Yeah, Dick, Jimmy Carter, Slick Willie, and Barney Frank are all to blame. From the Wiki:

"In 2000, due to a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals.[11]

The intent was that Fannie Mae's enforcement of the underwriting standards they maintained for standard conforming mortgages would also provide safe and stable means of lending to buyers who did not have prime credit. As Daniel Mudd, then President and CEO of Fannie Mae, testified in 2007, instead the agency's responsible underwriting requirements drove business into the arms of the private mortgage industry who marketed aggressive products without regard to future consequences: "We also set conservative underwriting standards for loans we finance to ensure the homebuyers can afford their loans over the long term. We sought to bring the standards we apply to the prime space to the subprime market with our industry partners primarily to expand our services to underserved families.

"Unfortunately, Fannie Mae-quality, safe loans in the subprime market did not become the standard, and the lending market moved away from us. Borrowers were offered a range of loans that layered teaser rates, interest-only, negative amortization and payment options and low-documentation requirements on top of floating-rate loans. In early 2005 we began sounding our concerns about this "layered-risk" lending. For example, Tom Lund, the head of our single-family mortgage business, publicly stated, "One of the things we don't feel good about right now as we look into this marketplace is more homebuyers being put into programs that have more risk. Those products are for more sophisticated buyers. Does it make sense for borrowers to take on risk they may not be aware of? Are we setting them up for failure? As a result, we gave up significant market share to our competitors. "" [link]

from: [link]
"They have always understood that the political risk was huge for them, and they put millions of dollars into using contributions, jobs and consulting contracts to stay in the good graces of people in power," says Wright Andrews, a veteran banking lobbyist. "They had both parties — and particularly the Democrats — under incredible control."

"And my thesis is simply this: That every. single. problem. we have has its origins in a Republican policy or politician."
whoa! Ok. Ender, I'd love to help jump-start the recovery of good 'ol kungfoo, but to do so would require a good investment of time, which i'm simply not willing to make. You see, fools like HolyJuan can watch the daily show with john stewart and feel like they understand world events, they can then bark out a few memes which are illogical ("I didn't heard 1991 ceasefire once in the whole war argument until after WMDs were not found"), and feel like they've actually made a good point. Whereas on my side it will take a good amount of typing and even research (to actually backup what I say) in order to properly address the debate.... In order to do what? Fail at changing the minds of some joe sixpacks whose children will likely be drafted in future years to fight against (illegally) nuclear armed muslims, because their parents were idiots? Do any of you understand how the WWI generation felt when WWII happened? Do any of you really care that Iran has clearly violated the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Are any of you aware that it's human nature to blame others for your own shortcomings?

So instead, I plan to make some smartass replies, over generalizations, and blame entire groups of people for percieved problems while ignoring the contributions made by all others... just like you have.

So, here it goes:

1. Your first comment was quote from fannie mae's website, therefore it's to be ignored since it's biased.
2. "So, the basic line of debate is this: Just how bad have things gotten in America in the last ten years, and who's to blame?" A: The american people, for being ignorant, gullible and stupid. Aristocrats have a good point: those that are not qualified to make an intelligent decision on important matters should do us all a favor and not vote.

"Ender, I'd love to help jump-start the recovery of good 'ol kungfoo, but to do so would require a good investment of time, which i'm simply not willing to make."

Nonsense, dick. You'll invest the time, for the same reason I am. Because you like a good argument.

To continue:

I read the thing on the Fannie website not as irrefutable truth, but rather the same way as I read the commentary of anyone who's failed big on the public stage, which is to say I parse what they're saying with what they're really saying.

Fannie's people knew they had certain standards, and in the face of market pressure from brokers who were playing fast and loose with the rules, they began to do the same. My point is only that Fannie/Freddie, as originally conceived and intended, were not the origin of the problem; excessive deregulation of an aggressive industry was.

And again, neither Fannie nor Freddie acted as Goldman Sachs did, which was to quietly start selling the garbage loans as AAA+ and simultaneously start shorting the derived investment instruments. Another failure on the regulatory front. Say what you will about regulation --and I think you and I both agree that regulation as a practice should be as minimal as circumstances allow-- but in the end, marketplaces DO need to have rules, and "caveat emptor" is always a good practice, but cannot be the basis of our entire financial system.....unless we're trying to turn it into a flea market.

As to Iraq and the threat of nuclear-armed Muslims: It's pretty well proven at this stage that Iraq was no real threat. There are, therefore, only two possible motivations for us to have gone to war there, while the real war on the Afghan/Paki frontier went starved of troops to our great detriment.

First, oil. And given the false pretenses we deployed, combined with our immediate securing of the Iraqi oil fields, looks more and more the most credible explanation for what happened, especially with two oilmen in the White House at that time.

Secondly, maybe we did it to contain Iran. This argument assumes that we have advanced intelligence on Iran's presumed nuclear effort. But if so, then why have we dickered around for the last two years? If Iran is truly building a bomb, and truly represents a clear and present danger to the United States (sorry, I regard Israel's defense as Israel's problem, and they have nukes too) then why are we jaw, jawing when it actually IS time for war, war?

