Bush Planed Invasion Within Days Of Inauguration

If it's true, it certainly moves Dubya up into the Hitler class of politician: Adolf, too, planned his wars long before they were announced, and spent lots of time trying to dream up an excuse for invading Poland (which was the event that triggered WWII). Eventually he faked an attack on a German border post by men dressed in Polish uniforms. If I recall correctly they were actually German prisoners who were killed so they could show off the bodies to the international press, and he used those photos as the justification to invade.

Those who don't remember history are condemned to repeat it. . .

>If it's true, it certainly moves Dubya up into the Hitler

>class of politician:

Keep this up - nothing guarantees Bush's re-election with more certainty than despicable, deranged rhetoric like this.

And it's so ironic how you crusade endlessly on behalf of your Zionist agenda, but then casually throw around Hitler comparisons, which - as you may have heard - diminishes the actual uniqueness of Hitler's evil and cheapens the accusation that a leader is behaving like Hitler.

Before a political leader is called Hitler, shouldn't they have to do some things that made Hitler Hitler - you know, like engage in systematic war crimes, use Red Cross trains to transport weapons and troops, set up concentration camps and gas millions of people to death in order to achieve racial purity - little things like that which have made Hitler a household name?

Adolf, too, planned his wars long before

>they were announced, and spent lots of time trying to dream up

>an excuse for invading Poland (which was the event that

>triggered WWII).

In case haven't heard - or in case you blocked it out - the policy of U.S. Government concerning Iraq before George Bush was inagurated was to cause regime change in Iraq. The reason that this was the policy of the U.S. was because the prior administraiton, headed by someone named Bill Clinton, along with the Congress (with the support of most Democrats), implemented that policy because they believed that Saddam Hussein was such a severe danger to U.S. national security that the U.S. Government should do what it could to facilitate regime change in that country.

Acting as though this report -- detailing that some planning went into a military option for implementing Clinton's regime change policy -- is some sort of scandalous revelation is incredibly incoherent. Given that the official policy of the U.S. was regime change in Iraq, the Bush Administration would have been wildly irresponsible if it had NOT considered and planned for all options for implementing this policy, including military options.

The CLINTON Administration believed Iraq was a serious risk to national security. When 9/11 occurred, this Administraiton concluded, wisely, that such risks had to be taken more seriously than before, and thus acted against it.

I hope for nothing more in 2004 than a closely contested election where the Democrats put up a real fight against Bush (and, if Dean is nominated, where they win), and prevent Republican domination of all aspects of our Government. But if THIS is the sort of critique Democrats are capable of making - Bush = Hitler, and the fact that the Administration examined military options for invading Iraq pre-9/11 is some sort of scandal - there is no question that the Democrats are going to continue to get slaughtered in elections and we will move closer to one-Party rule.

When we do, it will be the fault exclusively of rabid ideologues on the Left such as the one who wrote this post, who present such screetching, repulsive rhetoric that anyone who is not on that fringe will -- just as occurred with the hard-core Clinton-haters -- run into the arms of the target of this odorous bile.

> O'Neill, who was asked to resign because of his

>opposition to the tax cut, says he doesn't think his tell-all

>account in this book will be attacked by his former employers

>as sour grapes. "I will be really disappointed if [the White

>House] reacts that way," he tells Stahl. "I can't imagine that

>I am going to be attacked for telling the truth."

>

> http://www.drudgereport.com

Well guess what, they are already spinning O'Neill into the ground on the Sunday talk shows.

I can't wait to buy his book and find out what really IS going on (or more appropriately, is NOT going on) in the Oval Office.

>"I will be really disappointed if the White

>House reacts that way," he tells Stahl. "I can't imagine that

>I am going to be attacked for telling the truth."

Could he really be this naive?

<<Suskind also writes about a White House meeting in which he says the president seems to be wavering about going forward with his

second round of tax cuts.

"Haven't we already given money to rich people," Suskind says the president uttered, according to a nearly verbatim transcript of an Economic Team meeting he says he obtained from someone at the meeting, "Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?">>

the biggest lie of politicians; whether they be liberal, conservative, democrat or republican. after taxing our hard-earned dollars they so easily convince us they are 'giving' us something when they return some of it back in the form of a tax cut. then it turns into a big political fight between two parties which 'class' of people deserve the biggest gift from the government.

