The light at the end of the Iraq tunnel….

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
1:19 pm

I don’t understand why Republicans get such a thrill out of wars. There’s no place for it on the Monopoly board or the Game of Life board. Where do they come up with these crazy notions that anyone, other than themselves, want to fight wars all the time. It’s almost as though they profit from wars or something at the taxpayer’s expense. Hmmm.

G

February 25th, 2009
1:23 pm

The war was a mistake, period.

We had no reason to go in there, Bush lied to win popular support, the occupation was a disaster, and he had no exit plan.

Bush’s only plan for Iraq after the illogical invasion was to run out the clock and let his successor solve the problems he created. Then again, he has done this on the economy, the environment, the deficit, our infrastructure, and any other matter that required some long-range vision of the nation’s future.

In short, Bush had no business being president.

getalife

February 25th, 2009
1:26 pm

Iran won and will start up their first nuclear plant.

Saddam bluffed and lost and with Iran’s help Iraq will be like Iran.

These two countries united with all that oil are in good shape.

Mrs. Godzilla

February 25th, 2009
1:28 pm

If he was going to have to fudge 3 months I would have preferred 13 to 16….but I trust President Obama’s judgement.

BDAtlanta

February 25th, 2009
1:41 pm

There is lots and lots and lots of money to be made waging war. Cheney was an ex-defense contractor so we were going to have a war one way or the other.

One bad side of Clinton’s legacy is that he downsized the military, outsourcing some basic military needs to private contractors. If those tasks were still in the US military’s hands, there wouldn’t be as much money to be made by private firms. Remember all those jobs in sanitation, food supply, etc. All that was outsourced to private contractors.

The no-bid contracts? Cheney and Rumsfeld greasing palms.

Like Cheney being an ex-defense contractor, Bush was an ex-oilman from an oil family. You could read the writing on the wall – high gas prices were inevitable. Gas prices were around $1.40 when he took office, peaked massively during his last summer in office and fell immediately after the election. If you think that is coincidence, ok, I have no proof. But……Remember those secret energy meetings Cheney and the energy suppliers had shortly after they took office? I wonder if gasoline was discussed in those meetings? I’m just saying….money is a very powerful motivator.

I’m just saying….

DB, Gwinnettian

February 25th, 2009
1:43 pm

At the risk of being a Maddow-bot, I really don’t like the timing of this announcement, which seems news-dumpish and designed to attract as little attention and scrutiny as possible. And if that’s the actual intent it’s doomed to fail.

right? except…looking at the google news home page, it’s barely visible (under “other news stories” on mine, anyway, wayyy at the bottom. Which says something about our gnat-like attention spans, I guess. But still.

Mort Merkel

February 25th, 2009
1:44 pm

I don’t give a rat’s rump if it does become dictatorship, invading Iraq was stupid, stupid, stupid. If they were going to invade it was stupid not to seal the borders before sprinting to Baghdad, where Saddam wasn’t anyway. If they were going to invade, it was stupid not to take the time to collect every enemy weapon along the way and destroy it. The failure to do these things was stupid and led to the Administration asking later, “Geez, where did all these AK-47s and RPGs come from?” Bush’s folly is criminal.

Copyleft

February 25th, 2009
1:46 pm

FINALLY. It’s not like there’s anyone left who can still claim, with a straight face, that invading Iraq was necessary. Let’s put this blunder behind us and focus on real problems, not imaginary ones.

BDAtlanta

February 25th, 2009
1:48 pm

Speaking of coincidence, isn’t it strange that between 1999 when Phil Gramm and Repubs with the help of Clinton dismantled the Glass-Steagall Act and the summer of 2008 when it became readily apparent McCain didn’t stand a chance to win, all the problems that caused the current economic situation were being overlooked, ignored, etc?

When it became apparant McCain wasn’t going to win, it looks kinda like they decided to go ahead and pull back the curtain to reveal the problem since the buck was about to be passed on to another party to solve the problem.