As to the genesis of our current predicaments, let's run 'em down one-by-one:

The economy? As I already commented, fucked by slavishly ideological deregulation in the face of obvious abuses. Excusing this because of "lobbyists" is like excusing the guy that beats his wife when he's drunk because Anheuser-Busch runs ads on TV.

The wars? On the verge of failure in Afghanistan because Georgie Peorgie and his neo-con peanut gallery didn't listen to the generals, who wanted more troops before strapping on a country that felled both the Soviet Union and the British Empire with stone-age tactics. As to Iraq, we lost a good trillion bucks and let 250,000 weapons outright vanish trying to make that country into something other than a dictatorship or kleptocracy. I'm betting in 5-10 years, Iraq is right back where it started. But, again, we shouldn't even have really been there to begin with.

Public debt: Let's see: Bush and the GOP put us on the hook for a trillion dollars' worth of wars, without seeing to it they're unambiguously won, and our investment secured, and further inflated the cost by using all those GOP-connected contractors when we have soldiers sitting around in dozens of countries. Also, he/they failed to exercise appropriate oversight over the aid we sent them, allowing billions of bucks and hundreds of thousands of guns to straight-up disappear. (This would be like driving a truckload of AK's into Compton, unlocking the trailer, and just walking away, while expecting the guns to not be stolen.)

On health-care, he/they extended the Medicare entitlement (but really just to serve Big Pharma by fixing prices), and yet we "can't afford" extending it to the rest of the population? The fact is, if we went to a single-payer system (we won't, but for argument's sake) we'd pay for 60-75% of the new system just in new taxes from people not having to pay 20% of their incomes as tithes to the insurance industry.

Our standing in the world: You can talk a bunch of smack about the "terr'rists hating our freedom", but in the end, it comes down to the fact that those people resent our intrusions into their politics and their countries. (I'm not necessarily taking the other side here; I'm just sayin'.)

We maintain garrisons of troops in DOZENS of countries, and we BORROW from China to do it. Simultaneously, our consumer segment ALSO borrows from China, and then PAYS THEM to manufacture crap we don't really need. Do you think that assembly-line worker in Shanghai, making a few yuan a day, doesn't resent the way she's making peanuts to make Barbie dolls that she and hers cannot even afford?

And then we wonder why we're hated around the world....

As to the atmosphere in Washington, one of the things I truly hoped Bush would keep his promise on was changing the nature of discourse in government. And if anyone was equipped to do it, it was Dubya......the pre-born-again, fratboy, glad-handing, hard-drinking Bush, that is. Sad to say, I wish that Bush had been President and not the kooky "God willed me to bomb Iraq" Bush we actually got, who allowed his delusions of fulfilling Biblical prophecy to induce him to follow through on every single one of the Zionist and neoconservatives' wildest wet dreams.

Am I missing anything here?

Oh my, I was reading thru that and thinking about how I'd reply, then I ran into this one:

"You can talk a bunch of smack about the "terr'rists hating our freedom", but in the end, it comes down to the fact that those people resent our intrusions into their politics and their countries."

Oh Ender, that's so ridiculous.

Let me tell you what I resent: intrusions into the world trade center in 1993, and 2001, and attempting to take out the pentagon. The "intrusion" of an ideology of conquering others and enslaving them to your beliefs. Note the difference between that and our rightful and legal invasion of Iraq and installation of democracy. Their main complaint? We have troops in Saudi Arabia. Well, Al Quaeda is not a part of the Saudi government. they have no legitamite right to demand we leave, therefore it's logical to ignore them. We are guests of the world recognized Saudi government. we did not fight our way in and keep the territory, we were asked to train and equip their army and even defend their country (from Saddam).

As for your claim they'll likely fail. Well, yes, the Iraqi's are a bunch of lazy corrupt losers who will likely piss away their only true chance at freedom, but you know what, that's THEIR RIGHT! They're in charge now, therefore it will be their failure for the history books to read. We never claimed we'd deliver paradise. We claimed we'd remove Saddam, deliver the right to vote, then leave. Why haven't we left yet? Their democratically elected government hasn't asked us to yet, they wanted a planed gradual departure, which is what's happening.

If parts of the world hate us, it should be understood, but this ain't a popularity contest we're running here. The other parts of the world are entitled to their opinion, but not a vote.

According to this: [link]

The Democrats "passed legislation that would give tax breaks to big companies".

Whoa, those corrupt greedy bastards were probably bribed by evil big business because they don't care about the common folks like us. Thus the Democratic party is corrupt. After all (insert name) was a corrupt democrat, thus all of them are corrupt.

Uhhh, duuuhhhh, did I miss anything?

You skipped the part where I mentioned that I do not actually hold that opinion, but was simply stating their perception.

"Let me tell you what I resent: intrusions into the world trade center in 1993, and 2001, and attempting to take out the pentagon."

And just why did they do that? It certainly wasn't because they thought they had a credible chance of defeating the US on our terms. IIRC, Osama claimed he wanted to meltdown our economy by provoking an expensive response we couldn't maintain......funny how things work out, eh?

"The "intrusion" of an ideology of conquering others and enslaving them to your beliefs."