>And it's so ironic how you crusade endlessly on behalf of your

>Zionist agenda, but then casually throw around Hitler

>comparisons, which - as you may have heard - diminishes the

>actual uniqueness of Hitler's evil and cheapens the accusation

>that a leader is behaving like Hitler.

I don't crusade for any Zionist agenda other than Israel's right to exist as a national homeland for the Jewish people, which is something probably 99% of the Jewish people believe in, as do millions of non-Jews, including your unelected hero. I certainly don't crusade on behalf of the actions of Israeli governments that have complicated the chances of achieving peace and indefinitely prolonged the occupation by building settlements all over the West Bank and Gaza. I oppose the settlements (well, most of them), I think the occupation is ruining Israel, and I want peace now, even if it means unilateral withdrawal.

Anyway, in this case, the Hitler comparison isn't inaccurate. Hitler did a lot more than just exterminate Jews. He launched a world war that ended up killing more than 20,000,000 people! (Bush admittedly has a way to go before achieving those kinds of numbers, but he's already killed thousands.) Bush, like Hitler, has a crazed ego and an insatiable need to prove himself. Bush, like Hitler, used deception to get into power and once he achieved power in order to carry out his programs. Bush, like Hitler, invented phony "facts" to justify his invasion.

Bush, unlike Hitler, isn't a genocidal killer, but like Hitler he may have triggered a third world war. It's not clear what will happen in the Middle East, thanks to his actions, but he seems to have lit a long, smoldering fuse! And Dubya's ambitions, like Hitler's, are insatiable. Just today, the papers report Bush plans for attacks on Syria. Where will this end? With the world once again aflame?

>

>Before a political leader is called Hitler, shouldn't they

>have to do some things that made Hitler Hitler - you know,

>like engage in systematic war crimes, use Red Cross trains to

>transport weapons and troops, set up concentration camps and

>gas millions of people to death in order to achieve racial

>purity - little things like that which have made Hitler a

>household name?

Well, Bush isn't a genocidal killer, as I've already said, but he has set up concentration camps (can you say "Guantanamo"?) and imposed police state tactics and thinking that would have done Herr Schickelgruber proud! Why, he's even dreamed up ways of declaring American citizens "enemy combatants" so that he can remove them from the protections of the Constitution and hold them imprisoned indefinitely, without the right to trial or counsel! I'd call that Hitlerian!

>

>Adolf, too, planned his wars long before

>>they were announced, and spent lots of time trying to dream

>up

>>an excuse for invading Poland (which was the event that

>>triggered WWII).

>

>In case haven't heard - or in case you blocked it out - the

>policy of U.S. Government concerning Iraq before George

>Bush was inagurated was to cause regime change in Iraq.

Doug, honey, we all heard and read about "regime change" in Iraq before the Shruboid One was imposed on the U.S. as its unelected President by his Dad's tame Supreme Court. We're not all as stupid as you seem to think we are. But Clinton didn't go to war with Iraq, and there are no signs that he ever would have. The Clinton administration tried to bring about regime change from within Iraq. It wasn't a successful policy, but it didn't lead Clinton to invade, let alone invade using false pretenses. There's a big difference between the two policies! Give us credit for understanding the difference!

However, if you just can't stand the Hitler comparison, try Stalin instead. Plenty of similarities there, too!

Lesson one. The government lied to you to sell you a war you did not want. The mainstream media helped them do it.

Lesson two will be determined by what you do with the knowledge from lesson one.

Nice article in Time about this too!

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040119-574809,00.html

>I don't crusade for any Zionist agenda other than Israel's

>right to exist as a national homeland for the Jewish people. . .

Well, that's the core, defining Zionist belief, and you advocate it - which is what makes it so surprising, and (for you) quite counterproductive, that you run around labelling whatever political leader you don't like as "Hitler." Most people with Zionist beliefs understand that doing so cheapens the historical significance of that event in history. If Bush and Republicans are Hitlers, then we should just all start yawning whenever the Holocaust is mentioned, since it's just so run of the mill.

>Anyway, in this case, the Hitler comparison isn't inaccurate.

>Hitler did a lot more than just exterminate Jews. He launched

>a world war that ended up killing more than 20,000,000 people!

