A serious question for Obama supporters

[Grumps 3,706]

Here is my situation and it highlights one of the reasons I could never vote for Obama:

I am a physician in Alabama and when I completed residency I had to decide whether to start a new solo practice or join another practice. I found a situation with a great potential for making more money if I was willing to take the risk of buying an existing practice.

Long story short, rather than starting a practice with me, one nurse and one receptionist and making approx. $150,000 per year, I got a loan and bought a practice that has multiple physicians and a total of 30+ employees and making $250,000-$300,000.

So, on the bright side I am making an extra $100,000-$150,000 per year and 30+ employees have jobs that would have been lost had I not bought the practice. On the down side I now have to deal with problems that go with a practice of this size. Let me tell you that for the most part the headaches are not worth the money, but at least I can feel good about what my decision has meant for my employees and for the community.

So now Obama thinks I am rich and wants to raise my taxes even more, because taking a third of what I make is apparently not enough! HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART...Doesn't Obama and don't the liberals understand that if you continue to raise my taxes I will no longer be willing to deal with all of the headaches that come with the increased responsibility and I will shut down my practice and downsize. What he would succeed in doing in my case is force me to settle for a 3 person solo practice with less income. The result will be 30 individuals out of work.

I can be happy with less money, but how will this country be if many people like me do the same thing. The result will be increasing unemployment and less tax revenue. Like it or not, it is "rich" people who provide the infrastructure for our economy. If you mess with us the whole thing falls apart. Please explain to me how his plan can be a good thing.

[Tigermike 3,425]

DrTom, Let me explain (since the dims who you asked) have no interest in answering the question. It has been 30+ hours with no response from the left.

Your problems don't matter to them or Obama or the DNC. All they care about is (a) higher taxes ( bigger government © more social programs (d) Saving the planet from big oil (e) bolstering union rolls (f) abortion on demand (g) higher taxes on gas & diesel (h) socialized medicine (I) National health care for illegal immigrants.

There are probably more but I will leave room for others to post.

[OldNewby 27]

DrTom, Let me explain (since the dims who you asked) have no interest in answering the question. It has been 30+ hours with no response from the left.

Your problems don't matter to them or Obama or the DNC. All they care about is (a) higher taxes ( bigger government © more social programs (d) Saving the planet from big oil (e) bolstering union rolls (f) abortion on demand (g) higher taxes on gas & diesel (h) socialized medicine (I) National health care for illegal immigrants.

There are probably more but I will leave room for others to post.

It's called willful ignorance, like a child will ignore what he/she doesn't want to hear.

[Justin5 20]

Without delving too deep, I can tell you higher taxes on individuals such as yourself don't just disappear. That money goes into government programs.

More tax revenue = more government programs = more government jobs / more grants for small businesses, farmers, etc = more jobs. There is more than one way to peel a banana (or however that saying goes).

Also, who would you say the majority of your business comes from? People with incomes OVER 250k or UNDER 250k? Likely under, and by placing higher tax burdens on the upper class, the lower/middle class is likely to increase their own spending - and therefore profits for those in charge of businesses.

[Tigermike 3,425]

Without delving too deep, I can tell you higher taxes on individuals such as yourself don't just disappear. That money goes into government programs.

More tax revenue = more government programs = more government jobs / more grants for small businesses, farmers, etc = more jobs. There is more than one way to peel a banana (or however that saying goes).

Those central planners have big plans don't they?

[Justin5 20]

Without delving too deep, I can tell you higher taxes on individuals such as yourself don't just disappear. That money goes into government programs.

More tax revenue = more government programs = more government jobs / more grants for small businesses, farmers, etc = more jobs. There is more than one way to peel a banana (or however that saying goes).

Those central planners have big plans don't they?

Look he asked for a answer. I gave it to him, whether he accepts it or not, it's at least something.

[Justin5 20]

I mean this question pretty much sums up the difference in principles between the two parties. There is no way I convince you, or vise versa.

[OldNewby 27]

Without delving too deep, I can tell you higher taxes on individuals such as yourself don't just disappear. That money goes into government programs.

More tax revenue = more government programs = more government jobs / more grants for small businesses, farmers, etc = more jobs. There is more than one way to peel a banana (or however that saying goes).

Those central planners have big plans don't they?

More government jobs, yeah that's the ticket.

Government jobs produce a lot of…, huh, well, huh, you know, help me out here, you know …

[Justin5 20]

Without delving too deep, I can tell you higher taxes on individuals such as yourself don't just disappear. That money goes into government programs.