I'd buy this, and in fact, I USED TO buy into this. Just one problem here: I don't see them conquering anybody, at the moment, whereas we're in two different countries, only one of whom had anything to do with attacking our country. As of 9-11-2001, they had Afghanistan. That was about it. Today, they seem to have branches in every country on Earth, if you believe breathless fearmongers like Dick Cheney.

American Tories during the Revolution looked on our Continental Army much the same way the "Arab Street" sees Al Qaeda. Again, I'm not making this argument directly; I do not hold this belief. But they do, and that's what we're in over there is a battle of perception.

"Well, yes, the Iraqi's are a bunch of lazy corrupt losers who will likely piss away their only true chance at freedom, but you know what, that's THEIR RIGHT!"

Just as it was our right to not bother with the whole mess to begin with. Tell me: what crucial American interest has been furthered? (Oil doesn't count, when we're sitting on enough coal that could be converted to liquid fuels to equal Saudi Arabia several times over, and when we need to be getting off our asses and developing other alt-energies anyway.)

"They're in charge now, therefore it will be their failure for the history books to read. We never claimed we'd deliver paradise. We claimed we'd remove Saddam, deliver the right to vote, then leave. Why haven't we left yet? Their democratically elected government hasn't asked us to yet, they wanted a planed gradual departure, which is what's happening."

We did more than that, Dick, and you know it. We're the ones who basically put the present administration in power, all the votes notwithstanding. We put them in the position of being "incumbents", and you KNOW CIA has thrown some money in there to sway the election. As with the last point, I'm not necessarily saying I disagree: once we're in there, we do have an obligation to try to sway things our way. But, nonetheless, our fingerprints are ALL over it, and the history books won't absolve us of that if things go south just because we finally did walk away to let the place finish collapsing. Quite the opposite: I'm not aware of a SINGLE claim by anti-war activists back in 2003 that hasn't come to pass.

So, again, all of that brings us back to the central premise of this thread: Bush went in with the wrong policy (for purely American interests) and then proceeded to compound his error by focusing on things other than the mission at hand (supposedly, to deliver the Iraqis freedom in a sustainable permanent form).

We can't just walk around saying "Hey, we're the good guys" if every time we intervene, we lock down all the valuable assets, set up a fortified Green Zone, and let the rest fall to shit. Sorry, we don't get that pass. If we're running around telling people how we're going to free them, we need to actually do so, as we did in Germany and Japan, and not just sit back and let it all fall to shit because we're too busy shepherding oil tankers in and out.

As to your most recent comment, I'm not quite sure where you're trying to go with that. Myself, I'm mostly of the mind that right now we can't spend money from the federal level fast enough. Yes, it's inflationary, and no, I don't like that long-term. But for now, we've got to do something to prime the pump in as many industrial sectors as we humanly can. (And amusingly, something that the GOP rank-and-file crossed swords with Dubya over....if only they'd been as scrutinizing of the Iraq war!)

"I don't see them conquering anybody"

Oh, so they're not a threat then? We shouldn't deal with them? Responding to their attacks is not worth the effort?

"We're the ones who basically put the present administration in power"

Indirectly, yeah, somewhat. We removed their existing government, took a bunch of Iraqis we trusted and told them to write a TEMPORARY constitution. They did. It was enacted by force, by us. It was followed by the Iraqis and a new government was elected by THEM. Then they wrote their own constitution. So, Ender, please explain a better way to install a democratic government.

"you KNOW CIA has thrown some money in there to sway the election."

They better have, else they're not doing their jobs. I liked Ayad Allawi, if I was president I'd support him too.

"nonetheless, our fingerprints are ALL over it"

Considering that we sent in our Army, I tend to agree. Should we have imposed democracy by using words? Why not complain that the Japanese government is just a puppet of America?

"Bush went in with the wrong policy (for purely American interests)"

The handling of the war could have been better, that in itself does not define a failure. Hindsight is always 20/20. I never liked Rumsfeld. As for interests, ALL countries act in their own best interests.

"If we're running around telling people how we're going to free them, we need to actually do so, as we did in Germany and Japan, and not just sit back and let it all fall to shit"

We could have done a better job, but getting a C on a test does not equal getting an F. America isn't good at occupying countries. I'm ok with that. Next time we'll do a better job. All the folks who know how to occupy a country retired a long time ago. We don't have to be good with occupying countries, we have to be good at winning the war then winning the peace. We won the peace, that's good enough. That's success.

"I'm not aware of a SINGLE claim by anti-war activists back in 2003 that hasn't come to pass."

Yeah, we'll lose. Things such as "the surge has failed".

"Oh, so they're not a threat then? We shouldn't deal with them? Responding to their attacks is not worth the effort?"

It's sort-of important to respond in proportion. And to the country that actually had something to do with the attacks. As so many have noted, what we did would be like if a bunch of Americans hijacked a plane and flew it into the Burj Al Arab in Dubai, and the Arab nations responded by bombing New York but then invading CANADA.