> (Bush admittedly has a way to go before achieving those kinds

>of numbers, but he's already killed thousands.)

Lots of U.S. leaders have started wars that killed way more than this number of people. Kennedy and Johnson killed hundreds of thousands. So did FDR. Bill Clinton's bombings in Yugoslavia killed lots of people, too. So is any President who presides over a war, or at least starts a war, a Hitler? By your standards, they must be.

And Bush killed "thousands" in the war in Iraq? How many people would have died in Iraq if you had your way and Saddam Hussein and then his sons continued to rule it? And how many people did Harry Truman kill when he order atomic bombs dropped in Japan? Is he a Hitler?

>Bush, unlike Hitler, isn't a genocidal killer, but like Hitler

>he may have triggered a third world war. It's not clear what

>will happen in the Middle East, thanks to his actions, but he

>seems to have lit a long, smoldering fuse!

Oh, Bush ignited the fuse and triggered a world war centered on the Middle East, did he? I guess you didn't hear what happened on September 11 - that's when the United States was attacked with airplane-missiles targeted at our civilian population and government institutions by Middle Eastern militants. Thousands of our citizens died in those attacks, while you were stroking your cock in the sun in Copacabana.

It's understandable that you haven't heard about these attacks, as I'm sure it didn't get much coverage in the Rio saunas, but there is a widespread belief in this country that the "war" that you reference was actually started by Islamic terrorists, and not by George Bush.

And Dubya's

>ambitions, like Hitler's, are insatiable. Just today, the

>papers report Bush plans for attacks on Syria. Where will

>this end? With the world once again aflame?

What paper "reported" that Bush plans to attack Syria? The World Workers Daily or the Ipanema Bath-house News?

>Well, Bush isn't a genocidal killer, as I've already said, but

>he has set up concentration camps (can you say "Guantanamo"?)...

Yeah, I can say Guantanamo. It's the equivalent of Auschwitz, where hundreds of thousands of totally innocent men, women and children were imprisoned and slaughtered for no reason other than their race - just like at Guantanomo.

The only U.S. concentration camps I'm aware of were the ones FDR built to incarcerate Japanese-Americans. Is FDR a Hitler, too?

>and imposed police state tactics and thinking that would have

>done Herr Schickelgruber proud!

Here you are, spewing the most vicious, extreme accusations - and saying the most hateful things possible - about George Bush. Are you being dragged away into a gulag? Are you being executed? Is your family disappearing?

In case you haven't heard about it down there, there is an election taking place. Lots of candidates are running around saying whatever critical things they want about George Bush. Did Hitler and Stalin have that?

It takes a breathtaking degree of delusion and self-absorbtion to compare George Bush to Hitler and Stalin as you sit there saying whatever the fuck you want about him and his Government and are entirely free to do so.

>Doug, honey, we all heard and read about "regime change" in

>Iraq before the Shruboid One was imposed on the U.S. as its

>unelected President by his Dad's tame Supreme Court.

Why did the Clinton Administration adopt a policy of regime change in Iraq? Why was their official policy to change the government of Iraq? Could that have been because they thought Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States? Why else would they have adopted that policy?

And I have posted here previously the findings of virtually every major newspaper and magazine in the U.S. which definitively concluded that even had the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, rather than reversed, the Florida Supreme Court's recount order, George Bush would still have won on the vote count.

Given that, how can any person with any intellectual conscience or even a minimal concern for the truth continue to claim that George Bush was unelected and appointed by the Supreme Court? Even the New York Times, having counted all the uncounted ballots, said that is a total lie. So why do you keep saying it?

Oh, gosh, is it fun watching Doug69 rise to the bait and absolutely froth himself over the edge of the cliff, or what? It's almost (well, not anywhere near) as much fun as lying here in Copacabana having my gorgeous new boyfriend stroke my cock while I play with his monumental appendage!

I must say, Doug69's response leaves me somewhat awestruck: it's probably the all-time classic example of going way past mixing apples and oranges. He's added so many other fruits with his list of non-apropos and out-of-context examples that his response resembles one of those fruit sculptures at an over-the-top bar mitzvah reception! I think Doug69 may have created a new art form!

