In the wake of the Dem victory of November, Paul Krugman isn't merely doing a victory dance. He brings to mind one of those ardent football fans up in the stands after his team scores the winning touchdown. Stripped to the waist, painted in team colors, getting up in the face of an opposing fan to taunt "na-na-na-na, goodbye" followed by a rousing chorus of "start the bus."
In his pay-per-view opus of this morning, "A Failed Revolution," Krugman proclaims that not merely has the Republican revolution of 1994 failed, but that it "was always based on a lie."
Just what is that lie? According to Krugman it was the belief expressed by Dick Armey at the time that: "most government programs don’t do anything 'to help American families with the needs of everyday life . . . and very few American families would notice their disappearance."
And how does Krugman prove that Armey was lying? By noting that "more than a few families would notice the disappearance of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid." No doubt. There's only one problem. The leaders of the Republican revolution never called for the abolition of any of those programs. So who's lying now?
After hurling some more invective Republicans' way - "utter failure," "failed revolutionary" movement, "web of corruption," "adversaries . . . harassed with smear campaigns and witch hunts," Krugman closes with this charming little analogy:
"Is that the end for the radical right? Probably not. As a long-suffering civil servant once told me, bad policy ideas are like cockroaches: you can flush them down the toilet, but they keep coming back."
Sore winner.
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Comments Policy
Well, Krugman & Co have waited a long time for their chance.
December 29, 2006 - 08:15 ET by acaiguanaWell, Krugman & Co have waited a long time for their chance.
Now, since we all know that the manipulation of information over the networks was blatently stacked to produce angst in America and anti-war sentiment, the truth will prevail.
Pelosi has painted herself into a corner now and will have to do something other than bash Bush. The Democrat Party will absolutely have to come up with their plan for Iraq or they will look like absolute idiots (gee how hard can that be for them?).
Murtha's face on any media cover is cause for a smile now. I don't see how they can keep a straight face when talking their 'culture of corruption' stuff anymore.
So, here we have a guy who is telling us that Conservatism is based on a lie whose entire house of cards is poised to tumble down around him as soon as any substance is required.
I'm biding my time.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Ya can't win if ya don't play."
acaiguana Says:
December 29, 2006 - 21:01 ET by Sonny Lykos"Pelosi has painted herself into a corner now and will have to do something other than bash Bush. The Democrat Party will absolutely have to come up with their plan for Iraq or they will look like absolute idiots (gee how hard can that be for them?)."
You're kidding. Look like absolute idiots to whom?: The ignorant masses, stupid people who voted them in, the MSM who will protect their azzes and make excuses and lie for them, the White House who keeps their mouths shut when they should open them - Who?
The truth is not in Krugman.
December 30, 2006 - 19:24 ET by Andrew H.The truth is not in Krugman. He's wrong on economic theory and he's wrong every time he ventures away from economics--it's a matter of time when the weight of his BS pulls him down.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Paul Ferret Face Krugman we
December 29, 2006 - 08:19 ET by John in CAPaul Ferret Face Krugman weighs in again.
As long-suffering American taxpayers have often thought, civil servants and bad policy ideas are like cockroaches: you can flush them down the toilet, but they keep coming back."
Or, as we asked in the Navy: What do a bad civil servant and an old cannon have in common? Neither one works and you can't fire them.
Not meant to disparage any good civil servants who actually do their job and are conscientious. It's just that those who don't are always the obstacle in the path ot efficiency and accomplishment.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
Little Paul, former adviser t
December 29, 2006 - 08:53 ET by AlgerHissLittle Paul, former adviser to Enron, must need some more Vagisil.
Rochester, Minnesota: A Fem_Leftist City!
See? What we have here is ano
December 29, 2006 - 09:44 ET by Roger the ShrubberSee? What we have here is another clear example of Right-Wing media bias.
Sincerely,
David Brock
I'm on a graphics hunt splurg
December 29, 2006 - 09:58 ET by FastEdI'm on a graphics hunt splurge - here's another view of the Krugman: http://www.thepoorman.net/wp-content/draftkrugman.jpg
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
This guy has been brooding fo
December 29, 2006 - 09:58 ET by walkThis guy has been brooding for a long time. He was as intoxicated as they come when he won that award, best economist under 40, or some such distinction. And he was good. But it has been a long, rugged, down hill tumble ever since. He got stiffed by the Clinton administration and basically ignored by his colleagues since then. He has been fortunate enough to channel his anger via the NYT column. But it is mostly partisan gibberish. One day, this clown is really going to blow.
Just what is that lie? Acco
December 29, 2006 - 10:03 ET by sarcasmoJust what is that lie? According to sarcasmo it's possible to express the lie in 2 words: "Lower spending." (Term limits would have been nice, too, as that tends to result in greater fiscal responsibility -- irrespective of party -- compared to "professional" politicians.) Krugman may lie, but his lies are about some pretty truth-impaired politicians, and everyone here knows it, whether or not I have to occasionally admit it for you....