So, instead of finishing the war in Afghanistan, and providing an adequate number of troops to accomplish that mission, we sent troops into Iraq, which ultimately proved to be armed with little more in the way of WMD than what we sold them. (Cue Bill Hicks quote: How'd we know Iraq had such terrible weapons? We looked at the receipts!)

So all the military leaders are saying "we want 500,000 troops for Afghanistan alone" and Bush and Rummy were like "you can have 10,000 for Afghanistan, and 125,000 for this other mission we haven't even told you about yet, but which we've been jerking off to in the restrooms of the Project for a New American Century for years now."

As to Iraqi governance, we shouldn't even have let them HAVE a government worthy of the name until WE had the country properly pacified, as we did with Germany and Japan. Instead, we tried to slide by with installing our preferred cronies (Ahmad Chalabi, anyone?) while the rest of the country was still ducking bullets. That's not a recipe for long-term democracy, it's a blueprint for civil war. And that's a story that seems poised to play out in both Iraq AND Afghanistan. Democracy doesn't mean shit if it's installed at gunpoint, and we were under no particular obligation to grant them self-governance until such time as we accomplished our declared objectives, and they proved THEMSELVES worthy of running their own country again.

For historical perspective, we didn't even allow the last Confederate state back into the Union for five years, we stayed in Japan until 1952 even after decapitating their political class, emasculating their Emperor, and forbidding them to ever have an offensive military capability EVER again. We actually STILL haven't entirely left Germany, though we did let them start governing themselves in the Western half after 1949. By contrast, we started acting as if the MISSION was already ACCOMPLISHED in Iraq while the bullets were still flying, to say nothing of how Bush and his neo-con tools dicked up in Afghanistan. (I don't know about your neck of the woods, but heroin availability has SKYROCKETED in Ohio since we invaded. Coincidence?)

You misinterpreted my comment about "purely American interests". I did not mean that the US is EVER bound by ANYTHING BUT its own interests, just as with any other nation-state. Quite the opposite, I meant that invading Iraq when the mission in Afghanistan still hung in the balance was contrary to our actual national interests, as opposed to the interests of Halliburton, Blackwater/Xe, and all the other neo-con friendly corporations in the Republican firmament.

You say: "The handling of the war could have been better, that in itself does not define a failure. Hindsight is always 20/20. I never liked Rumsfeld."

Indeed, the story isn't even yet fully written! That said, and as I've already noted, we were out of Japan quicker than we'll be out of Iraq, and the job there was truly done. And you can't attribute to "hindsight" those criticisms that were FOREseen when we went in! Bush, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Feith were ALL well aware of the criticisms against their policies, and we went in anyway.

We haven't won the peace yet, not by a long shot. Bombs are still going off over there, and no democracy can long survive an environment like that. As to "the surge".....the surge should've taken place the day after "Shock and Awe" if we were going to be in Iraq AT ALL, and not five years after the fact, as Bush and the GOP were trying to stave off electoral defeat in 2006 and 2008.

And again, how we doing in Afghanistan? Losing? General McChrystal thinks so, though I note that nobody in the military was making this level of noise until Obama took office, because Bush would've just sacked them as he did General Sanchez and Admiral Fallon for not toeing his preferred political line. By the Bushie way of thinking, we haven't been retreating over there, we've simply been advancing in a different direction, to the Taliban's great benefit.

"As so many have noted, what we did would be like if a bunch of Americans hijacked a plane and flew it into the Burj Al Arab in Dubai, and the Arab nations responded by bombing New York but then invading CANADA."

"As so many have noted", eh? Not long ago so many noted that the earth was flat. Today 'so many' state that evolution never happened. "so many" doesn't mean anything other than popular opinion, not right/wrong true/false justified/unjustified.

Now, "if a bunch of Americans hijacked a plane and flew it into the Burj Al Arab in Dubai" Ok, lets assume that american terrorists who were welcome guests of our government did exactly that. The government had been warned before that america will be held accountable for the terrorists we allow to plan and execute attacks from here.

"and the Arab nations responded by bombing New York" That would be completely justified after our government told the folks of Dubai that they'll politely ask the terrorists to leave america. In other words, did nothing.

"but then invading CANADA"

Ok, so in your example Canada had previously lost a war and signed a cease fire agreement with Dubai, which they violated. Canada had violated UN security council resolutions they're legally entitled to uphold. And the list goes on. So YES, IT WOULD BE PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TO ALSO INVADE CANDADA. After all, it would draw the american terrorists into "their heartland" (Iraq is considered the heartland of sunni arabs). American terrorists couldn't resist the opportunity to go to canada and fight the infidels. So they would go, the Canadians would eventually hate them, then join with the Dubai folks and fight the terrorists and cause their single BIGGEST failure in history in front of the entire world. The 'brothers' of the terrorists would reject them in their own heartland, and side with the infidel invaders. The unelected Christian State of Candada would be defeated.

So yeah, I think that would be a perfectly acceptable strategy.

And the "so many" who have opinions about it are likely idiots, just as the folks who think evolution is false are illogical idiots.

Now, look how much time I invested typing this large response to just 1 idiotic meme. Do you see why I consider this a waste of my time?

But hey, might as well move on to the next point now, eh?

