can begin by pointing out a nasty little habit common to the Obama regime. That habit is to deflect constantly all criticism by reminding voters and the press that Mr. Obama “inherited” the many problems this country now faces. In other words, Mr. Obama is a victim. Sadly, or so it goes, he has to pick up where his predecessor left off. It’s all so difficult.

    It seems rather safe to assume you are under the impression George W. Bush somehow manufactured a crisis: that the Iraq War was created solely in the vacuum of George W. Bush’s brain in order to exploit a crisis and establish some sort of neo-con world order. Correct?

    Permit me to begin with a question you can surely answer: Between 1991 and 2001, can you name any two-week period in which the United States WAS NOT in military conflict with Iraq? Maybe you could show us just a one-week period of armistice. Please, INFORM US.

    Well, maybe that’s too easy for you. Maybe you can ponder the following.

    I am sure you have heard (we all have) that President George W. Bush believed that establishing and supporting democracies around the world would keep America safe and stabilize the globe. Democracies, or so he said, don’t attack each other.

    Come. You remember this, don’t you? It’s right here:

    “Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don’t attack each other, they make better trading partners and partners in diplomacy.”

    Well, maybe you don’t remember it, but you should: the above is a quote from the 2nd State of the Union Address given by President Bill Clinton in 1994. Hence, we can conclude from Mr. Clinton’s own words that the idea of supporting “democracy EVERYWHERE” was something George W. Bush inherited.

    HERE ARE THE FACTS YOU DON’T SEEM TO KNOW

    What follows is an updated excerpt of a letter I wrote last fall to Barack Obama informing him why I could not vote for him. If you can understand a timeline — one that begins with Jimmy Carter — you will find the following VERY enlightening:

    Dear Sen. Obama:

    …It was not until I learned of the “Iraq Liberation Act” signed in 1998 by Bill Clinton in which he called for regime change in Iraq that my heart and mind began to change about the genesis of the Iraq War (sometime after the start of the 2003 invasion). Perhaps the shock of 9/11 had dulled my senses; perhaps I had forgotten even recent history. Perhaps I just simply forgot such things as those outlined here:

    1. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter created the Carter Doctrine. That Democratic leader’s doctrine said, in part, that the United States would use military action to protect the nation’s interest in the Middle East and Persian Gulf.

    2. In 1991, George H. W. Bush, now known as Bush the First, following the Carter Doctrine, led Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm to protect American interests in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia by reversing Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.

    3. In 1992, Bill Clinton (and Al Gore’s) campaign for president against rival George H. W. Bush included broad and damning criticisms of Bush the First’s bungling of the Gulf War. Both Democrats argued that Bush had coddled terrorists; that Bush had failed his country and the world by not removing the regime of that “grave threat,” Saddam Hussein. Once Bill Clinton won the White House, it was his administration that ramped up sanctions and military actions against Iraq. Clinton would handle Hussein: he would either be replaced or contained. Doubt me? See this 1992 video, or this one from 1998. (Moreover, I like to remind people what they have forgotten, namely, that there was virtually not one single day from 1991 to the end of the Clinton administration’s final term, or more than 8 years, that the US was NOT in some type of military conflict with Iraq. The current “war” is not 5 years old, but 18.)

    4. In 1993, Islamic militants nearly succeeded in toppling the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Fortunately the terrorists placed their bomb along the wrong load-bearing wall. The six-story deep hole left in the basement of the tower indicates the severity of the explosion. Bill Clinton chose to see the attack as a law-enforcement and not a military problem. (Had the bomb been just a few feet closer — relatively speaking — to the most vulnerable wall, it is estimated that at least 50,000 people would have been killed.)

    5. In 1994, President Clinton advanced the foreign policy ideal that democracies should be supported “everywhere,” and that democracies “don’t attack each other.”

    6. During the entirety of the Clinton administration, the US flew more sorties against Iraq than were flown during the first Gulf War. And let us not forget the two major operations run in 1996 and 1998, Operation Desert Strike and Operation Desert Fox, respectively. President Clinton bombed the hell out of that country, provoking the wrath of countless Iraq sympathizers.

    7. In 1998, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act calling for REGIME CHANGE in Iraq. This act was inherited by George W. Bush; it was precisely this that informed his decision to invade Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein’s REGIME from power.