JMR
. . and FastEd thinks sarc
December 29, 2006 - 10:31 ET by FastEd. . and FastEd thinks sarc may be trying to do the Dole thing - a little early with the New Year celebrating - humm? and yes, you do admit it for us, though, how many un-truth-impaired politicians would get elected, considering how the msm does the major spinning to begin with?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
Huh? WTF does the Senator F
December 30, 2006 - 09:39 ET by sarcasmoHuh? WTF does the Senator From Archer Daniels Midland have to do with anything I said (especially anything about lower spending). And how do you see me as celebrating the higher spending obviously (see TX22 "we'd prefer a lefty-Democrat to that Smither guy who thinks for himself, but we don't want to openly-admit it!!" fiasco) preferred by the duopoly of big-government??? Some of you people sure can be confusing at times, but I'll give you this: You've apparently got quite a good imagination...As for using the existance of mediabias as an excuse for lying (and stealing Large-L Libertarian rhetoric dishonestly) you really don't think I can let you get away with THAT, do you? After all, the same argument can, in effect, be used by the media against Republicrooks.
JMR
As much as I would love to ar
December 29, 2006 - 10:32 ET by jcrapes4As much as I would love to argue with you I can't. The GOP did fail big time to reduce spending as of late. Though I don't think the Democrats will do any better. They are just more likely to raise our taxes then increase spending further.
...and this is exactly the po
December 29, 2006 - 10:40 ET by mattm...and this is exactly the point people like Krugman can't or won't see, and, unfortunately, what even Republicans miss.
A prominent republican politician recently said (paraphrase) "unless the wind changes, I won't be moving right."
These people really are politicians first, statesman second or third. Sad.
Yesterday I was daydreaming a
December 29, 2006 - 10:18 ET by rimskyYesterday I was daydreaming about a new POINT/COUNTER POINT show, like on 60 minutes years ago.. several of us here were having fun with that.. who would be on the show.. Rush and Katie? Laura Ingram and Alan Colmes.. etc. Well, now... I want Coulter VS Krugman thrown in to this mix. Actually, I'd like to see sort of a round robin thing.. first week Rush VS who ever the left wants in there.. next week, Laura and another lefty moonbat, then Anne with some bleeding heart. I'm still day dreaming.
I vote for Mark or Noel or an
December 29, 2006 - 10:27 ET by FastEdI vote for Mark or Noel or any other of the NB'ers against ALL of the msm (Lsm) - if anything, it would show the "normal" viewer that there is another side to the agneda, er, story as presented.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
Spot on, FastEd.. Happy New
December 29, 2006 - 11:19 ET by rimskySpot on, FastEd.. Happy New Year
Marc:I read Krugman’s colum
December 29, 2006 - 11:26 ET by Dave HighMark:
I read Krugman’s column this morning and so I am qualified to point out that you blatantly mischaracterized the piece in your analysis. You are correct that Krugman quoted Dick Armey’s book. Armey wrote, "most government programs don’t do anything 'to help American families with the needs of everyday life . . . and very few American families would notice their disappearance." But by using the “obfuscate by omission” tactic, you failed to include Krugman’s next line where he quoted Dick Armey’s writing that “there is no reason we cannot, by the time our children come of age, reduce the federal government by half as a percentage of gross domestic product.”
Now, given that social spending makes up about half of all federal spending, how was Mr. Armey going to cut the federal budget in half? If you guessed by slashing and/or privatizing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, give yourself a prize!
You see the lie Krugman is referring to is the whopper that was the backbone of the 1994 Republican revolution; that Republicans were going to slash federal spending in half and very few American families would feel the pain. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t noticed that to be the case in the past twelve years. A lie, indeed.
Krugman concludes that “In the end, Republicans didn’t shrink the government. But they did degrade it. Baghdad and New Orleans are the arrival destinations on a movement based on deep contempt for governance.”
For my money, no truer words were ever spoke.
Regards,
Dave High
The caravan has long since moved on, yet strangely the lone conservative “Left Behind Series” dogs continue to bark. ~ Arabian proverb, updated in light of the November, 2006 election
Do you deny that Krugman fa
December 29, 2006 - 11:31 ET by Mark FinkelsteinDo you deny that Krugman falsely implied that the leaders of the Republican revolution were proposing the elimination of Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security?
Mark:Krugman writes that “
December 29, 2006 - 11:57 ET by Dave HighMark:
Krugman writes that “Somehow I think that more than a few families would notice the disappearance of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – and those three programs alone account for a majority of non-defense, non-interest spending.” Now let’s be honest; how was Mr. Armey and his compatriots going to halve federal spending without doing away with these programs? Were they going to slash defense spending? Not pay interest on the federal debt? Cut their own salaries?
Republicans have in fact been whacking away at veterans’ benefits and they are still trying to “privatize” Social Security. Fortunately the American people realized that “privatizing” Social Security was just new language for Newt’s famous “wither on the vine.” You certainly remember “wither on the vine,” don’t you? For those of you in Rio Lindo, that was Newt’s plan for euthanizing Medicare by starving it financially. So you see, Krugman was right. No mystery here.