"So, instead of finishing the war in Afghanistan, and providing an adequate number of troops to accomplish that mission, we sent troops into Iraq, which ultimately proved to be armed with little more in the way of WMD than what we sold them."

"instead of finishing the war in Afghanistan"

Wrong, we fought in afghanistan first, then invaded iraq.

"and providing an adequate number of troops to accomplish that mission"

Wrong, a large invasion of troops early on to afghanistan would have been rejected by the afghanis. We needed a small team of people to side with a group of afghans, be their guests, and get a new government going. Then we can add more and more troops. We had the capacity to fight 2 wars and we did. I see nothing wrong with that. Have we been defeated in Afghanistan? Is there a democratically elected government now?

"which ultimately proved to be armed with little more in the way of WMD than what we sold them.""

So the violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement never occurred? We had every legal and moral right to invade Iraq at any time after about 1993. Even if 9/11 had never happened AND we thought there were no WMD's we had every right to invade. Afghanistan, and all the other things you can think of can't change that fact. We made an example out of a country right in front of the world, we have our army to the east and west of Iran now. We have bases in Iraq. We are in an ideal position to now strike Iran.

"WMD than what we sold them."

An already disproved meme.

Should I go onto more points? How about you folks pay me for my time first? Because (1) very few will read this, (2) most of them are lower-middle class uneducated morons like HolyJuan who are sheep to be led by promises of "change" and "hope" by somebody who is good looking, young, smooth talking, and completely inexperienced and unqualified. What next, hire a playboy bunny to perform your brain surgery because you "feel" that you identify more with her than with an impatient ugly old bald jerk who actually knows what he's doing? Would you chose a nice kind patient doctor over Dr. House in order to address a very serious problem? I thought not, so explain why you hire the wrong person for the MOST IMPORTANT job in the country, simply because you can't pay attention to history or what's really going on, because you'd rather chug a 6 pack while watching the game, and will instead get your info from a few sources and assume its true.

To all of you who are really this stupid: go fuck yourselves, you will be remembered as a big contributor to the downfall of this country because you weren't qualified to vote but you did so anyhow. Ender, go fuck yourself. Juan, go fuck yourself. That bitch in louisiana who blamed Bush for her own states mistakes, go fuck yourself.

Where did I say that we didn't start in Afghanistan? Quite the contrary, I'm saying we should've committed the necessary troops to pacify the country ahead of truly democratic elections, rather than sending in our paltry 10K troops pulling Hamid Karzai and his opium smuggler on a sedan.



Our national interest was in accomplishing the mission at hand as quickly as possible. That initial mission was to overthrow the Taliban and pacify the nation as quickly as possible. The fuzzy human stuff should go only after that. In fact, that's where the Soviets went wrong: they stayed in for YEARS trying to impose Communism and prop up their puppet government. And that's where we're going wrong today, unless you truly believe that every single one of the allegations against Karzai, his family, and his tribe are entirely 100% false. Myself, I apply the same standard I apply to our own politics: Is there smoke? Yes? Well then there's probably fire. Again, heroin availability has skyrocketed in the last decade, and it's not all being produced by the Mexican Mafia or the other two points of the Golden Triangle. That leaves Afghanistan as the source.

Incidentally, it is not so much I, but our senior commander in the Afghan/Paki theater, General McChrystal, who is saying we're near defeat. I do question the political timing and propriety of his statements, but I also trust in the military acumen of our commanders. (And again, I also partially forgive the timing and impropriety, because making those comments just 12 months ago would've resulted in Bush asking for his resignation, as with General Sanchez, who first asked for a surge in Iraq, and Admiral Fallon.)



Sure, but just as the 1991 Gulf War was launched with UN approval, so too was the ceasefire made with the multinational coalition, under the auspices of the UN. The UN was against the 2003 invasion.

Now, I don't necessarily want you to think that I believe we should abrogate our national interests to the UN, not at all. But, in fact, if we were going to act purely on our own interests, we should have gone all the way to Baghdad in 1991, not waited, let Saddam fuck up, trumped up some extra BS on our own, and then invaded to secure bases and oil. We have 17 aircraft carrier battle groups and multiple Saudi bases for a reason, and it's not because we truly need the Iraqi ones.

(Incidentally, as a side note, I think we could cut our ACBG's to 10 and still have enough force-projection capability to achieve our worldwide missions.....if we decide that those missions --and the global hegemony and GloboCop duties that come with it-- are truly in our national interest. But, that's just my opinion, of course. We could use the savings to put more troops in Afghanistan and Iraq till the job's done.)



We had every right to finish the job in 1991, too. in 2003, we had bigger fish to fry, and Saddam at that point was no longer a credible threat to our national interests. Quite the opposite, the very reason we left him in power was because we still liked the idea of him being in between the Saudi oilfields and the Iranian mullahs.



I don't believe I've ever said we had no justification at all, merely that it didn't serve our interests at the time the policy decision was made. But nor does it absolve us of the responsibility to provide honest casus belli before launching a war. We are supposed to be the good guys, after all.



As we have been for more than six years now. We dusted off Japan and Germany simultaneously in less time than we've been in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush made a calculation that he could win these two wars as "half-wars" based on the old Pentagon "two-and-a-half wars" standard, and he was dead wrong on every part of that calculation.