I’m just saying….maybe all this is coincidence.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
1:48 pm

Taxpayer –

On what do you base your assertion that “Republicans get a thrill out of war”?

The Democrats were just as vociferous in their support of the Afghan War and every war fought by the US in the 20th century, from WW1 to the Balkan War started with a Democratic administration.

getalife -

The Iran-supported parties were routed in the last election. The notion that Iraq will be a vassal state to Iran disregards hundreds of years of history.

BDAtlanta

February 25th, 2009
1:56 pm

I would like to have seen it divided up.

There is a reason the country could only be controlled by a crazed, trigger-happy guy like Saddam – those people hate each other to no end. He was able to keep order by pointing guns around.

If we leave, I think it will devlove even more until another strongman comes along who can get the country under his control…and then we will be back in the same position we were in with Saddam.

But at least we knew how to handle Saddam, the next guy might be quite different.

AJC/DNC Management

February 25th, 2009
1:57 pm

Ho hum-

The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: “Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq”) is a status of forces agreement (SOFA) approved by the Iraqi government in late 2008 between Iraq and the United States. It establishes that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, subject to possible further negotiations which could delay withdrawal and a referendum scheduled for mid-2009 in Iraq which may require U.S. forces to completely leave by the middle of 2010.

Wow, Jay giving Oblahmi credit for something he didn’t do.

Go figure.

Bosch

February 25th, 2009
2:00 pm

Mike Luckovich drew a cartoon a while back that had Ahmadinejad carrying off Iraq on a silver platter implying that he did so with our help (by invading Iraq). I loved that cartoon because it speaks to the core of the problem.

By weakening Iraq, we’ve basically handed them over to Iran. Iran will have a nuclear weapon in the next couple years, and we will be forced to deal with that.

In the meantime, we gear up to send more troops into Afghanistan which I don’t think is such a good idea as things are now – same mistake of no real purpose or goals. But hopefully Obama won’t do that until we move out of Iraq, in the meantime, we can come up with a better game plan or what it is we want to accomplish.

AND, Obama has said numerous times that many of the programs he wants to implement can be paid for with money saved by not spending it in Iraq. Well, if he marches us into Afghanistan, then blammo, there go the savings.

And the problem after we leave, I see Iran basically annexing Iraq – which, again, is problematic for all.

Now, with that said, I do trust Obama not to blunder things as bad as Bush & Co. did, but my point is, why go into Afghanistan at all? Oh yes, there is that one particular guy we want so bad and his merry band of outlaws, but I say it does no good to keep stirring up the beehive and getting our asses stung when these people seem hell bent on blowing each other up. I say let ‘em – less work for us – it worked for Iran.

But I will say, as I have always contended, it serves no one’s interest to attack a country with a nuclear bomb, unless of course, they wish to themselves, very soon afterward face the fury of the entire globe and then themselves be wiped off. It doesn’t benefit no one, and even crazy fundamentalist jihadist know this.

Bosch

February 25th, 2009
2:02 pm

BDAtlanta@1:56,

My sentiments exactly – Saddam may have been a horrible, brutal dictator, but he knew how to keep order – and it’s insane logic to think there isn’t someone else – just as horrible and brutal and dictatorly (is that a word?) just waiting until we leave. And then – we’ve wasted all this time, money and lives for what?

DB, Gwinnettian

February 25th, 2009
2:05 pm

- just as horrible and brutal and dictatorly (is that a word?)

“Dic-ish”, I think, is the one you want.

Bosch

February 25th, 2009
2:09 pm

DB,

Yeah, I think that’s exactly what I was thinking. Thanks!!

tcoach

February 25th, 2009
2:10 pm

Taxpayer,
To amend the question since you have dodged it twice now.

Since you blame republicans for any and all instances that happen in republican controlled districts, areas, and states. Would you mind answering these questions.

Do you also place the violent crime rates of Chicago, L.A., New York, Detroit, and Washington D.C. on the democrats?

If you do not place blame with democrats for their districts, then who would you place the blame with? Also you have set a precedent that it cannot be individuals acting poorly it must be in conjuncture with a political party. Those are rules you chose to set by the tone and temperament of your postings.