Let me turn this around, though. Are you suggesting that Republicans are not in favor of drastically cutting and/or doing away with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? Aren’t these programs the cornerstones of the dreaded “redistribution of wealth” theme that Republicans are so fond of?
Regards,
Dave High
The caravan has long since moved on, yet strangely the lone conservative “Left Behind Series” dogs continue to bark. ~ Arabian proverb, updated in light of the November, 2006 election
No elected Republican congr
December 29, 2006 - 12:27 ET by Mark FinkelsteinNo elected Republican congressman or senator to my knowledge has ever called for the abolition of any of those programs. The 'wither on the vine' canard is a blatant misrepresentation of what Newt said. Even Arianna Huffington acknowledged it, back in the day:
http://ariannaonline...
...he can't answer your quest
December 29, 2006 - 14:41 ET by TruthMonger...he can't answer your question, Mark - so there's your answer...
TM:I did answer Mark's questi
December 29, 2006 - 15:18 ET by Dave HighTM:
I did answer Mark's question. He asked, "Do you deny that Krugman falsely implied that the leaders of the Republican revolution were proposing the elimination of Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security?"
I answered, "Krugman was right," meaning of course that Krugman didn't falsly imply any such thing. I also used several layers of evidence to prove my point. Like Krugman, I believe that conservative Republicans have been trying to unravel successful liberal social programs for many years. If you can't kill it outright because it is "unwise politically," or is "not a good way to make a transition," as Newt wold say, "let it wither on the vine."
Fine, if it doesn't work, let it wither. But Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are working. Why do conservatives want to kill these programs? Because it costs money to help those who have little? Without putting too fine a point on it, I think this is what the argument boils down to.
Regards, Dave High
TM:I did answer Mark's questi
December 29, 2006 - 15:18 ET by Dave HighTM:
I did answer Mark's question. He asked, "Do you deny that Krugman falsely implied that the leaders of the Republican revolution were proposing the elimination of Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security?"
I answered, "Krugman was right," meaning of course that Krugman didn't falsly imply any such thing. I also used several layers of evidence to prove my point. Like Krugman, I believe that conservative Republicans have been trying to unravel successful liberal social programs for many years. If you can't kill it outright because it is "unwise politically," or is "not a good way to make a transition," as Newt wold say, "let it wither on the vine."
Fine, if it doesn't work, let it wither. But Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are working. Why do conservatives want to kill these programs? Because it costs money to help those who have little? Without putting too fine a point on it, I think this is what the argument boils down to.
Regards, Dave High
Even Arianna Huffington ackno
December 29, 2006 - 15:03 ET by Dave HighEven Arianna Huffington acknowledged it, back in the day:
Arianna Huffington was of course, at the time, a REPUBLICAN.
Regards, Dave High
How I wish Social Security as
December 29, 2006 - 15:40 ET by UnsaneHow I wish Social Security as we know it would be eliminated and replaced by a privatized system. As it is, my financial future is dictated by this sentence: "Social Security will not be there for you when you retire". Why won't it be there? Demographics, more than anything.
I'd rather divert even a small portion of my Social Security taxes to my IRA than just transfer it from point A to point B.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Unsane:Did you know that if t
December 29, 2006 - 15:56 ET by Dave HighUnsane:
Did you know that if the goverment removed the cap on Social Security taxes, there would be no funding gap whatsoever in the future? Onerous to conservatives I know, but Social Security is a safety net for the weakest among us; generally old folks who are living longer and have little or no other income. Perhaps you know someone who benefits from Social Security? I do.
Regards, Dave High
I know plenty of people who a
December 29, 2006 - 16:05 ET by UnsaneI know plenty of people who are getting Social Security. So what? Unsane cares about Unsane. I am not getting Social Security when it comes time thanks to people like you whose lives orbit government, and believes all our lives should orbit government as well.
And I suppose we COULD lift that cap...but I want a LONG-TERM, PERMANENT solution. Stealing from Peter to pay Paul is not the way to do it.
So I'll play the ant, stuff my IRA silly, and advocate the privatization of Social Security. You go play the grasshopper...just don't come crying to me when it comes time.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Unsane cares about Unsane.The
December 29, 2006 - 20:15 ET by Dave HighUnsane cares about Unsane.
There it is, then. My point exactly. You care about yourself. Contrary to what El Rushbo would have you believe, liberals care about themselves and other less fortunate than themselves. Here again is the defining argument. Jesus said, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." But apparently not in Unsane’s world.
Regards, Dave High
Why put a repeater message at the end of your post that fills up space and that nobody ever reads? ~ Not W-04, but Dave High
Unsane, who cares not for wha
December 29, 2006 - 23:44 ET by UnsaneUnsane, who cares not for what Jesus said, because it does not matter to him, responds with "In the meantime, the strong kick ass".