Indeed, if the ultimate goal was "regime change" in Iran, he fucked that up, too, because by the time we were bogged down in Ramallah, Iraq and Khandahar Province, Afghanistan, the political support was just no longer there to launch a third front. The only credible way we could've maintained that kind of momentum all the way to victory would've been to put the same basic force on the ground that we fought Gulf War I with.



Unless I'm highly mistaken, the only thing even close to WMD that we've found were old mustard gas shells that we sold him. Right or wrong?



If you've got 'em, please do.



Hey, I ain't getting paid here, either.



It was important to break from the Bush legacy. McCain, even if he personally intended otherwise, would've been politically bound by the decisions of his predecessor, given that they're of the same party and that McCain helped enable Bush's fuck-ups. It's sad that we've created a political environment where politicians cannot admit a mistake, take steps to remedy it, and move on.

Obama does not have that problem, and so far, I'm liking what I'm seeing from him on foreign policy. He's shifting troops to the theater in the country that actually helped attack us, and he's made it clear to one and all that he intends to make war decisions based on American interests, not Israel's interests, not the interests of corporations, and not based on some idea that as the "sole remaining hyperpower" we have an obligation to act as the world's policeman.

I see a lot of potential areas where Obama could fail, due to issues and constituencies on his own side of the aisle. But so far, I am optimistic. As far as I'm concerned, Obama has done more things right for our foreign policy in 12 months than Bush did in 8 years of cowboy diplomacy and blitzkriegs.

Yes, the spectre of a nuclear-armed Iran still looms; L'il Kim is still showing his ass in North Korea, and Syria is still provoking Israel....with Israel returning the favors every chance they get. But for the first year of Obama's Presidency, we're moving in the right direction.



If you really feel that way, then fuck you too, man. I'm disappointed: one of the reasons I'm making one final last-ditch effort to resurrect this place is because I thought we had enough intelligent, thoughtful people on both far sides, and plenty of people in the middle, to sustain discussion. But if I'm wrong.......

[link]

Yes, I remember that time well, Dick: there was a lot of cynical wrapping of all this stuff, from the war resolution to the PATRIOT Act, up in the flag. Your boy Rove did a good job of making it so Congress was AFRAID to vote against all that bullshit, with FauxNews leading the hallelujah choir.

That's how I came to no longer be on the far-right side to begin with; if Bush and his cronies had simply skipped the bullshit, they'd still have me and a LOT of other now-former Republicans.

Ender, I think the AC meant for you to focus on the link, maybe this part is something you can refute:

" WHEREAS Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on Oct. 31, 1998,

WHEREAS in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States 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 with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235),"

WHEREAS we needed a justification, because WE KNEW our WMD slideshow would be revealed for the bullshit it was, and WHEREAS we've cowed our legislative branch (also known as US) into abrogating its responsibility to be the ones that declare war, we hereby resolve to hand the Neo-Con Peanut Gallery it's wildest west dream.

RESOLVED by the United States of America, in Congress Assembled, this 3rd Day of October, in the Year of our Lord 2002.....

Well, it's obvious to me that congress took advantage of Bush, who did all things reasonable when presented with the evidence that Clinton's CIA handed him, after all Clinton failed to act according to public law 105-235 because he was busy with OTHER things. Bush clearly had to clean up for Clinton. I think this is obvious and I'm surprised everybody doesn't see it this way.

Saddam launched a trifling couple missiles every 6-12 months or so, and unless I'm mistaken, we lost either zero or one planes as a result. (IIRC, we lost one plane, but the pilot survived and was recovered; I could be wrong on that.) By contrast, the PNAC manifesto was calling for the invasion as early as the mid-90's, after one of its charter members was part of the decision to not push for Baghdad in '91.
As I've said, we should've either gone to Baghdad in '91, or waited until after we were done with Afghanistan. Or, Option Three, put sufficient manpower into it to avoid the early insurgency issues, pacify the country sooner, and show those people what outright peace in a "liberal" democracy (small L, not Big L Liberal) is like, so that they had a better chance to buy into the concept prior to our leaving the country. I was FOR the surge, but I continue to fear it was too little, too late, and gave the insurgents too much time to get established.

And now, remember, there's an extra 250,000 assault rifles, and a slightly lower amount of military-issue sidearms, that have disappeared out of our stocks and are flooding their streets.

I didn't turn in my man card when I drifted leftward, Dick, and a lot of my arguments center around the questions of "Should we be GloboCop" or "Should we NOT be GloboCop". If the former, then we should apply the necessary force from the outset to accomplish the missions at hand; better we send too many troops than too few. War, after all, is not an enterprise that should be conducted on a short-term/cost-conscious basis. If the latter, then we simply should not have been there to begin with.

Taking this sub-argument back to the global topic, we've now spent a trillion bucks fighting these wars, and that'd be fine, if we could say with any degree of certainty that our missions will be accomplished. We cannot, and the blame for that accrues to Bush. You don't try to fight wars on the installment plan.