    8. In 1998, Osama bin Laden issued his infamous FATWA against the United States, calling for the death of Americans everywhere. Bin Laden’s biggest grudge? The continued abuse and oppression of the Iraqi people by the Clinton regime. (I like to remind people that the fatwa was issued under the Clinton administration.)

    9. In 2001, the fatwa of Osama bin Laden was dramatically obeyed on September 11.

    10. Because Osama bin Laden had made the continued abuse of the Iraqi people under Bill Clinton the central point in his fatwa, the CAUSAL LINK between 9/11 and Iraq was established — bY OSAMA bin LADEN!

    11. In 2002, as the 9/11 Commission was about to interview Bill Clinton’s national security advisor, Sandy Berger, Mr. Berger went to the National Archives and stole allegedly original documents. Curiously, the Justice Department concluded that Mr. Berger had not stolen original and unprotected materials. He was fined $50,000, sentenced to 2 years probation, and had his security clearance revoked for three years. Quite the penalty for a harmless act.

    12. When the 9/11 Commission published its report and presented it to the public, news outlets everywhere declared “9/11 Commission: No link between Iraq, Al Qaida.” The NEXT DAY, the 9/11 Commission held a press conference to reinforce what it had actually concluded, namely, the commission concluded that there was no “collaborative link” between Iraq and Al Qaida. The commission maintained, despite widespread mis-reporting, that there WERE links between Iraq and the terrorists.

    13. In 2003, George W. Bush, or Bush the Second, following the Carter Doctrine and Bill Clinton’s Iraq Liberation Act, began the invasion of Iraq. This invasion was ALWAYS described in terms of REGIME CHANGE. Talk of WMDs was merely secondary, perhaps even tertiary, to the goal: the Iraq War was NEVER against Iraq in general (unlike the Allies versus Germany, for example) but against the Iraqi regime (which meant the enemy was embedded in a civilian population that was NOT the target of war … making for a very difficult conflict).

    14. In 2007, former American member of the UN Iraq Weapons Inspection team, Scott Ritter, a popular (among the left) Bush critic and critic of the Iraq War, told Laura Knoy on New Hampshire Public Radio that the Clinton Administration continously suppressed the findings of the weapons inspectors (the inspectors kept reporting that there were no weapons), because Clinton was CONCEALING a “regime change” strategy under the cloak of weapons inspections. Ritter said that news of the Iraqi government’s compliance with the demolition of weapons caches would mean that the Clinton plan to remove Hussein would be doomed, as compliance meant reducing sanctions and penalties against Iraq. Clinton played the “non-compliance” game, selectively presenting intelligence reports solely to maintain sanctions against what we NOW know was a depleted regime.

    Note, dear Mister Guy The Pusillanimous, that I have not even mentioned the fact that the only person to go on record describing Saddam Hussein as an “imminent threat” was Democrat Jay Rockefeller — and he called Hussein an imminent threat from the floor of the Senate. Nor did I mention that during the Clinton administration, when Iraq submitted its complete WMD inventory, Iraq ITSELF declared that it had 40 to 400 tons of nerve gas. (Well, I’ve mentioned them now.)

    Nothing here is fancy footwork on my part. The facts stare us all in the face: The Clinton Administration abused Iraq for political gain, raising the ire of Osama bin Laden, who did all of his planning and denouncing during Clinton’s tenure. The Bush Administration inherited this mess, a mess created largely by Democrats in the White House. That fact alone proves why you are a victim of revisionism: the Democrats and their minions in the press DO NOT want you to know the truth. They’ve done everything possible to obfuscate, confuse and revise the narrative presented here.

    There really is nothing you can say to rebut what I’ve presented. It would be foolish to suggest I am closed-minded or revisionist myself, unless you want to call me a revisionist of the revisionist history that has seduced you. I’ll take that. If you want to present “facts,” go ahead. But please spare us the puerile shriek that Bush did not find weapons of mass destruction. WMDs were never the REASON we attacked Iraq. They were merely evidence, evidence initially presented by the Clinton Administration. No one in all of government was under the delusion that if American troops found and confiscated WMDs in Iraq those same troops would immediately withdraw in victory. Nor was anyone so deluded to think that if NO weapons were found the troops would instantly withdraw. The target ALWAYS was a defiant and rogue dictator and his minions: Saddam Hussein’s repeated violation of international law — his giving the middle finger to the UN — easily inspired others to defy international law without compunction. This was why his REGIME had to be changed.