Dave, the Left's problem is that y'all care about yourselves and others less fortunate by sticking a gun in my face and stealing from me because you think you have a claim to what I make, when you do not. If you truly cared about those less fortunate, you would go out on your own and perform your OWN charitable works, instead of having the top 40% of wage earners pay 99.94% of all federal income taxes, and stealing from me.
(Mostly, though, it is about saying you care more about the "less fortunate", who are often there because they truly WANT to be less fortunate, and not wanting to do any of the heavy lifting involved. What you are hoping is that government can be turned into a massive, nannying charity so you can run around saying that you do your part by paying taxes.)
Do me a favor. Keep YOUR hands out of my wallet, allow me to perform MY service to civilization by being self-sufficient and not burdening anyone, and perform your OWN DAMN CHARITY.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
"Onerous to conservati
December 29, 2006 - 16:05 ET by ckc1227"Onerous to conservatives I know, but Social Security is a safety net for the weakest among us; generally old folks who are living longer and have little or no other income."
No it isn't, it's an almost guarantee that low income people end up in the very state you outlined above, which, of course, is what Dems desire most: a population who relies on government.
Mark, a few weeks back you m
December 29, 2006 - 18:02 ET by bk1955Mark, a few weeks back you made a literal interpretation of Julia Roberts, an actess, response to a question on the quality of life deserved by spiders. Today you're criticising Krugman for using the same rhetorical practise against Dick Armey's quote about government programs. You're demonstrating your own media bias on this one.
Mr. High,In referrence to you
December 29, 2006 - 12:52 ET by Chris NormanMr. (You Must Be) High,
In referrence to your hijacked and altered tag line, I would like to point out that brevity is the soul of wit. Your's lacks both...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Good for you, Chris.How creep
December 29, 2006 - 12:54 ET by BlondeGood for you, Chris.
How creepy is that....pick off someone else's signature and then distort it?
Blonde,Sigh. I'm sure he thin
December 29, 2006 - 13:11 ET by Chris NormanBlonde,
Sigh. I'm sure he thinks he's being clever and witty. It comes off as clumsy and pathetic - and as you note, creepy.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Chris:Consider the parody a c
December 29, 2006 - 13:29 ET by Dave HighChris:
Consider the parody a compliment. I do! Yours is much catchier and snappier, I admit. I should probably drop the "Left Behind Series" part, but it makes me laugh every time I read it. What I lack in brevity though, I make up in truthiness. Regards, Dave High
The caravan has long since moved on, yet strangely the lone conservative “Left Behind Series” dogs continue to bark. ~ Arabian proverb, updated in light of the November, 2006 election
Mark:Newt said, “What do yo
December 29, 2006 - 13:18 ET by Dave HighMark:
Newt said, “What do you think the health care financing administration is? It's a centralized command bureaucracy. It's everything we're telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid of. Now we don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine because we think people are going to voluntarily leave it. Voluntarily."
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the Health Care Financing Administration the government entity that funds both Medicare and Medicaid? It’s clear from the above quote that Newt thinks we should get rid of it. When he says “we don’t want to get rid of it in round one,” who is the “we” he is referring to? Dare I guess “prominent Republican Revolutionists? When he says “it’s going to wither on the vine” because “people are going to voluntarily leave it,” what is he referring to? Why, he is referring to people voluntarily leaving Medicare, of course! And what would draw people away from Medicare you might ask? Medical Savings Accounts, of course! Hmmm. Sounds suspiciously like “privatizing” Medicare, if you ask me.
And once all the good people have invested their extra bucks into Medical Savings Accounts, the funding source for Medicare and Medicaid will “wither on the vine” and the programs it funded will necessarily have to close. Too bad for the poor folks, though. They don’t have the extra buckaroos to invest in MSAs. At least we aren’t redistributing wealth, though! The rich get to keep theirs and the poor get to get sick and die. They get to “wither on the vine,” so to speak.
You didn’t answer my question, though. Don’t conservatives, as a general rule, hate programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security that “redistribute wealth?”
Regards, Dave High
The caravan has long since moved on, yet strangely the lone conservative “Left Behind Series” dogs continue to bark. ~ Arabian proverb, updated in light of the November, 2006 election
No, Dave High we, Conservatives, don't hate these programs.
December 29, 2006 - 13:56 ET by acaiguanaNo, Dave High we, Conservatives, don't hate these programs.
We hate the management of these programs by falsely taxing our incomes to the maximum and then spending the revenues on the General Budget with no investment and no so-called falsely labeld 'trust fund'. This has been a Democrat started tactic and has removed any pretense of the SSI programs to be anything other than an Income Tax by another name.
If the 'truthiness' you bring is what I have so far seen, then all I can say in my pithiness is...
"Beware Davey who brags about truthfulness but carries bullsh*t in his bucket.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Ya can't win if ya don't play."
