Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[Azure]

Originally Posted by blankall

Yes the Americans should have predicted was going to happen and sent troops into Afghanistan. Never mind the fact they were in the middle of the cold war and this would have brought them into direct contact with Soviet troops.

Who said they should have sent troops in Afghanistan?

Simply giving them money to rebuild their country would have worked.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Azure

Who said they should have sent troops in Afghanistan?

Simply giving them money to rebuild their country would have worked.

You mean money to Osama Bin Laden who was in control of Afghanistan at the time. Afghanistan had no government at the time an was totally militarized. Who were they going to give the money to exactly?

[RougeUnderoos]

They gave billions to the Taliban. They didn't do much rebuilding with it, apparently.

http://www.counterpunch.org/paul2.html

[Azure]

Originally Posted by blankall

You mean money to Osama Bin Laden who was in control of Afghanistan at the time. Afghanistan had no government at the time an was totally militarized. Who were they going to give the money to exactly?

Apparently you missed the part where Charlie Wilson asked Congress to provide money so they could 'build' schools.

Just because they had no government doesn't mean you basically turn your back on the country and forget about it.

Bin Laden wasn't in control at the time either. He wasn't even operating out of Afghanistan until 1996.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Azure

Apparently you missed the part where Charlie Wilson asked Congress to provide money so they could 'build' schools.

Just because they had no government doesn't mean you basically turn your back on the country and forget about it.

Bin Laden wasn't in control at the time either. He wasn't even operating out of Afghanistan until 1996.

Sorry from now on I will gather all my historical facts from Tom Hanks movies.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

They gave billions to the Taliban. They didn't do much rebuilding with it, apparently.

http://www.counterpunch.org/paul2.html

The enemy of your enemy is your friend.

Sure its a cliche, but it was true at the time.

In the 80's...Islamic fundamentalism was a minor problem compared to the Cold War, and as far as the US was concerned, giving a few billion to the Afghanis and help them beat the Soviets wasn't a big deal.

Too bad Congress and Bush1 completely ignored the plea of Charlie Wilson and many other intelligence people who were working in Afghanistan after the Soviets had left about the impending problem with terrorists.

Not only did they ignore it....they just fired their best intelligence people, cut off funding for just about ALL the bases in the Middle East, cut back the military, gutted the intelligence services, ignored Afghanistan, and like Ron Paul said, created 9/11.

Ron Paul would be better served to tell the whole story.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, as many as one-third of the estimated three dozen case officers at the CIA's Paris Station resigned or retired because they were disgusted and disillusioned with DO's leadership. But no one at HPSCI or SSCI changed the DO's culture, forcing it back into the spying business by demanding audacity, risk-taking, and out-of-the-box thinking.

According to Agency insiders much of the DO's internal rot can be traced to the stewardships of CIA directors Stansfield Turner (1977-1981), Judge William Webster (1987-1991) and his successor, intelligence analyst Robert Gates (1991-1993).

And it wasn't just Webster and Gates, either. The DO's downward spiral actually accelerated during John Deutch's tenure as DCI (1995-1996). Neither Deutch (a former MIT professor), nor his executive director Nora Slatkin (a former assistant secretary of the Navy), nor his deputy director George Tenet (a former congressional staffer and National Security Council aide), had any experience in clandestine operations. The situation worsened more after Deutch named David Cohen, a career intelligence analyst in the Robert Gates mold, to head the DO.

It was during the Deutch/Slatkin/Tenet/Cohen administration that case officers working the counterterrorism area were forbidden -- on pain of firing -- to recruit any agents who might have unsavory backgrounds, even though, according to EDKINS, the clandestine service supergrade, "it takes a terrorist to catch a terrorist."

....

Moreover, given congress's PC structures, many case officers stopped recruiting altogether. Instead, they relied on the liaison services in the countries in which they served to provide them with information, and agents. DCI George Tenet said as much in a February 5 speech at Georgetown University. "We did not ourselves," he admitted, "penetrate [Saddam's] inner sanctum...[but] we had a steady stream of reporting with access to the Iraqi leadership come to us from a trusted foreign partner."