Anybody else want to help egg Doug69 on? I'd say apoplexy is just a post or two away! }(

Drudge Tells All !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Bush Planed Invasion Within Days Of Inauguration

Saturday, January 10, 2004 09 (Drudge report) - The Bush Administration began laying plans for an invasion of Iraq including the use of American troops within days of President Bush's inauguration in January of 2001, NOT eight months later after the 9/11 attacks as has been previously reported.

That is what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says in his first interview about his time as a White House insider. O'Neill talks to Lesley Stahl in the interview, to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Jan. 11 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," he tells Stahl. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do is a really huge leap," says O'Neill. 

O'Neill, fired by the White House for his disagreement on tax cuts, is the main source for an upcoming book, "The Price of Loyalty," authored by Ron Suskind. 

Suskind says O'Neill and other White House insiders he interviewed gave him documents that show that in the first three months of 2001, the administration was looking at military options for removing Saddam

Hussein from power and planning for the aftermath of Saddam's downfall, including post-war contingencies like peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals and the future of Iraq's oil. 

"There are memos," Suskind tells Stahl, "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'" A Pentagon document, says Suskind, titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," outlines areas of

oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from...30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq," Suskind says. 

In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting questioned why Iraq should be invaded. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'GO FIND ME A WAY TO DO THIS,'" says O'Neill in the book. Suskind also writes about a White House meeting in which he says the president seems to be wavering about going forward with his

second round of tax cuts. 

"Haven't we already given money to rich people," Suskind says the president uttered, according to a nearly verbatim transcript of an Economic Team meeting he says he obtained from someone at the meeting, "Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?" 

O'Neill, who was asked to resign because of his opposition to the tax cut, says he doesn't think his tell-all account in this book will be attacked by his former employers as sour grapes. "I will be really disappointed if [the White House] reacts that way," he tells Stahl. "I can't imagine that I am going to be attacked for telling the truth."

http://www.drudgereport.com

I am always amazed at how some people are unaware how society works, any civilized society. Paying taxes is an obligation of citizenship. It has been so in all civilized societies since the dawn of time. Taxes pay for the public goods which you and I consume. These goods, such as police protection, national defence, the highways you travel on, the water to get from your kitchen tap, etc etc, we all take for granted. Have you ever thought who would provide them for you if there were no government.

Politicians are given the job of deciding how society's resources are allocated. It's a dirty job, but hey, somebody's got to do it! There are times (precious few it seems) when politicians decide they don't need all the taxes they are collecting. Then they must decide how to apportion the refunds. Another dirty job! Even Dubyya, if the story is true, seems to have perceived that the rich already got their refunds last year. It would seem Carl Rove and Dick Cheney thought otherwise and needed to remind W to stick to the script. Giving tax refunds to the rich is good business to the Republicans because a lot of that money will come back to them from grateful plutocrats. It's really quite simple.:+

>I am always amazed at how some people are unaware how society

>works, any civilized society. Paying taxes is an obligation of

>citizenship. It has been so in all civilized societies since

>the dawn of time. Taxes pay for the public goods which you and

>I consume. These goods, such as police protection, national

>defence, the highways you travel on, the water to get from

>your kitchen tap, etc etc, we all take for granted. Have you

>ever thought who would provide them for you if there were no

>government.

it amazes me that, based on my simple statement, you assume i don't know how society works; and that taxes are necessary. the difference in philosophy is whether we should be paying the government taxes to provide police protection, national defense, and whatever else society decides are better left to the government. then the other major differences in philosophy boil down to whether a federal government should provide for a particular service, or better left to a state or local government. the matter of high taxation is what enables the big government we all (or, i assume, most) deplore. it's what gives all politicians the means to perpetuate themselves in office; by pitting one group, or income class against each other.

>Politicians are given the job of deciding how society's

>resources are allocated. It's a dirty job, but hey, somebody's

>got to do it!

another difference in philosophy. i believe laiser-faire capitalism is the only way to allocate societies' resources. too difficult a job to turn over to politicians. it seems to me it's been amply proven that politicians aren't up to the task.

There are times (precious few it seems) when

>politicians decide they don't need all the taxes they are

>collecting. Then they must decide how to apportion the

>refunds. Another dirty job! Even Dubyya, if the story is true,

>seems to have perceived that the rich already got their

>refunds last year.

another major philosophical difference. i believe if your above example happens, the refunds should be returned to those who paid the taxes in the first place; so of course, if you paid more taxes you would get a larger refund.