ACA:Wait, wasn’t it Al Gore
December 29, 2006 - 14:07 ET by Dave HighACA:
Wait, wasn’t it Al Gore who said he would institute a “lock box” on Social Security? Didn't George W. Bush pooh-pooh the idea? Isn’t it the Republican-led Congress and George W. Bush who have been spending the Social Security surplus like drunken sailors? How can you blame Democrats for the behavior of the spend more/tax less crew that have been robbing th Social Security bank for the last six years?
Methinks you are engaging in a little revisionist history.
Regards,
Dave High
Wait, wasn’t it Al Gore the monkey
December 29, 2006 - 14:20 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsWait, wasn’t it Al Gore who said he would institute a “lock box” on Social Security?
Wait, wasn't it Al Gore who was Vice President for 8 looooooonnnnnggg years and did nothing (absolutely nothing, the same thing he did about his newest canard, Global Warming)) remotely related to 'instituting a lock box' on social security???
DSG
DSG:Al Gore has done more to
December 29, 2006 - 15:33 ET by Dave HighDSG:
Al Gore has done more to promote the cause of countering global warming than anyone else on the planet, save perhaps Tony Blair. Why he didn't speak out about not raiding the Social Security trust fund while he was Vice President, I can't know. Perhaps because he was VICE President and couldn't speak out against his boss?
Imagine if Al Gore had been president and he read the "Osama Bin Laden determined to attack in the U.S." National Security advisory. Now imagine he acted on it, unlike our current president who was out whacking brush while on a month-long vacation. What a wonderful world it would be!
Regards, Dave High
If Al Gore truly cared about
December 29, 2006 - 15:47 ET by UnsaneIf Al Gore truly cared about global warming, why isn't he the most pro-nuke guy on the planet? France gets 75% of their electricity from nuclear power, why not the United States?
If the Democratic party truly cared about Social Security, why don't they want me to take charge of it myself by privatizing the whole damn thing?
If Al Gore was in office when reading that warning, he'd sit down, cry, and wonder why someone hates the United States. Then he would determine, like you undoubtedly would, that us having a military and a successful economy must be why he hates us and if we can make both go away, he won't be mad anymore. A realist like me would look at it and say, "ok, we've known this. Can we be a little more vague?" And act when I had more info.
Funny you cry about Bush being "on vacation", which, as we all know, no President truly is. Or were you crying equally hard when Clinton was "on vacation" in Martha's Vineyard while the Mississippi flooded?
Regards, unsane
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Unsane:1.) Nuclear power ha
December 29, 2006 - 16:19 ET by Dave HighUnsane:
1.) Nuclear power has immense problems including storage of nuclear waste and transference of nuclear technology to our enemies. Al Gore favors renewable energy resources and technological development.
2.) Most of us believe (U.S. citizens, that is) that privatization would kill Social Security. The devil is in the details, so to speak.
3.) I was wrong to raise a hypothetical. It leads to an ever expanding response to a hypothetical question. It creates a Rummy, we don't know what we can't know, sort of moment.
4.) Bush was on vacation during 9/11 and Katrina. Both were predicted. I rest my case.
Regards, Dave High
1. This doesn't seem to sto
December 29, 2006 - 16:45 ET by Unsane1. This doesn't seem to stop France, a nation much smaller and an obsession with farming and the lifestyle thereof. Even nations as far away as Japan send their waste to Le Havre for reprocessing. Britain is looking at modernizing its reactors. Finland voted in a referendum for a new reactor in 2002; only Finland and the United States have sites chosen for the permanent burial of nuclear waste. What Al Gore favors is NOT PROVEN. Try visiting the Kamoa Wind Farm for a taste of the future of wind power. Wind power is being most heavily utilized in west TX, but that will succeed in removing the small towns out there from the grid. Great...you still have the major cities to power. Why not add two new reactors to Comanche Park and the STNP?
2. Belief and fact do not mix. Ever looked at the Galveston County experience from the early 1980s? Care to guess how those lucky citizens are clobbering Social Security in returns on retirement now?
3. The proper response to hypotheticals is "if my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle."
4. Case not rested. Bush was not on vacation for 9/11/01. He was in FL pushing education-related agenda items. Nor was 9/11/01 predicted. Please show me documentation indicating a little more that "OBL planning to attack America". Nothing less than something sitting on the President's desk indicating that 19 hijackers would hijack four planes, two headed to NYC targets and two to DC targets will suffice. As for Katrina: what exactly could the President do besides call on the governor and ask if she needed anything, which is what happened? Did Governor Perry, a month later for Rita, go crying to the President for help instantaneously, or did he and TxDOT arrange for the on-the-fly evacuation of America's fourth largest city with VERY LITTLE FEDERAL ASSISTANCE? Perhaps you are also forgetting that he himself was the governor and was very mindful of what the President could do vs. what the governor of a state could do?
I rest my case. No need to thank me for your education.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
For a history of stunning int
December 29, 2006 - 16:53 ET by UnsaneFor a history of stunning intelligence failures, I suggest a read of John Keegan's Intelligence in War. It is quite an eye-opening read. History has a way of putting many things in perspective.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Unsane:1.) Nuclear power ha
December 29, 2006 - 16:20 ET by Dave HighDuplicate message deleted.