More tax revenue = more government programs = more government jobs / more grants for small businesses, farmers, etc = more jobs. There is more than one way to peel a banana (or however that saying goes).

Those central planners have big plans don't they?

More government jobs, yeah that's the ticket.

Government jobs produce a lot of…, huh, well, huh, you know, help me out here, you know …

Seriously??

Road, Bridges, Parks, Police stations, a Military, space research, medical research, Agriculture programs, Prisons, Intelligence (FBI), currency, etc.

[eibua12 81]

How about we spend the money more efficiently that might be easier then raising taxes. Yes there are many good programs but there is huge waste.

I think you should make your practice a corporation, hmm maybe you mission is to invest in new energy resources and you can get some government funding like one of the programs Justin is pimping, and create a tax haven. You then lower your salary below the 250k and put yourself in a lower tax bracket.

Just saying:

Disclaimer I am not a tax accountant and anything stated here was for pure entertainment.

BTW: If he goes out of business and there is less competition then the prices will rise for his patrons not sure how the dick trickle down theory is working there.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

If you're making $250K, just downsize to $249K and you'll escape additional taxes. Can you live with a thousand less? Glad I could help.

Here is my situation and it highlights one of the reasons I could never vote for Obama:

I am a physician in Alabama and when I completed residency I had to decide whether to start a new solo practice or join another practice. I found a situation with a great potential for making more money if I was willing to take the risk of buying an existing practice.

Long story short, rather than starting a practice with me, one nurse and one receptionist and making approx. $150,000 per year, I got a loan and bought a practice that has multiple physicians and a total of 30+ employees and making $250,000-$300,000.

So, on the bright side I am making an extra $100,000-$150,000 per year and 30+ employees have jobs that would have been lost had I not bought the practice. On the down side I now have to deal with problems that go with a practice of this size. Let me tell you that for the most part the headaches are not worth the money, but at least I can feel good about what my decision has meant for my employees and for the community.

So now Obama thinks I am rich and wants to raise my taxes even more, because taking a third of what I make is apparently not enough! HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART...Doesn't Obama and don't the liberals understand that if you continue to raise my taxes I will no longer be willing to deal with all of the headaches that come with the increased responsibility and I will shut down my practice and downsize. What he would succeed in doing in my case is force me to settle for a 3 person solo practice with less income. The result will be 30 individuals out of work.

I can be happy with less money, but how will this country be if many people like me do the same thing. The result will be increasing unemployment and less tax revenue. Like it or not, it is "rich" people who provide the infrastructure for our economy. If you mess with us the whole thing falls apart. Please explain to me how his plan can be a good thing.

[RunInRed 16,991]

Food for thought...

$65MM+ in Federal Funding for the Shelby Center for Engineering Technology = government investment (here's an example that hits home but I could provide you with thousands of more that create jobs, stimulate the economy, and that invest in public education, safety, etc.)

In addition, Federal assistance to AU (main campus) the last three years:

2007: $24MM

2006: $46MM

2005: $39MM

http://www.fedspending.org/faads/faads.php...1&submit=GO

[arnaldoabru 11]

Here is my situation and it highlights one of the reasons I could never vote for Obama:

I am a physician in Alabama and when I completed residency I had to decide whether to start a new solo practice or join another practice. I found a situation with a great potential for making more money if I was willing to take the risk of buying an existing practice.

Long story short, rather than starting a practice with me, one nurse and one receptionist and making approx. $150,000 per year, I got a loan and bought a practice that has multiple physicians and a total of 30+ employees and making $250,000-$300,000.

So, on the bright side I am making an extra $100,000-$150,000 per year and 30+ employees have jobs that would have been lost had I not bought the practice. On the down side I now have to deal with problems that go with a practice of this size. Let me tell you that for the most part the headaches are not worth the money, but at least I can feel good about what my decision has meant for my employees and for the community.

So now Obama thinks I am rich and wants to raise my taxes even more, because taking a third of what I make is apparently not enough! HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART...Doesn't Obama and don't the liberals understand that if you continue to raise my taxes I will no longer be willing to deal with all of the headaches that come with the increased responsibility and I will shut down my practice and downsize. What he would succeed in doing in my case is force me to settle for a 3 person solo practice with less income. The result will be 30 individuals out of work.