Do you think more people were victims in these cities combined or in all of the peanut scandal you have been fondling yourself over?

These are easy OPINION QUESTIONS so sorry i cannot answer them for you, just very curious as to your opinion. Actually I am more curious to see how many different ways a person can dodge a question without just having to say I don’t want to answer that it will make things i have said in the past look stupid, and for whatever reason i value my false credibility on a blog.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
2:15 pm

I think people must get a cheap thrill out of war when they have to come up with nonsense in order to justify them — everything from yellow cake with no frosting to preemptive strikes against rusted out shells of formerly mobile mass-producers of anything of non-bacteriological significance. But, I just offer up these little gems to tease. Truth be known, there are many reasons Republicans of a certain persuasion salivate at the mere prospect of war. The real-life games for one. The thrill of victory and the agony of de feet — marching through that hot sand will test the best that Dr. Shoals has to offer. And, how else is one to find out that those new-fangled turbines get all choked up in a desert sand storm without puttin’ to the test. Those simulators only go so far, you know. Then, as I mentioned before, Bush Jr. just wanted to keep his pappy’s likeness from gettin’ the foot any more and Rumsfeld was just interested in settling an old score with the man that he shook hands with. I mean, is there no honor amongst thieves anymore. Of course there’s always money involved. Did anyone hear about that covert ops dude, named Dusty, that went and got all caught up in a scandal involving money and paying off some other good old boy that was on the take. I think he also had something to do with some guy named Cunningham. Pizza anyone.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
2:24 pm

Taxpayer -

That is your rationale for your statement that “Republicans get a thrill out of war”? Why does that list of boilerplate rhetoric not apply to Hillary and John Edward’s support for the war? Did they do so for “Bush Jr.’s pappy”?

How does your silly “Dr Scholl’s” argument address the fact that Democratic administrations took America into every single war that it fought in the 20th century?

Could it be that this is just one more complex issue that you boil down to “Republicans bad. Democrats good”?

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
2:28 pm

Oh lookie,

tcoach wants me to play. Well, let’s keep this simplistic, shall we. Let’s start with your grand-slam opening trash talk:

Since you blame republicans for any and all instances that happen in republican controlled districts, areas, and states. Would you mind answering these questions.

Since I do nothing of the sort, I do mind and I will not even read any farther into your post. Now, if you want me to play along with your simplistic scenarios, then I must insist that you simply stick to factual statements, for starters. Also, I do also reserve the right to impose other constraints assuming you make it far enough for me to need to.

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

February 25th, 2009
2:29 pm

Jay, it was big of you to write, “At the very least, we have given the Iraqis a semi-functioning country and the chance to control their own future. As I’ve said in the past, I’ll be very surprised if Iraq hasn’t reverted to some kind of dictatorship five years from now, but I’ve been wrong before and hope to be wrong again.”

Nonetheless, you should have gone farther to say.

As things now stand, Iraq has been established as a functioning democracy in the middle east and there is hope in some quarters that it will become a model for the barbaric middle east nations.

Also, we leave the Iraqi people free of the terrorism and rape rooms of the dictator Saddam Hussein.

Finally, were it left to President Obama, we would have left Iraq in defeat leaving the nation in chaos and creating a the largest killing field ever know to mankind, but President Bush’s unparalelled strength of character and courage led this nation to victory and forged a safer world by eviscerating Iraq’s previous terrorist regime.

Jay, you can still write those things, go ahead, you’ll feel better.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
2:40 pm

I live in the present and the present that I live in has war-mongering Republicans and Democrats. Of course, I am generalizing and as anyone that thinks a little should be able to figure out without straining a muscle, there are always exceptions but that does not invalidate the generalizations. The fact is that neocons such as Cheney, Bush, Perle, Rove, etc., and so forth and so on love the notion of preemption and they just love the thought of having their little axes of evil and shocking and awing and it’s all rather well documented even all the way back to that Republican war-monger, Reagan, that Rumsfeld worked for and even before that. It was Reagan that sent Rumsfeld over there to get in bed with Saddam so they could get him to pick fights with Iran and anyone else they needed them to and of course there’s the close ties that they had with bin Laden back in the day too but that’s another story.