DH
"Imagine if Al Gore ha
December 29, 2006 - 16:12 ET by ckc1227"Imagine if Al Gore had been president and he read the "Osama Bin Laden determined to attack in the U.S." National Security advisory. "
Well, considering the PDB you are referring to was historical data dating back to 1998, when Gore was in office, why didn't he do something about it then? And since it was historical data from 98, I'm not sure what anyone was supposed to do in 2001. "say, Mr. President, we got this report from 1998 saying Bin Laden wants to attack America, what should we do?"
ckc:It was a fresh report del
December 29, 2006 - 16:25 ET by Dave Highckc:
It was a fresh report delivered to Bush's desk in August, 2001. He and Condi ignored it. The rest is history.
Regards, Dave High
Did it specifically state tha
December 29, 2006 - 16:48 ET by UnsaneDid it specifically state that an attack would be made with four hijacked planes on the second Tuesday of September of 2001 against targets in New York and Washington?
By the way, the only President I am aware of who did anything about terrorism before 2001 was Reagan (intercept of an EgyptAir 737 in October 1985 that the Italians sadly offered little cooperation with, Eldorado Canyon).
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Unsane:Oh, I guess you missed
December 29, 2006 - 16:56 ET by Dave HighUnsane:
Oh, I guess you missed the time when Bill Clinton targeted Osama Bin Laden with cruise missiles. It's a shame we missed. It gave Repubs the opportunity to say that Clinton was "wagging the dog." That and it gave Osama another chance to get away in Tora Bora.
I was thinking about RR the other day. Do you think we will have a month-long observance of Gerald Ford's passing as was orchestrated for RR, or is that too Wellstoneian for the times?
Regards, Dave High
What would the killing of Osa
December 29, 2006 - 17:09 ET by UnsaneWhat would the killing of Osama bin Laden have done then, or now?
And if Clinton was serious, he would have done a LOT more than destroy the aspirin factory in the Sudan and an abandoned site in Afghanistan. Perhaps he actually would have accepted him on a silver platter when he was handed to him. But then, we cycle back to my initial question above. Did you also as fervently demand the Cold War be ended in a tearing-apart-the-Middle-East search of Abu Nidal back in the 1980s?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
What would the killing of Osa
December 29, 2006 - 17:21 ET by Dave HighWhat would the killing of Osama bin Laden have done then, or now?
Gee, I don't know. What good could possibly come from taking out Public Enemy #1, as opposed to say, attacking an entire country that had nothing to do with 9/11? I guess by your reasoning, Saddam Hussein's jailor's should leave the back door open?
Regards, Dave High
"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you."~ George W. Bush, 3/13/2002
So, why did we have Operation
December 29, 2006 - 19:59 ET by UnsaneSo, why did we have Operations Torch and Overlord, among others? Germany and Italy had nothing to do with 12/7/41.
Finally, by popular request:
I know this will sound redundant, but as long as these Leftists keep bringing it up...My first point is a simple one. We aren't looking for OBL? I'll be sure to tell some friends of mine currently deployed to Bagram, Kandahar, and Bishkek this. They sure would be surprised to hear this.
Second point: what specifically will finding OBL SOLVE beyond bloodlust? You DO realize that someone else who hates America as much as he does WILL take his place, correct? No, you don't. You want OBL caught so that you and your Leftist fellow travelers can loudly declare "WORLD PEACE! Rose gardens are spontaneously bloming EVERYWHERE! I guess we don't need a military now! Let's build the biggest, nicest Nanny State the world has ever known!!!"
Third point: Where were all you Leftists in the 1980s when Abu Nidal was out and about? Were you guys all demanding we stop the Cold War, withdraw from Europe, and invade the Middle East to find Abu Nidal? (Nah. But you guys WERE demanding we unilaterally withdraw from Europe to show the Soviets just how super-nice we were in the United States.)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
As to finding/killing OBL.
December 29, 2006 - 21:38 ET by John in CAAs to finding/killing OBL. For all we know, we don't want to find him or roust him from his positions right now. What if...we have turned someone close to him or in his inner circle and are getting valuable information through that channel? I don't know if this is in fact the case. But I could see it happening. OTOH, maybe I've read too many espionage novels and am just dreaming...
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
That's what I like about you Liberals, you think talk is walk.
December 29, 2006 - 16:14 ET by acaiguanaThat's what I like about you Liberals, you think talk is walk.
For example, Al Gore says something and that is meaningful.
Bush actually tried to reform SSI and Democrats scared everyone to death over the idea that they would somehow lose their SSI when in fact that was never the idea. So by distortion and half-lies they managed to kill and scare all concerned to the point where nothing has been done.
Similarly you come to this site and with your 'Regards, Dave High' attempt to smother your idiocy with a semi-classy, semi-sarcastic type of style. When all you really have to say, in fact, is that Krugman who wouldn't know a truth or understand a complexity if his life depended upon it, is right?