I can be happy with less money, but how will this country be if many people like me do the same thing. The result will be increasing unemployment and less tax revenue. Like it or not, it is "rich" people who provide the infrastructure for our economy. If you mess with us the whole thing falls apart. Please explain to me how his plan can be a good thing.

You need a better CPA

[Tigermike 3,425]

I mean this question pretty much sums up the difference in principles between the two parties. There is no way I convince you, or vise versa.

You are absolutely right Justin. Dims see the government as the answer to all problems and conservative Republicians see free markets and free people as the answer.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Maybe if we had not gone into the hole 450 BILLION dollars to fight a war in Iraq(Bush and Cheney know a month before the invasion that Sadaam did not have WMD's, by the way) we would not have to raise any taxes.

[OldNewby 27]

Maybe if we had not gone into the hole 450 BILLION dollars to fight a war in Iraq (Bush and Cheney knew a month before the invasion that Sadaam did not have WMD's, by the way), we would not have to raise any taxes.

Polly, want a cracker?

Bush never lied to us about Iraq

The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.

By James Kirchick

June 16, 2008

Touring Vietnam in 1965, Michigan Gov. George Romney proclaimed American involvement there "morally right and necessary." Two years later, however, Romney -- then seeking the Republican presidential nomination -- not only recanted his support for the war but claimed that he had been hoodwinked.

"When I came back from Vietnam, I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get," Romney told a Detroit TV reporter who asked the candidate how he reconciled his shifting views.

Romney (father of Mitt) had visited Vietnam with nine other governors, all of whom denied that they had been duped by their government. With this one remark, his presidential hopes were dashed.

The memory of this gaffe reverberates in the contemporary rhetoric of many Democrats, who, when attacking the Bush administration's case for war against Saddam Hussein, employ essentially the same argument. In 2006, John F. Kerry explained the Senate's 77-23 passage of the Iraq war resolution this way: "We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true." On the campaign trail, Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged blame for her pro-war vote by claiming that "the mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress."

Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.

Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.

"I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop communist aggression in Southeast Asia," Romney elaborated in that infamous 1967 interview. That was an intellectually justifiable view then, just as it is intellectually justifiable for erstwhile Iraq war supporters to say -- given the way it's turned out -- that they don't think the effort has been worth it. But predicating such a reversal on the unsubstantiated allegation that one was lied to is cowardly and dishonest.

A journalist who accompanied Romney on his 1965 foray to Vietnam remarked that if the governor had indeed been brainwashed, it was not because of American propaganda but because he had "brought so light a load to the laundromat." Given the similarity between Romney's explanation and the protestations of Democrats 40 years later, one wonders why the news media aren't saying the same thing today.

James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic.

link: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/o...0,7766785.story

[arnaldoabru 11]

Maybe if we had not gone into the hole 450 BILLION dollars to fight a war in Iraq (Bush and Cheney knew a month before the invasion that Sadaam did not have WMD's, by the way), we would not have to raise any taxes.

Polly, want a cracker?

Bush never lied to us about Iraq

The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.

By James Kirchick

June 16, 2008

Touring Vietnam in 1965, Michigan Gov. George Romney proclaimed American involvement there "morally right and necessary." Two years later, however, Romney -- then seeking the Republican presidential nomination -- not only recanted his support for the war but claimed that he had been hoodwinked.

"When I came back from Vietnam, I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get," Romney told a Detroit TV reporter who asked the candidate how he reconciled his shifting views.

Romney (father of Mitt) had visited Vietnam with nine other governors, all of whom denied that they had been duped by their government. With this one remark, his presidential hopes were dashed.

The memory of this gaffe reverberates in the contemporary rhetoric of many Democrats, who, when attacking the Bush administration's case for war against Saddam Hussein, employ essentially the same argument. In 2006, John F. Kerry explained the Senate's 77-23 passage of the Iraq war resolution this way: "We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true." On the campaign trail, Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged blame for her pro-war vote by claiming that "the mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress."

Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.

Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.

"I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop communist aggression in Southeast Asia," Romney elaborated in that infamous 1967 interview. That was an intellectually justifiable view then, just as it is intellectually justifiable for erstwhile Iraq war supporters to say -- given the way it's turned out -- that they don't think the effort has been worth it. But predicating such a reversal on the unsubstantiated allegation that one was lied to is cowardly and dishonest.