    And let me add this one note. Barack Obama in his very first address to this country referenced the fact that he had inherited the issues that now plague him. I compare his preemptive excuses to his predecessor’s behavior and find fault with him: George W. Bush rarely — if EVER! — showed such low-brow politics by blaming his predecessor. Bush understood the idea of the office of the presidency. Barack Obama does not: His constant search for an external locus of control indicates this quite clearly.

    Oh, by the way: There IS a spoon.

    Good luck.

    BG

    PS. I opposed the Iraq War.

  13. Dear Mister Guy The Pusillanimous,

    I forgot to encourage you to let J. D. Ryan know I’ve posted a comment he might find interesting.

    Also, just to be on the safe side, I must make this admission: I made one mistake, though one so small it is hardly germane to the argument proper: when Mr. Clinton said America should support “democracy elsewhere,” I later quoted him as saying “democracy everywhere.” Nit-pickish, for sure.

    Phew!

    BG

  14. “that the Iraq War was created solely in the vacuum of George W. Bush’s brain in order to exploit a crisis and establish some sort of neo-con world order. Correct?”

    “neo-con world order”?? I wouldn’t say that…I’d just repeat what I’ve already stated here. The FACT that Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qadea or 9/11, and Iraq had no WMDs when we invaded to “disarm” them in 2003, period.

    “Between 1991 and 2001, can you name any two-week period in which the United States WAS NOT in military conflict with Iraq? Maybe you could show us just a one-week period of armistice.”

    As you may know, only a cease fire agreement was negotiated & signed by both sides at the end of the First Gulf War. I was not in favor of that War at the time either. Starting another new War on the heels of a poorly conceived first War is not very good policy IMO.

    “I am sure you have heard (we all have) that President George W. Bush believed that establishing and supporting democracies around the world would keep America safe and stabilize the globe. Democracies, or so he said, don’t attack each other.”

    Well, that’s nice, but that’s, of course, NOT why we went to War in Iraq. We went to War in Iraq because the Bush Regime said that they posed a gathering “threat” to us & the rest of the world community, which was, of course, totally bogus.

    “Hence, we can conclude from Mr. Clinton’s own words that the idea of supporting ‘democracy EVERYWHERE’ was something George W. Bush inherited.”

    Yea, cuz Clinton was always invading countries for trumped up reasons in order to knock over dictators…not…

    “What follows is an updated excerpt of a letter I wrote last fall to Barack Obama informing him why I could not vote for him.”

    I’m sure he was crushed to receive your letter…my goodness…you DO have a superiority complex, don’t you??

    “It was not until I learned of the ‘Iraq Liberation Act’ signed in 1998 by Bill Clinton in which he called for regime change in Iraq that my heart and mind began to change about the genesis of the Iraq War (sometime after the start of the 2003 invasion).”

    You must mean Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), where Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing WMD programs threatened vital U.S. interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in “material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations” and urged the President “to take appropriate action, in accordance ith the Constitution and relevant laws of the U.S., to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations”…the infamous “regime change” vote from 1998…but it turns out that they had no WMD and the Constitution sez that the U.S. needs to declare war in order to militarily overthrow another country.

    “In 1980, President Jimmy Carter created the Carter Doctrine.”

    Nice try, but the Carter Doctrine was a policy which simply stated that the USA would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The doctrine was a response to the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the Cold War adversary of the United States—from seeking hegemony in the Persian Gulf. In short, it was intended to warn away *outside forces* from the region, period.

    “In 1991, George H. W. Bush, now known as Bush the First, following the Carter Doctrine”

    No, he was actually following the “Reagan Corollary to the Carter Doctrine”, which proclaimed that the USA would intervene to protect Saudi Arabia, whose security was threatened after the outbreak of the Iran–Iraq War…which we encouraged Iraq to start in the first place…ooopppssss…

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine

    “Bill Clinton chose to see the attack as a law-enforcement and not a military problem.”

    Really?? In March 1994, 4 men weren’t convicted of carrying out that bombing, and, in November 1997, two more weren’t convicted as well for masterminding & carrying out the bombing?? Hmmmm…I know they were…where’s Osama Bin Laden BTW??