But even funnier, you actually think he wasn't slamming the truth when he claimed that Republicans wanted to cut government by cutting SSI.
Are you simply rude and condescending in all of your interactions with others, or are you making a special effort for us dullards here?
I am so tired of the misrepresentation of the Democrat Party and their minions and their constant manipulation of the MSM and world view to meet their selfish destroy America to win back power tactics that you, my dear friend, are just another ant in the ant hill.
It is so easy to discredit your assertions and statements that I am beyond bored here trying to simply tell you in a gentlemanly way...
Go away and take your cart of Demo talking points with you.
We've seen it all before and heard it all before and it is all a big lie.
Suddenly, the economy is doing really great. Suddenly Murtha is really just a little too corrupt to run a committee. Suddenly cutting and running from Iraq is a little too precipitous. Suddenly Seniors are loving the new Medicare Drug Benefit. Suddenly the 'gap' between real wages and the economy doesn't exist.
Read the papers outside the funnies and see the Democrats run for cover because they now have to come up with something of substance for America and I can tell you right now, saying they are going to rein in spending and in the same breath planning to raise taxes ain't gonna cut it.
Your house of cards is about to fall flat and I'm just watching the cat fights and nasty pre-Presidential race politics of the Democrat Party with anticipation of their real colors hanging out for all to see.
So, you keep smiling big Guy, you're gonna have memories of the muscle pain around your mouth to live on in two years. Having exercised a sour grape world view for the past six years, those current smiles must really hurt after a while. But don't worry, you'll be able to frown again when the substance has to come out and all you will have is your bucket so fondly referenced above.
Regards...
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Ya can't win if ya don't play."
ACA:I can't possibly respond
December 29, 2006 - 16:42 ET by Dave HighACA:
I can't possibly respond to your entire screed, so I will pick just one part.
Noel Shepard has asked me to refrain from what he calls "crotch grabbing" and "genital waving." Although I am not quite sure what he is referring to (I have never waved my genitals, at least that I remember), I think I get his general sense. I told him that I am not an Alan Colmes woosie liberal, but that I would do my best to restrain myself from nasty, personal attacks. That being said, I do have a sense of humor. Noel suggested I use :-) after a joke, but if you can't tell it's a joke, it's not funny.
"Regards, Dave High" is how I sign everything I write. Sometimes I write Warmest Regards, Dave High" or "Regards, David High." How this is mocking or sarcastic to you, I can't understand.
Regards, Dave High
You totally ignored my base point.
December 29, 2006 - 23:18 ET by acaiguanaYou totally ignored my base point. My point was that the Democrats misrepresent reality to a degree that is criminal and dangerous and to come to this site and assert that Republicans are liars is not only insulting to both my intelligence and the site participant's intelligence, but also is a name calling tactic similar to calling Conservatives Nazi Homophobic Racists.
And to disguise your disdain for another point of view you did in fact ignore the base point of my post to you. It is not necessary in this site or in any conversation to refute or address any post point by point, but it is an indication of the shallow position you have taken since I have noticed you here that you cannot even address the main baseline point being made by a poster.
Further, you jump topic and bring into the discussion unrelated issues that do not address the main point of other's posts on the site.
If Mr. Sheppard felt it necessary to caution you about past behavior then there must be a pattern there that you feel you are in some way disguising by your current efforts to post.
For some reason I don't think you are succeeding very well.
I haven't the inclination to get into a long post to post discussion with you as it is obvious that you are not a fact based or idea based discussion person; rather I think you are poke and jab type of guy who thinks it is cute to answer serious people with cheap shots. Now, why would I think that?
So, this is it for me to you. I think if you really want to discuss something you might start by acknowledging other's people points and providing a counterpoint which is definately not what I have seen you do. I'd discuss an issue with you like Krugman's obvious mischaracterization of Republican goals with Social Security and government spending. I might even allow that Republican spending was contrary to their stated goals when being elected and that this in fact could be seen in the light of a 'lie'. I don't think it reaches the threshold of a 'lie' but the Democrats didn't think lying to a Federal Grand Jury rose to the threshold of impeachment.
As I said, I would discuss these issues with you but I haven't seen anything from you that puts you on a field with me or most other posters on this site to participate in discussions. So, I won't discuss these or any other issue with you, even your defense of my take on your facade of gentlemanly discourse.
The preponderance of evidence available to a reasonably prudent man looking at all the factors of events over the past 6 years and the avalanche of propaganda and distortions by the Democrats during that time would show that the Republicans aren't very good at 'lying' at any rate and have a long way to go to catch up.
So, that is pretty much what I have to say to you and that your consistent defense of yourself as the paragon of truth that cannot be refuted and the idea that Republicans are liars just sorta was more of the samosamo.
Additionaly it is personally offensive and in itself a false protrayal of the Republican Party and its members.
The idea that anything you have said here cannot be refuted or addressed with reasonable citations, counterpoints and logic as well as historical accuracy as to basis in fact (and I am definately not a revisionist historian which was also insulting to me) is not just silly but inane to the point of rude.