A journalist who accompanied Romney on his 1965 foray to Vietnam remarked that if the governor had indeed been brainwashed, it was not because of American propaganda but because he had "brought so light a load to the laundromat." Given the similarity between Romney's explanation and the protestations of Democrats 40 years later, one wonders why the news media aren't saying the same thing today.

James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic.

link: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/o...0,7766785.story

Converstion with Sir Richard Dearlove (head of M16, not an editor at the New Republic) excerts from Ron Suskind's interview

The Brits had turned the head of Iraq intelligence. They told and shared what they had with Bush, Cheney, CIA, that Sadaam had no WMD'S

page 193 "The Way of the World"

"In this case, they seemed to have decided to lie to the world.But why?

"The problem," Dearlove says, finally, "was the Cheney crowd was in too much of a hurry, really. Bush never resisted them quite strong enough."

"Yes it was probably too late, I imagine, for Cheney," he says, about stopping the invasion,"I'm not sure it was too late for Bush."

Dearlove's number two at M16, Nigel Inkster page 196

"And when this prized intelligence was ignored by the United States?"

Inkster "You know the feeling was that this was a decision the U.S. had made way back and, you know, that was the defining perception."

'With Blair on down, Inkster says, there were a "lot of different emotions" about what they had discovered, and about America's dismissal. But the view, at day's end, was that the Undited States was "like a runaway train. There was nothing that was going to stop this."

[OldNewby 27]

Maybe if we had not gone into the hole 450 BILLION dollars to fight a war in Iraq (Bush and Cheney knew a month before the invasion that Sadaam did not have WMD's, by the way), we would not have to raise any taxes.

Polly, want a cracker?

Bush never lied to us about Iraq

The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.

By James Kirchick

June 16, 2008

Touring Vietnam in 1965, Michigan Gov. George Romney proclaimed American involvement there "morally right and necessary." Two years later, however, Romney -- then seeking the Republican presidential nomination -- not only recanted his support for the war but claimed that he had been hoodwinked.

"When I came back from Vietnam, I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get," Romney told a Detroit TV reporter who asked the candidate how he reconciled his shifting views.

Romney (father of Mitt) had visited Vietnam with nine other governors, all of whom denied that they had been duped by their government. With this one remark, his presidential hopes were dashed.

The memory of this gaffe reverberates in the contemporary rhetoric of many Democrats, who, when attacking the Bush administration's case for war against Saddam Hussein, employ essentially the same argument. In 2006, John F. Kerry explained the Senate's 77-23 passage of the Iraq war resolution this way: "We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true." On the campaign trail, Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged blame for her pro-war vote by claiming that "the mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress."

Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.

Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.

"I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop communist aggression in Southeast Asia," Romney elaborated in that infamous 1967 interview. That was an intellectually justifiable view then, just as it is intellectually justifiable for erstwhile Iraq war supporters to say -- given the way it's turned out -- that they don't think the effort has been worth it. But predicating such a reversal on the unsubstantiated allegation that one was lied to is cowardly and dishonest.

A journalist who accompanied Romney on his 1965 foray to Vietnam remarked that if the governor had indeed been brainwashed, it was not because of American propaganda but because he had "brought so light a load to the laundromat." Given the similarity between Romney's explanation and the protestations of Democrats 40 years later, one wonders why the news media aren't saying the same thing today.

James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic.

link: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/o...0,7766785.story

Converstion with Sir Richard Dearlove (head of M16, not an editor at the New Republic) excerts from Ron Suskind's interview

The Brits had turned the head of Iraq intelligence. They told and shared what they had with Bush, Cheney, CIA, that Sadaam had no WMD'S

page 193 "The Way of the World"

"In this case, they seemed to have decided to lie to the world.But why?

"The problem," Dearlove says, finally, "was the Cheney crowd was in too much of a hurry, really. Bush never resisted them quite strong enough."

"Yes it was probably too late, I imagine, for Cheney," he says, about stopping the invasion,"I'm not sure it was too late for Bush."

Dearlove's number two at M16, Nigel Inkster page 196

"And when this prized intelligence was ignored by the United States?"

Inkster "You know the feeling was that this was a decision the U.S. had made way back and, you know, that was the defining perception."

'With Blair on down, Inkster says, there were a "lot of different emotions" about what they had discovered, and about America's dismissal. But the view, at day's end, was that the Undited States was "like a runaway train. There was nothing that was going to stop this."

Link?

[arnaldoabru 11]

Maybe if we had not gone into the hole 450 BILLION dollars to fight a war in Iraq (Bush and Cheney knew a month before the invasion that Sadaam did not have WMD's, by the way), we would not have to raise any taxes.