No unilateral sources inside Saddam's inner sanctum. And yet, Iraq had been a primary target for more than a decade. Incredible. Did HPSCI or SSCI ever bang heads when Gates, Woolsey, Deutch, or Tenet admitted this... deficiency during oversight hearings?

In fact, from Turner's SNAFUs, to Webster and Gates's TARFUs, to Deutch and Tenet's FUBARs, scores of intelligence oversight hearings were conducted by the nation's Congressional mushrooms -- the members of HPSCI and SSCI. And where are the tangible results of all that oversight, you'd like to know. The awful truth is that you and I and the rest of the world saw the consequences of their delusional oversight efforts on the morning of September 11, 2001.

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...021004,00.html

If you remember the argument we had about Iraq and WMD back in the day, where I said that much of the intelligence failure could be attributed to the US not having boots on the ground in Iraq doing the actually work? Case in point.

Maybe now you'll understand why I don't blame Bush, well not specifically, for the massive intelligence failure. In fact, from the start I have always maintained the opinion that the failure went back a lot longer than Bush, Clinton, or even Bush 1.

Each of them contributed to it....but none of them shares all the blame. The blame specifically falls upon the actions of the CIA from 1977-1993.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by blankall

Sorry from now on I will gather all my historical facts from Tom Hanks movies.

That Wilson was unable to get a $1 million appropriation to build schools in Afghanistan is a 'fact.'

Maybe you 'should' watch the movie.....you might learn something.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

The enemy of your enemy is your friend.

Sure its a cliche, but it was true at the time.

In the 80's...Islamic fundamentalism was a minor problem compared to the Cold War, and as far as the US was concerned, giving a few billion to the Afghanis and help them beat the Soviets wasn't a big deal.

Too bad Congress and Bush1 completely ignored the plea of Charlie Wilson and many other intelligence people who were working in Afghanistan after the Soviets had left about the impending problem with terrorists.

Not only did they ignore it....they just fired their best intelligence people, cut off funding for just about ALL the bases in the Middle East, cut back the military, gutted the intelligence services, ignored Afghanistan, and like Ron Paul said, created 9/11.

Ron Paul would be better served to tell the whole story.



....



http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...021004,00.html

If you remember the argument we had about Iraq and WMD back in the day, where I said that much of the intelligence failure could be attributed to the US not having boots on the ground in Iraq doing the actually work? Case in point.

Maybe now you'll understand why I don't blame Bush, well not specifically, for the massive intelligence failure. In fact, from the start I have always maintained the opinion that the failure went back a lot longer than Bush, Clinton, or even Bush 1.

Each of them contributed to it....but none of them shares all the blame. The blame specifically falls upon the actions of the CIA from 1977-1993.

My point was that they were giving money to the Taliban up until September 10th, 2001. The Cold War had been over a long time. Whether or not it was a good idea or necessary evil to fund the resistance to the Soviets is open to interpretation. On the surface, which is all I really know about the subject, it seems to me it was a good idea at the time.

[Nehkara]

Clinton carries Kentucky, Obama carries Oregon.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

My point was that they were giving money to the Taliban up until September 10th, 2001. The Cold War had been over a long time. Whether or not it was a good idea or necessary evil to fund the resistance to the Soviets is open to interpretation. On the surface, which is all I really know about the subject, it seems to me it was a good idea at the time.

The US wastes so much money that giving a few million to the Taliban didn't even show up on the accounts payable.

It was probably a good idea at the time, meaning during the Cold War...but after that? They should have helped reconstruct the country.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

My point was that they were giving money to the Taliban up until September 10th, 2001.

I call BS.....


Prove it. The US bonbed the Taliban during Clinton Admin. I doubt this BS

[Nehkara]

Update delegate count!