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

    “During the entirety of the Clinton administration, the US flew more sorties against Iraq than were flown during the first Gulf War.”

    So what??

    “In 1998, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act calling for REGIME CHANGE in Iraq.”

    We’ve been over this already…that Act was stating known falsehoods about what Iraq was supposedly up to, and it wasn’t an excuse for Congress not declaring War on Iraq in 2003.

    “Bin Laden’s biggest grudge? The continued abuse and oppression of the Iraqi people by the Clinton regime.”

    Nonsense…Bin Laden was most upset about U.S. forces “Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places”, which was Saudi Arabia.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat%C4%81w%C4%81_of_Osama_bin_Laden

    “Because Osama bin Laden had made the continued abuse of the Iraqi people under Bill Clinton the central point in his fatwa, the CAUSAL LINK between 9/11 and Iraq was established — bY OSAMA bin LADEN!”

    LOL…nonsense…see above…this really is too easy…

    “The commission maintained, despite widespread mis-reporting, that there WERE links between Iraq and the terrorists.”

    Wrong again. What they actually said was that “the panel had no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had assisted al-Qaeda in preparing or executing the 9/11 attacks.”

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report

    “In 2003, George W. Bush, or Bush the Second, following the Carter Doctrine”

    As stated & linked to before, the Carter Doctrine had nothing to do with Iraq.

    “This invasion was ALWAYS described in terms of REGIME CHANGE. Talk of WMDs was merely secondary, perhaps even tertiary, to the goal: the Iraq War was NEVER against Iraq in general (unlike the Allies versus Germany, for example) but against the Iraqi regime (which meant the enemy was embedded in a civilian population that was NOT the target of war … making for a very difficult conflict).”

    LOL…right, because invading a country & overthrowing it’s leader (who was real pain in the ass to us after he stopped doing what we told him to do in the 1980s) isn’t really a War…sure, sure… Go read dictionary for the definition of war you moron…please…

    “In 2007, former American member of the UN Iraq Weapons Inspection team, Scott Ritter, a popular (among the left) Bush critic and critic of the Iraq War, told Laura Knoy on New Hampshire Public Radio that the Clinton Administration continously suppressed the findings of the weapons inspectors (the inspectors kept reporting that there were no weapons)”

    Thanks for admitting that Iraq had no WMD when we invaded them in 2003…the rest of world (including Ritter) had caught onto that notion loooong before 2007 BTW.

    “that I have not even mentioned the fact that the only person to go on record describing Saddam Hussein as an ‘imminent threat’ was Democrat Jay Rockefeller”

    Hmmmm…”imminent threat” vs. “continuing threat”, which was all through the 2002 Congressional resolution that was passed. No matter, since you’re not telling the truth, yet again:

    http://articles.latimes.com/20...../na-bush29

    http://www.americanprogress.or.....24970.html

    http://www.ph.ucla.edu/EPI/bio.....inent.html

    http://www.armscontrolwonk.com.....-from-iraq

    “Nor did I mention that during the Clinton administration, when Iraq submitted its complete WMD inventory, Iraq ITSELF declared that it had 40 to 400 tons of nerve gas”

    …which was, of course, totally inert by then. Again, just ask Ritter…

    “There really is nothing you can say to rebut what I’ve presented.”

    LOL…it’s a little late to say that now my friend.

    “But please spare us the puerile shriek that Bush did not find weapons of mass destruction.”

    Exactly, let’s not confuse the issue with facts now, shall we?? Sheesh…

    “No one in all of government was under the delusion that if American troops found and confiscated WMDs in Iraq those same troops would immediately withdraw in victory. Nor was anyone so deluded to think that if NO weapons were found the troops would instantly withdraw”

    …because we had already taken over the country…duh…

    “George W. Bush rarely — if EVER! — showed such low-brow politics by blaming his predecessor.”

    Really?? So the early 2000s recession WAS his fault after all! Thanks for clearing that up for me.

    “PS. I opposed the Iraq War.”

    So did I, but I’m not the one making excuses for why we “really” went in there in the first place!

  15. Dear Mister Guy The Pusillanimous,

    Thanks for the Wikiretort.