It would seem Carl Rove and Dick Cheney

>thought otherwise and needed to remind W to stick to the

>script. Giving tax refunds to the rich is good business to the

>Republicans because a lot of that money will come back to them

>from grateful plutocrats. It's really quite simple.:+

yes, indeed, it is quite simple. i don't think the income tax should be used to redistribute wealth. what we are allowing is big government to perpetuate itself. it's why, instead of legitimate discussion, most arguments inevitably come down to which party wastes or steals the least government funds; or which party gives back to whatever group (in your opinion) most deserves it. yes, as you said, it is a dirty job. other than moneys needed to fund legitimate functions of government, why not let individuals, rich or poor, do that job with the money they earned; then perhaps it wouldn't be a dirty job.

This column comes closer to reflecting my views on the subject. This story shouldn't be "shocking" to anyone. The US has been trying to get rid of Saddam for years.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3395977/

Here's another good column trying to get both sides to tone down the unreasonable comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis. It really is counterproductive to make these arguments. They're not as shocking as they once were, no one believes them, and it just weakens the points you're trying to make.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/01/12/lets_retire_the_hitler_comparisons/

>then the other major differences in

>philosophy boil down to whether a federal government should

>provide for a particular service, or better left to a state or

>local government. the matter of high taxation is what enables

>the big government we all (or, i assume, most) deplore.

How long could you survive without the big government you deplore? Would you take or allow a family member to take prescription drugs NOT approved by FDA? To fly on an airline that does NOT follow FDA safety regulations? Would you buy a hamburger in a restaurant displaying a sign that says "We don't use USDA inspected meat, we just get our meat any old place and decide for ourselves whether it is fit to serve"? If mad cow disease crops up, why don't we just have the USDA say, "Well, we can't do anything about it, so just eat beef at your own risk, folks"? How about driving on a freeway alongside big rigs that do NOT follow DOT safety procedures? Would you do that?

> it's

>what gives all politicians the means to perpetuate themselves

>in office; by pitting one group, or income class against each

>other.

Hogwash. Why, for example, do we need Medicaid for the poor? Why consider providing free healthcare for those who can't afford insurance? Well, the low-wage workers who can't afford insurance are the ones who handle the food you eat at restaurants and who handle the sheets you sleep on at hotels and the towels you wipe your face with. Are you quite sure you don't want them to have regular medical checkups? Think about it and perhaps you will realize that by ignoring the needs of others in a community you end up hurting yourself.

>another difference in philosophy. i believe laiser-faire

>capitalism is the only way to allocate societies' resources.

>too difficult a job to turn over to politicians. it seems to

>me it's been amply proven that politicians aren't up to the

>task.

Has it? What was the poverty rate among senior citizens before Social Security and Medicare were created? What is it now?

It's unfortunate that much of the impetus behind Rumsfeld, Feith, Perle & Wolfowitz successful bid to change US policy on Iraq in 1998 was largely the result of Iraqi exiles persistant disclosures that Saddam Hussein was hiding an enormous stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

Obviously in hindsight we can see that these were the result of political bias and disenfranchisment by these same exiles, the most prominent of course being Ahmah Chalabi, who has been close friends with the four named above for over a decade.

Spin it all you want. Whether the policy of Clinton or Bush was the end result, it was all based on a house of cards and we're now paying the price.

I agree with you that Chalabi seems to be a slimy character, and I'm not sure why he continues to have such a place of honor (isn't he on the governing council?).

It dismays me that our intelligence was so bad, but I don't think Bush and Tommy Franks and all of the others were lying about the presence of WMDs. They were SO CERTAIN about it in news conferences. I remember at one point that Franks said that he was 99% sure that the weapons were there, it was just a matter of time before they found them.

There must have been more proof than just rumor from exiles to risk how bad it makes them look now. I'm sorry that they were wrong, but I'm still glad Saddam is out of power.

I agree with John Kerry when he said (recently) that 20 years from now no one will question whether we made the right move. After significant pain, the middle east will be better off, IMO.