<no signoff>
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Ya can't win if ya don't play."
Just becasue . .Dave Hihg mee
December 29, 2006 - 13:48 ET by FastEdJust becasue . .Dave High meet Pave Low - - http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/mh-53j-dfst8909541.jpg
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
FastEd:It's going to take mor
December 29, 2006 - 14:09 ET by Dave HighFastEd:
It's going to take more than that to shoot me down. Nice picture, though. Did you take it?
Regards, Dave High
David High......You are wasti
December 29, 2006 - 12:09 ET by donsalesDavid High......
You are wasting your time and your breath......"mischaracterization" of Krugman on this website is impossible.....this phony economist with a desk at Princeton is completely out of touch with the realities of today's global economy and our present difficulties in keeping up with the overseas Jones' due to rapidly declining schools and curricula in this country run by the Mommy State.....
He is nothing more than a socialist (perhaps even a Marxist) dressed up to appear All-American........and he has time and again joined the dark side with his un-American activities in the pages of the NYT....
It appears that you share similar qualities with this fellow....too bad.....get real or get lost....
Nowhere to Run....Nowhere To Hide.....
What Leftists, like Krugman,
December 29, 2006 - 12:14 ET by Chris NormanWhat Leftists, like Krugman, lack in reasoned thought, they attempt to make up for by using hyperbole, obnoxiousness, antagonism, class warfare, and bile...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Chris:Hey, my posts are almos
December 29, 2006 - 13:38 ET by Dave HighChris:
Hey, my posts are almost always "reasoned thought." Just because they are tough to counter, doesn't mean they are obnoxious bile.
Regards, Dave High
Woof, woof, clatter, clatter, (growing more distant now) clatter ~ Arabian Sound Effects
It can't be that tough to cou
December 29, 2006 - 15:49 ET by UnsaneIt can't be that tough to counter an argument rooted in one's desire to do what he lacks the guts to do with a handgun (commit armed robbery).
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Unsane:Huh?Regards, Dave High
December 29, 2006 - 16:46 ET by Dave HighUnsane:
Huh?
Regards, Dave High
High,You have been busy reply
December 29, 2006 - 17:54 ET by Chris NormanHigh,
Fifty-seven comments at this point, and about half of them are yours. You have spent a lot of time posting today. School out for the holidays?
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Norman:That's the CHRISTMAS H
December 29, 2006 - 18:00 ET by Dave HighNorman:
That's the CHRISTMAS Holidays to you, buster! Oh yeah, it's News Years. Happy New Years! :-)
Regards, Dave High
"Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country." ~ George W. Bush ~ MakesYaProudDonIt?
Hey, Chris....At least the
December 29, 2006 - 18:09 ET by BlondeHey, Chris....
At least the High Dave changed his sig...that was too creepy!
Other than that, much waste of bandwidth.
In the hobbit hole yet? Or still on the right coast?
Ednolb:High Dave ~ Yuk, Yuk,
December 29, 2006 - 18:44 ET by Dave HighEdnolb:
High Dave ~ Yuk, Yuk, pretty funny. Never heard that one before! Question though, why do people with fake names make fun of those who use their real names? Something to hide on your part maybe? Perhaps you are not a real ednolb. Only one way to tell, so they say. Ask W-04. He is the decider.
Regards, Dave High
"Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country." ~ George W. Bush ~ InsightfulYes?
Oh, you are too clever by 1/2
December 29, 2006 - 18:47 ET by BlondeOh, you are too clever by 1/25th.
**Yawn**
Blonde?That's me, too clever!
December 29, 2006 - 19:54 ET by Dave HighBlonde?
That's me, too clever!
Regards, High Dave
"Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country." ~ George W. Bush ~ MakesYaProudDonIt?
Oooohhh,And reading impaired,
December 29, 2006 - 20:11 ET by BlondeOooohhh,
And reading impaired, too.
Blonde?From Wikipedia, Blond
December 29, 2006 - 20:33 ET by Dave HighBlonde?
From Wikipedia,
Blond (or Blonde, see below) is a hair color found in certain mammals characterised by low levels of the dark pigment eumelanin and higher levels of the pale pigment pheomelanin, in common with red hair. From degrees of light brown to pale blond, the various hues of blondness are found in a little less than 1.8% of the world's human population.
So are you blond, blonde, or blonder? Inquiring minds want to know!
Spelling Impared but otherwise sound, Dave High
Explanation
December 30, 2006 - 00:09 ET by UnsaneYour version of "charity" and "compassion", Dave "Nightnoise" High. Instead of rolling up your sleeves and contributing to your favorite charity via money, manpower or both, and thus TRULY being compassionate, you would rather shake down anyone who makes a single dime more than you, steal from them, and give that to the "less fortunate" in the name of "charity".
Why not show us how compassionate and caring you are by volunteering at your favorite charitable cause next week? Even better, why not pack some heat, rob some people who are clearly better off than you are, and give that money to the "less fortunate"?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)