    Consider yourself trounced. Your “rebuttal” is embarrassing. Polemics clearly do not suit you. (But I can at least tell from your use of the English language that you’re probably really good at text messaging.)

    My gosh, you’re a straw-weight. Just note what you wrote here:

    Nice try, but the Carter Doctrine was a policy which simply stated that the USA would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region.

    You’re really adept at stating the tautological (I now note that you do two things well). Here’s what I wrote:

    “[Carter's] doctrine stated, in part, that the United States would use military action to protect the nation’s interest in the Middle East and Persian Gulf.”

    See any parallels, any repetitions, in our two statements? Probably not. Oiks! No wonder you use a pseudonym! How fun!

    Check out your Wikiretort to this sentence of mine:

    “Bill Clinton chose to see the attack as a law-enforcement and not a military problem.”

    How did you reply? Well, like a beginner. Here goes:

    Really?? In March 1994, 4 men weren’t convicted of carrying out that bombing, and, in November 1997, two more weren’t convicted as well for masterminding & carrying out the bombing?? Hmmmm…I know they were…where’s Osama Bin Laden BTW??

    Don’t you understand that this PROVES Mr. Clinton chose to view the 1993 terrorist threat on this country as a law enforcement issue? The record also proves this, as does the fact that there were CONVICTIONS IN A COURT OF LAW. I might offer that you think these convictions prove Mr. Clinton did the right thing, but I think that would be putting thoughts in your head.

    Again, let me show you how deficient your Wikiretort is. I wrote:

    “When the 9/11 Commission published its report and presented it to the public, news outlets everywhere declared ’9/11 Commission: No link between Iraq, Al Qaida.’ The NEXT DAY, the 9/11 Commission held a press conference to reinforce what it had actually concluded, namely, the commission concluded that there was no ‘collaborative link’ between Iraq and Al Qaida. The commission maintained, despite widespread mis-reporting, that there WERE links between Iraq and the terrorists.”

    Here’s your ridiculous reply (it’s mostly tautological, and it includes the fallacy of ambiguity/amphiboly):

    Wrong again. What they actually said was that “the panel had no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had assisted al-Qaeda in preparing or executing the 9/11 attacks.”

    Note what you’ve done: You’ve proven my point. The press reported that the Commission had concluded there was NO connection whatsoever. But what you’ve just quoted proves what I said: the Commission said there was no collaborative connection. Synonyms for collaboration would include words like “assisted.” But since you are not expert in English, you would not know this. That is why you committed the fallacy of ambiguity: You thought that “assistance” somehow shattered “collaboration.” Instead, it only reinforces it. (Several noted analysts have shown the connections between Iraq and Al Qaida, but you know that already, don’t you? If not, I’ll let you track those down. Again, those connections WERE NOT collaborative, meaning, there was no “assistance” given.)

    Lastly, let me point out something that you missed: The LA Times link you posted above DOES NOT show President Bush calling Iraq/Saddam Hussein an “imminent threat.” The Times only INFERS that from Bush’s words. The Times link and the subsequent links you’ve provided show that you are a superficial analyst, fascinated by HEADLINES. Don’t you read the stories you submit? The fact is that the PRESS put the word “imminent” in the Bush administration’s language (among its top brass). But the more important fact is that Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller explicitly called Iraq an “imminent threat.” (The closest parallel to this is Bush press secretary Scott McClellan’s, “This is about imminent threat.” What is “this”?)

    Here’s what Mr. Rockefeller said on October 10, 2002:

    “There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!” (Think of the stunning connection he’s making here between 9/11 and Iraq! And remember, Rockefeller served under Clinton’s entire presidency. Which makes me think of Sen. John Kerry, as Kerry served on the Senate’s Select Intelligence Committee under Clinton; it was this experience that informed Kerry’s pronouncements that Hussein had WMDs.)

    So, you see, you are utterly wrong: I did not lie, as you intimated. But you did manage to mishandle the material — again.

    You’re right about one thing: this really IS easy.

    Thank you for taking the time to get yourself up to speed just enough to make it look like you know what you’re talking about. You are clearly a novice in these matters; I am sure you think you’ve rebutted history. But you haven’t. Instead, you’ve ably proven my point: there really is nothing you can say to rebut the timeline I’ve posted. (Alas, I’ve found a third thing you do well: you repeatedly prove my point.)