Or, to distill my comment above into two sentences: Why should Obama be having to win Bush's wars for him? We gave that fucker two terms to accomplish a lesser task than FDR accomplished in five.

"Saddam launched a trifling couple missiles every 6-12 months or so, and unless I'm mistaken, we lost either zero or one planes as a result."

I attempted to rape your wife, but I failed, thus you have no case for action against me. Hey, wait, your logic is flawed. Why should I continue to reply?

"Why should Obama be having to win Bush's wars for him?"

They are not Bush's wars, they are America's wars. If you truly see it that way you are pathetic.

I don't know, I see two reductio ab aburdums here, or maybe they're just false equivalencies, I don't know.

If we wanted to fight a limited war in Afghanistan, without resorting to a draft, that's one thing. But Bush thinking it could be done with only 10K or so troops is proving to have been a very dangerous folly indeed. They're very much "Bush's Wars" in the sense that we're dealing with the consequences of his having tried to substitute contractors for trained infantrymen.

"But Bush thinking it could be done with only 10K or so troops is proving to have been a very dangerous folly indeed"

Seems to me that the taliban were removed from power and democracy installed with 'only' 10k troops.

Seems to me that statement is dramatically premature, poised as we are to ship somewhere around 40K more troops in-theater.

So you don't believe that Afghanistan is now under the control of a democratically elected government?

Nope, sure don't. On both ends of that sentence. It is not under control, and that government was not democratically elected.

[link]

Well, Obama wasn't democratically elected since he's not a genuine US citizen, and Bush wasn't democratically elected because he stole the election, blah blah blah.

Let me guess, you probably think Iran's "president" is democratically elected, eh?

Afghanistan had an election that was controlled by neutral 3rd party observers, and they found some fraud, of course (it's a tribal nation of losers), but overall it was a free election, as was Iraq's.

As for being under control, well, we have gangs here in america, thus I should claim america is not under control nor democratically elected.

No, I think the evidence is pretty clear that Ahmadinejad swiped his election, too. Election fraud, last I checked, wasn't a phenomenon entirely isolated to one ideology, group, or sect. In fact, it's pretty much as old as democracy itself. (Especially in this country: Adams vs. Jefferson in 1796 had such allegations, and Adams' son John Quincy in his 1824 contest against Jackson was the subject of such as well.)

Karzai is crooked as sin. I regard that as so self-sufficiently obvious at this point that I'll debate it no further. They say "where there's smoke there's fire", and by that measure, I'm surprised Karzai hasn't been history's first case of spontaneous human combustion on live television.

And there's just about a galaxy of difference between the Crips and the Taliban. To start with, the Crips have never run the entire country, nor even any entire city of which I am aware.

"No, I think the evidence is pretty clear that Ahmadinejad swiped his election, too. Election fraud, last I checked, wasn't a phenomenon entirely isolated to one ideology, group, or sect. In fact, it's pretty much as old as democracy itself."

Oh, you seemed to miss the part about unelected religious 'leaders' being the ones who PICK who gets to even be in the election.

"Karzai is crooked as sin. I regard that as so self-sufficiently obvious at this point that I'll debate it no further. "

How about all tribal losers like the afghans are crooked as sin, no wonder they live the life they live.

"To start with, the Crips have never run the entire country, nor even any entire city of which I am aware."

The taliban never had full control over afghanistan, especially in the north. Thus you're point is invalid.

You're an idiot.

The Afghans elected Karzai, democracy worked.

You claimed gangs have never had control over america, whereas the taliban had control over afghanistan. I simply cited evidence that your analogy is flawed because the taliban did not have control over afghanistan.

Thus your statement of "It is not under control, and that government was not democratically elected." does not meet your own criteria.

And I'm an idiot?

[link]

Link proves that all of afghanistan was not under the control of any single entity.

So what is your criteria for the success of a new government? Let me guess NO taliban, anywhere, ever. Right? Or should we add human rights for ALL? I'd love to hear your unrealistic criteria for success.

Here's mine: the taliban are on the run and suffering casualties. Thus Bush's afghanistan policy is a success.

You are proving yourself such a jackass that it is STAGGERING.

On the run, eh? Is that what you call it when we have to send 40,000 more of our boys "over there" to keep the guys we've already got from being overrun? Yeah, that map shows a HUGE chunk of Afghanistan under the control of the mighty Northern Alliance. Quick! Without consulting a map, name me one major city in that tiny chunk of Afghanistan!

Yeah, I fucking would call the defeat of the Taliban a precursor to our declaring victory. We didn't leave Tojo in control of Japan, nor Nazis in the higher offices of Germany. For that matter, we de-baathified Iraq, too, though it very much remains to be seen if that'll stick once we pull out. Exactly how long do you think that glorious "elected democracy" over there would hold up without our guns to prop it up? And by what measure can it be considered a "victory" or a "success" if we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars to provide "democracy" for a few short years, when it cannot possibly survive our departure?

Yeah, the Taliban's on the run, and Afghanistan's government couldn't be happier or shinier: [link]

"name me one major city"

In case you weren't already aware of this, Afghanistan is a tribal country, where 95% of the population lives outside of the city. You are looking thru american eyes, with american values, no wonder your vision is clouded.