Polly, want a cracker?

Bush never lied to us about Iraq

The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.

By James Kirchick

June 16, 2008

Touring Vietnam in 1965, Michigan Gov. George Romney proclaimed American involvement there "morally right and necessary." Two years later, however, Romney -- then seeking the Republican presidential nomination -- not only recanted his support for the war but claimed that he had been hoodwinked.

"When I came back from Vietnam, I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get," Romney told a Detroit TV reporter who asked the candidate how he reconciled his shifting views.

Romney (father of Mitt) had visited Vietnam with nine other governors, all of whom denied that they had been duped by their government. With this one remark, his presidential hopes were dashed.

The memory of this gaffe reverberates in the contemporary rhetoric of many Democrats, who, when attacking the Bush administration's case for war against Saddam Hussein, employ essentially the same argument. In 2006, John F. Kerry explained the Senate's 77-23 passage of the Iraq war resolution this way: "We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true." On the campaign trail, Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged blame for her pro-war vote by claiming that "the mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress."

Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.

Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.

"I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop communist aggression in Southeast Asia," Romney elaborated in that infamous 1967 interview. That was an intellectually justifiable view then, just as it is intellectually justifiable for erstwhile Iraq war supporters to say -- given the way it's turned out -- that they don't think the effort has been worth it. But predicating such a reversal on the unsubstantiated allegation that one was lied to is cowardly and dishonest.

A journalist who accompanied Romney on his 1965 foray to Vietnam remarked that if the governor had indeed been brainwashed, it was not because of American propaganda but because he had "brought so light a load to the laundromat." Given the similarity between Romney's explanation and the protestations of Democrats 40 years later, one wonders why the news media aren't saying the same thing today.

James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic.

link: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/o...0,7766785.story

Converstion with Sir Richard Dearlove (head of M16, not an editor at the New Republic) excerts from Ron Suskind's interview

The Brits had turned the head of Iraq intelligence. They told and shared what they had with Bush, Cheney, CIA, that Sadaam had no WMD'S

page 193 "The Way of the World"

"In this case, they seemed to have decided to lie to the world.But why?

"The problem," Dearlove says, finally, "was the Cheney crowd was in too much of a hurry, really. Bush never resisted them quite strong enough."

"Yes it was probably too late, I imagine, for Cheney," he says, about stopping the invasion,"I'm not sure it was too late for Bush."

Dearlove's number two at M16, Nigel Inkster page 196

"And when this prized intelligence was ignored by the United States?"

Inkster "You know the feeling was that this was a decision the U.S. had made way back and, you know, that was the defining perception."

'With Blair on down, Inkster says, there were a "lot of different emotions" about what they had discovered, and about America's dismissal. But the view, at day's end, was that the Undited States was "like a runaway train. There was nothing that was going to stop this."

Link?

I cited the book, aurthor, and page number

[Grumps 3,706]

Without delving too deep, I can tell you higher taxes on individuals such as yourself don't just disappear. That money goes into government programs.

More tax revenue = more government programs = more government jobs / more grants for small businesses, farmers, etc = more jobs. There is more than one way to peel a banana (or however that saying goes).

Also, who would you say the majority of your business comes from? People with incomes OVER 250k or UNDER 250k? Likely under, and by placing higher tax burdens on the upper class, the lower/middle class is likely to increase their own spending - and therefore profits for those in charge of businesses.

Justin, I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to post to this thread. You the the only Obama supporter to try to give an intelligent answer to a real situation that, in my opinion, does sum up a major difference between the two candidates.

Your response, if I understand correctly, is that I should be ok with paying additional taxes under Obama because the government will use to help people and that I should be ok with that because most of my income comes from patients who make less than $250,000.

My problem with this is that if my taxes burden increases to the point that the additional income is not worth the trouble of owning a much larger business then I will close my current practice and downsize. This would mean that THERE WILL BE LESS TAX REVENUE because I will have less income and my employees will have less income.

Money invested in the private sector will SURELY generate more jobs than tax revenue will. I am not against taxes, but I believe that SPENDING IS THE PROBLEM. Republican and/or democrats should be able to run the country on the tax revenue we have now. Increasing the tax burden on the wealthy (who already pay a disproportionately large percentage of taxes) will result in less tax revenue and increased unemployment as people like me downsize because of the above mentioned reasons.