Total Delegates:

Clinton 1777
Obama 1962 (185 ahead)


Pledged Delegates:

Clinton 1498
Obama 1656 (158 ahead)


Superdelegates:

Clinton 279
Obama 306 (27 ahead)

If Clinton acknowledges superdelegate endorsements, this thing could be over soon as Obama needs just 64 delegates to get to the magic number of 2026.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

That is not true though, Republicans spend more money than Dems, always have, always will.

http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm

When Carter got in the US yearly deficit was 74 Billion
When he left it was 74 Billion

Deficit remained the same as a raw number, probably slightly decreased as a percentage of GDP

Reagan got in the yearly defiict was 74 Billion
When he left it was 155 Billion

Deficit more than doubled as a raw number, increased as a percentage of GDP

Bush Senior got in it was 155 Billion
Bush Senior left it was 290 Billion

Deficit almost doubled as a raw number, increased as a percentage of GDP

Clinton got in it was 290 Billion
Clinton got out it was a surplus of 236 Billion

Deficit was eliminated and a surplus was left for the Conservatives to squander.

Bush Jr. got in with a 236 Billion dollar surplus
Bush Jr. will leave with a projected 396 Billion dollar deficit.

Bush Jr. followed his Republican predeceasors in increasing the deficit.

There is a clear pattern, where Republicans are irresponsible when it comes to spending and democrats are prudent and responsible.

Are you seriously making this argument?

Incoming and outgoing deficit numbers don't tell you a damn thing. You have to account for revenue if you want to use those numbers. Revenue=taxes. Dems historically raise taxes. Tax and spend.

You could spend $70 gazillion and lower the deficit if you raise taxes enough.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

You could spend $70 gazillion and lower the deficit if you raise taxes enough.

No, you couldn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Are you seriously making this argument?

Incoming and outgoing deficit numbers don't tell you a damn thing. You have to account for revenue if you want to use those numbers. Revenue=taxes. Dems historically raise taxes. Tax and spend.

You could spend $70 gazillion and lower the deficit if you raise taxes enough.

TBQH, I don't think there's enough fluctuation in the tax rate from year to year to account for the differences EddyBeers noted. You'd be talking about massive raises and cuts to cause those changes without spending increasing or decreasing.

Of course, revenues can increase or decrease because of economic conditions that have nothing to do with taxes. But a better rebuttal to EddyBeers' point would have been that many of those presidents faced a Congress that was controlled by the other party; since the president can't unilaterally set tax and budget policy, the numbers are misleading in that sense.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

No, you couldn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Optimum tax rate then. So yeah, it's possible to spend more and come out with a lower deficit number than your predecessor which is what my point was. If you'll notice, I used the term 'gazillion' which would indicate that I was overstating that point for effect.

Point stands.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

TBQH, I don't think there's enough fluctuation in the tax rate from year to year to account for the differences EddyBeers noted. You'd be talking about massive raises and cuts to cause those changes without spending increasing or decreasing.

Of course, revenues can increase or decrease because of economic conditions that have nothing to do with taxes. But a better rebuttal to EddyBeers' point would have been that many of those presidents faced a Congress that was controlled by the other party; since the president can't unilaterally set tax and budget policy, the numbers are misleading in that sense.

So why didn't you make that argument? Instead you waited for me to make one that doesn't work for you and you call me out instead of the original misleading post?

I don't get it.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Optimum tax rate then. So yeah, it's possible to spend more and come out with a lower deficit number than your predecessor which is what my point was. If you'll notice, I used the term 'gazillion' which would indicate that I was overstating that point for effect.

Point stands.

I understood your point, I knew you weren't being literal.

But for the general Obama lover, realize that raising taxes further (like the capital gains tax) could lower the revenue that Obama has already budgeted - and an ugly economic situation will continue to snowball.
(Not sure if that applies to you DFF)

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Tax and spend.

It's better than "Don't tax and spend".

I know you aren't saying it isn't, but when I hear "tax and spend" about the Democrats all the time, and then I look at what some Republican admins have done, I just have to scratch my head.

Tax and spend = Bad. Don't tax and spend = Worse.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's better than "Don't tax and spend".

I know you aren't saying it isn't, but when I hear "tax and spend" about the Democrats all the time, and then I look at what some Republican admins have done, I just have to scratch my head.

Tax and spend = Bad. Don't tax and spend = Worse.

Couldn't agree more. This particular administration has cut taxes and spent like there was no tomorrow. And now, maybe there won't be!