At the very least there should be a couple very transparent non-partison investigations of the horrible intelligence, including the Office of Special Plans (AND influence of Chalabi Inc.) to learn exactly why our information was so incorrect.

But Doug, you keep bringing up 9-11 as if it's relevant to Iraq. Hussein had nothing to do with that horrifying day... In fact, bin Laden has made statements labeling Hussein an infidel and traitor, and calling for his execution.

The only provable link between the terrorists who attacked the US on 9-11, and Saddam Hussein is that they are/were all arabs.

That's a pretty tenuous connection, my cranky pet.

Trix

>But Doug, you keep bringing up 9-11 as if it's relevant to

>Iraq. Hussein had nothing to do with that horrifying day...

>In fact, bin Laden has made statements labeling Hussein an

>infidel and traitor, and calling for his execution.

>The only provable link between the terrorists who attacked the

>US on 9-11, and Saddam Hussein is that they are/were all

>arabs.

No, the link between 9/11 and Iraq is NOT that they "are/were all Arabs." The link is that many people - including many anti-war liberals - have made the claim, correctly, that the reason there is so much hatred towards the U.S. in that part of the world -- the hatred which Al Qaeda et al. feed on -- is because the U.S. has, for so long, propped up brutal dictatorships in that region which have suppressed and slaughtered Muslims.

Thus, it stands to reason that if the U.S. reverses that behavior and goes into the middle of that same region and liberates 25 million Muslims by getting rid of one of the most brutal dictators in the last century, and, in its place, helps those Muslims to create a thriving democrary where they enjoy self-rule, that will help greatly in changing that region generally and the perception of the U.S. specifically. Such an achievement can do nothing EXCEPT reduce Arab militancy and hatred against the U.S., the First Cause of 9/11.

Now, one can legitimately disagree with whether that is a viable strategy. But if you're going to purport to describe the Administration's views with regard to the link between 9/11 and Iraq - as you did - then you at least have the obligation to describe that view correctly and honestly.

This is the point I have made a trillion times to Pyell everytime he comes here and falsely state that the Administration admitted there is no link between 9/11 and Iraq. Maybe I'll have more success with my lovely, beautiful correspondent in San Fransisco. THIS - what I just described - is the link the Administration sees between 9/11 and Iraq. Feel free to disagree with it, but you shouldn't distort the view that you're trying to critique.

>Thus, it stands to reason that if the U.S. reverses that

>behavior and goes into the middle of that same region and

>liberates 25 million Muslims by getting rid of one of the most

>brutal dictators in the last century, and, in its place, helps

>those Muslims to create a thriving democrary where they enjoy

>self-rule, that will help greatly in changing that region

>generally and the perception of the U.S. specifically. Such

>an achievement can do nothing EXCEPT reduce Arab militancy and

>hatred against the U.S., the First Cause of 9/11.

>

I think you are making an assumption that the Muslim world is anxious to have democratic governments.....when left alone by the western powers, afghanistan turned into a nitemare with oppressive taliban religious rule.

And these are the very people who are becoming terrorists....Muslim extremists who want a religious state instead of a secular one....a democracy where all religious factions are equal is not what these terrorists want...so our actions in Iraq only further inflame them.

Democracy is a European cultural concept, not a Biblical one.

I think the tacet acceptance of despotic rulers in the mid east is mostly because democracy is at odds with Muslim theology.

And this is a religious war.....the problem is Bush and company think their religion is "righter" than the others and in the end God will reward them with more oil contracts than they can dream of.

The mideast conflict can easily lead to a world war...and building democracies in other countries is not in the best interest of the US when in the process we have to suspend our own democratic safeguards...built into the fiber of our Constitution.

my first post was commenting on this quote from the book the originator of this thread included:

<<"Haven't we already given money to rich people," Suskind says the president uttered, according to a nearly verbatim transcript of an Economic Team meeting he says he obtained from someone at the meeting, "Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?">>

i was trying to point out the dishonesty of politicians acting as if they are giving us something from them, that at one time was ours to begin with. it was prompted by seeing the quote from bush about already giving money to rich people, and shouldn't we be giving money to the middle. i know republicans have the reputation of only throwing money to the fat cats; but, here was bush wanting to throw 'our' money around to others. it's how the game is played by ALL politicians.