"the defeat of the Taliban a precursor to our declaring victory"

That is an unrealistic goal, especially since the concept of a single Taliban is an illusion. There are many groups that operate in afghanistan, and don't even consider themselves to be taliban, it is us westerners who consider anybody that's religious and armed in afghanistan to be taliban.

"We didn't leave Tojo in control of Japan"

Uhhh, Tojo was not the emperor, and we DID leave the emperor in his post.

"we de-baathified Iraq"

Not exactly, we left many former baath officials in positions of power.

"Exactly how long do you think that glorious "elected democracy" over there would hold up without our guns to prop it up?"

Not a valid point. How would the japanese democracy have stood up if we left japan right away? How about Germany? Also, I'm glad you finally recognize it for what it is: an elected democracy.

"And by what measure can it be considered a "victory" or a "success" "

I already gave you my definition of success, but you've failed to give yours.

"when it cannot possibly survive our departure?"

Tell me, oh fortune teller, what are the winning lotto numbers? Who gave you the ability to predict the future. Backup your statements with facts.

We cut the Emperor's balls off, first. We didn't leave him in any position of real power. Besides, ever since the Meiji restoration, real power had been steadily accruing to the Prime Minister, and falling from the Imperial Household. Read some history.

We didn't leave the remaining Baathists in any positions of real power, either.

“Tell me, oh fortune teller, what are the winning lotto numbers? Who gave you the ability to predict the future. Backup your statements with facts.”


I think it's self-evident that when you've got 122,000 American and NATO troops in-theater, and need another 40,000, your so-called democracy is not stable. Though I note, again, that at least we're now giving the matter serious attention, rather than treating it as the sideshow to Iraq. I would strongly prefer that we win, even though it'll mean that I have to listen to people like you claiming that it vindicates Bush's incredible vision and inscrutable wisdom.

What color was the Kool-Aid that you have been drinking? I am always struck by the differences in the world views....perhaps influenced by socio-economic conditions of the individuals that offer opinions here. One man's pleasure is another man's pain...Etc. Say La Vee

"it vindicates Bush's incredible vision and inscrutable wisdom."

I'm glad you have finally woken up to the truth.

Bush was perfect in every way, he made no mistakes, and all others who believe otherwise are OBVIOUSLY foolish.

"perhaps influenced by socio-economic conditions of the individuals that offer opinions here."

Oh, you mean the dumb lazy uneducated joe sixpacks who lean to the left because they feel they are ENTITLED to more? Yup, I agree with you there. They are pathetic.

According to the former chief credit officer at Fannie Mae "Most agree that the housing bubble started in 1997. Less well understood is that this bubble was the result of government policies that lowered mortgage-lending standards to increase home ownership. One of the key players was the controversial liberal advocacy group, Acorn (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now).

The watershed moment was the 1992 Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act, also known as the GSE Act. To comply with that law's "affordable housing" requirements, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would acquire more than $6 trillion of single-family loans over the next 16 years. "

So Ender, please explain how this was Bush's fault.

Oh yeah [link]

Boy, you had me right up until you dropped "ACORN". I was all poised to take your comment seriously, until you dropped FauxNews' favorite yelling point.

The law may have made Fannie/Freddie acquire a portfolio of low-income mortgages, but it did NOT require those mortgages to be on brand-new McMansions the prospective homeowners could NOT possibly afford, that was an "innovation" by the private mortgage industry.

Freddie/Fannie were also NOT the people responsible for opening the floodgates of artificially-low interest rates at the macro level. That would be Alan Greenspan.

Now, why does Bush bear blame for this? Simple. He had eight years to try to bring things under control, and didn't, because everyone was making money and he didn't want to be the guy who dictated that the good times had to end.

Clinton bears blame, too, but it simply wasn't on his watch that things unraveled.

"ow, why does Bush bear blame for this? Simple. He had eight years to try to bring things under control, and didn't, because everyone was making money and he didn't want to be the guy who dictated that the good times had to end."

Well then, I guess this never happened: [link]

For those of you that won't read the article, which is from 2003 by the way....

" These two entities ? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ? are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing. "

Typical Democrat....

And if you can explain to me how gutting Fannie/Freddie would have prevented shyster mortgage brokers from putting people in homes they couldn't afford, and how it would've prevented the bigger merchant and investment banks from slicing and dicing those bunk loans until the entire financial system was as fraught with risk and danger as the Korean DMZ, then I'm right there with you.

Face the facts: it was an ideological, borderline-religious approach to total deregulation in the financial markets that spawned this mess. It created an environment where CEOs were rewarded only for short-term gains, and could then take their golden parachutes and bail out when the real costs became clear.

I missed the part where you retracted your ignorant comment.

That's because it wasn't there.

I have watched msnbc here lately and I tell you that those people are WAY OUT there. Damn... I think that dike chick is kind of hot in a dikey way....I would love to watch her work her magic tongue on a nice hairy , wet cooter. That dyke has drank the KOOL aid . She should use a strap on to whip that crazy fool oberman into a fine gay marriage frame of mind

I agree with my self whole heartedly!!!