    What to conclude from reading your shallow Wikiretort? Saying “Wrong”, “Wrong,” Wrong” is clearly quite easy, especially when one hasn’t a clue what he or she is saying.

    As I said, consider yourself trounced.

    To everyone else, please note how Mister Guy The Pusillanimous A) hides behind a pseudonym; B) uses derisive phrases to suggest mastery (but his handling of the material proves Mister Guy is an amateur, at best); and C) keeps a deliberate distance from the most damning evidence, namely, that the fatwa which led to 9/11 was issued during Bill Clinton’s presidency as a result of Mr. Clinton’s abuse of Iraq. The causal link between Iraq and 9/11 was made by Osama bin Laden himself. There is no refuting this overwhelming fact. But since this is all new material for Mister Guy The Pusillanimous, he/she massacres his/her credibility in an effort to straw-man my argument so Mister Guy The Pusillanimous can avoid its central conclusions.

    Sincerely,

    BG

    ROTFLAYFWRS! UMMP, R!

  16. “Your ‘rebuttal’ is embarrassing”

    …and your arrogance is quite breathtaking…lol…

    “See any parallels, any repetitions, in our two statements?”

    LOL…let’s forget this, of course:
    “The doctrine was a response to the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the Cold War adversary of the United States—from seeking hegemony in the Persian Gulf. In short, it was intended to warn away *outside forces* from the region, period.”

    Let’s try this another way…it’s kind of hard to use the Carter Doctrine as “justifcation” for invading Iraq when there were no outside forces trying to take over Iraq. WE were the outside forces trying to take over Iraq!

    “Don’t you understand that this PROVES Mr. Clinton chose to view the 1993 terrorist threat on this country as a law enforcement issue?”

    Yes, it does, and it also proves that the perpetrators of that attack were held to account, unlike the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack. Again, where’s Bin Laden?? Is he in jail, dead, down at Gitmo, etc.?? Nope…nice job Bushy Boy…

    “Note what you’ve done: You’ve proven my point. The press reported that the Commission had concluded there was NO connection whatsoever.”

    LOL…now, I guess, you just don’t know how to read. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, period.

    “Several noted analysts have shown the connections between Iraq and Al Qaida, but you know that already, don’t you?”

    LOL…no, I don’t “know” that, and neither do you…because it simply isn’t true, period.

    “The fact is that the PRESS put the word ‘imminent’ in the Bush administration’s language (among its top brass).”

    LOL…again, what you originally said:
    “the only person to go on record describing Saddam Hussein as an ‘imminent threat’ was Democrat Jay Rockefeller”

    The truth:
    You are a liar. Many, many people in the Bush Regime specifically said that Iraq was an imminent threat, period end of story.

    “Think of the stunning connection he’s making here between 9/11 and Iraq! And remember, Rockefeller served under Clinton’s entire presidency. Which makes me think of Sen. John Kerry, as Kerry served on the Senate’s Select Intelligence Committee under Clinton; it was this experience that informed Kerry’s pronouncements that Hussein had WMDs.”

    LOL…both Rockfeller & Kerry were apparently operating on the “flawed information” that they were given about Iraq having WMDs, which we’ve already established that they didn’t when we invaded them in 2003, period.

    “there really is nothing you can say to rebut the timeline I’ve posted.”

    LOL…your arrogance really knows no bounds…it certainly has been quite enjoyable taking you to school…you are truly a legend in your own warped mind…

    “To everyone else, please note how Mister Guy The Pusillanimous A) hides behind a pseudonym”

    Ahhhh…the age old question, who am I?? The answer…it really doesn’t matter who I am…it matters what I say, period.

    “keeps a deliberate distance from the most damning evidence, namely, that the fatwa which led to 9/11 was issued during Bill Clinton’s presidency as a result of Mr. Clinton’s abuse of Iraq.”

    Repeating the same nonsense over & over again does not make it true you moron…

    “The causal link between Iraq and 9/11 was made by Osama bin Laden himself.”

    LOL…riiiiight, because when Bin Laden mentions the poor treatment of Iraq as an ASIDE, we, of course, are justified then to invade Iraq & mistreat them some more…sure, sure… Logic?? Nah, it’s just another word in the dictionary.