then i replied to luvtoplays' astonishment that so many people didn't know how a modern society could function without paying taxes. when i stated of course we pay taxes for defense, and a few things necessary by government, i was careful to throw in the catchall phrase "and whatever else society decides are better left to the government". i have no desire to get into a never ending argument here about the finer points of what they are. that is what we elect our esteemed politicians to do. instead, as a continuation of the big lie, all they (yes, dems and repubs) can usually manage to do is attach one boondoggle after another to any bill they can; to make their constituents think they are doing something for for them.

you ask "what was the poverty rate among senior citizens before social security and medicare were created"? i don't have those figures readily at my disposal; but, certainly get your point. this is another too large a discussion to get into here, so i'll just ask you if you would agree that the whole issue of social security and medicare is a house of cards sure to crumble. we just don't know when and how bad. one more thing that convinces me that our 'government' is in far too deep, AND dishonestly, in trying to convince us that they can best do everything for us. i can't argue with success, however. it keeps getting them reelected and able to make a life time career out of their 'public service'.

>i was trying to point out the dishonesty of politicians acting

>as if they are giving us something from them, that at one time

>was ours to begin with.

I would like to point out the dishonesty of those who keep saying that tax cuts are merely returning to the American people their own money. Very few of the American people would be able to earn any money were it not for tax-financed public facilities that they use, such as roads, schools, hospitals, airports, seaports and universities. The private sector of the economy could not survive without the public sector; the statements of conservatives about taxes make one think they don't understand that very simple principle.

>i was careful to throw in

>the catchall phrase "and whatever else society decides are

>better left to the government". i have no desire to get into

>a never ending argument here about the finer points of what

>they are.

But you did state that you "deplore" big government. Maybe you can explain how a small government would have the ability to check on the maintenance of all the aircraft used by all commercial airlines in America. Or how a small government would be able to monitor all the facilities in America that produce meat for human consumption. Or how a small government would be able to regulate the prescription drugs that are sold to people.

>you ask "what was the poverty rate among senior citizens

>before social security and medicare were created"? i don't

>have those figures readily at my disposal; but, certainly get

>your point. this is another too large a discussion to get

>into here,

Too large? I asked for two numbers. I think there is enough bandwidth on this website to allow someone to post two numbers.

>so i'll just ask you if you would agree that the

>whole issue of social security and medicare is a house of

>cards sure to crumble.

I would agree that changes need to be made in both programs to accommodate demographic changes that are taking place in our society. But you seem to be saying that because changes need to be made to keep those programs operating, that somehow proves that it's a bad idea for government to create and run such programs in the first place -- and that I do NOT accept. Medicare was created in the 60s precisely because the insurance industry was NOT dealing with the health care needs of seniors. Social Security was created because private pension and savings programs had proven inadequate to deal with the economic needs of seniors. These programs have been around so long that some people seem to forget why they were created in the first place -- because the private sector had FAILED to address the needs of a large part of our population.

REGIME CHANGE!

>so i'll just ask you if you would agree that the

>whole issue of social security and medicare is a house of

>cards sure to crumble. we just don't know when and how bad.

Under this administration, certainly. I remember the candidate who actually got the most votes was saying things about 'lock boxes' and strengthening social security. As opposed to disregarding it and running up the most massive debt possible.

If the SS problem is to have any kind of solution it has to start right fucking now, while many of the boomers are still working. These are people who grew up with the idea of Social Security, who's parents lived out the rest of their lives on it, who are going to be in for quite a rude awakening when it's abruptly cut. Without massive change now there is no mathematical way us younger folk can support the baby boomers, who will get back every cent they put into SS within a couple years of retirement yet will live a lot longer then previous generations.

And don't get me started on what the Republicans just did to Medicare. Doesn't Bush ever say, "We've given so much to big business, shouldn't we do something for the voters now?"?? Ha!

This is why we need major change, and that's not just Dean in the White House. If these things concern you and you have a Republican representative in the house or senate, work within your community to do whatever you can to eject them. Replace them with an Independent, Green, or Democrat--whatever, because whomever else you choose they couldn't possibly do more for big business or less for you, the voter then the current pigs at the trough!

Choose somebody who's policies are beneficial to you and your family now, not somebody who's policies would be ideal when you *magically* become a multi-millionaire!