Joey

February 25th, 2009
2:44 pm

Jay? You support the pullout, but you hope you are wrong about Iraq becoming a dictatorship again. I cannot find any logic or any concern for the Iraqis in that position.

No matter at this point whether the war was right or wrong. We established a relatively effective and peacefully elected government. We must stay, my guess, 3 to 7 more years in order to allow and help that peaceful and peacfully elected government to mature.

Pulling out is the US, right now that is Democrats, willingly abandoning the people of Iraq at a critical point. A terribly wrong thing to do.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
2:45 pm

Don’t you just love those “functioning” democracies, equipped with free fatherland security, courtesy of we the taxpayers. Why don’t we just buy their oil and let them hire their own security forces from the proceeds.

RealityKing

February 25th, 2009
2:47 pm

Sometimes war is the necessary answer.., as in Saddam’s case.

radiowxman

February 25th, 2009
2:47 pm

I was against the war as well.

However, instead of screeching about “Bush’s war!” and “No blood for oil!” or “get us out now!” I realized that once we were in, we had to finish the job.

The previous administration did a horrible job orchestrating the beginning of the peace, and threw in too many PR gaffes to mention. This made Iraq an easy lightning rod and made it too easy to gloss over the real inhumanity of the Saddam regime (check out his treatment of Iraqi Olympic athletes, for example).

However, I found it fascinating that after the initial problems, the steady progress in Iraq went ignored. Instead, we kept hearing about the “atrocities” our soldiers were engaging in, the “quagmire” and how the war was “unwinnable.”

Now? Obama should be thanking the Bush administration. He left a fairly stable Iraq in place, so the current administration can play the hero and pull us out.

Of course, this comes at the same time we are ramping up in Afghanistan. Let’s hope that we’re more successful than every other nation in history that’s tried to calm that state.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
2:50 pm

Taxpayer -

Well, if Reagan was a “war-monger” and never engaged in a war, what does that make Bill Clinton the executive of the Balkan War? Please demonstrate some consistency.

AmVet

February 25th, 2009
2:50 pm

No matter how Obama mishandles Afghanistan into Quagmire, Part Deux, the flummoxed GOP chickenhawks will convulse even further.

Do the pro-war neoliths support the commander-in-chief in this folly like the good little chest pounders they were for the past six years in supporting BushCos botched invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Or do they show their true Party-first, Party-last, Party-always colors by withholding support as they did when Clinton ended the genocide in Europe without losing a single American life?

No matter which way they go on this issue, and a host of others for that matter, they are essentially irrelevant in this day and age, except to their base here in the Moron Belt and other backwater locales like Oklahoma and Utah.

Duty calls, Later friends and fools…

Mike

February 25th, 2009
2:53 pm

AmVet –

I assume that when you are calling out “chickenhawks”, you are including Obama, Bookman, Hillary and all of the other supporters of the Afghan War who never served.

tcoach

February 25th, 2009
2:56 pm

taxpayer,
@11:51″Tell that to the 666 people sickened so far by peanuts processed in that Republican stronghold facility.”

So you did not say this?

Again at 11:51 “Just look at those poor dead people in that Imperial Sugar plant in that Republican stronghold and that Republican Saxby Chambliss and his attack on the one guy there that actually tried to save lives”
Exactly what do you mean by stronghold?

Both of these seem to be accusing the area “stronghold” and equating it to republicans.

See I told you that you would avoid questions.

Seriously it is only a question and answer can you be that gripped with fear?

Also I have on numerous occasions said things to others that you accused me of not doing anything about @12:30. Don’t believe them ask, or even better go back and look in archives. (if anyone can still get to them)Just saw they were not going to change so quit banging my head on the wall. I think sometimes they have valid and worthy points other times, I think they are either trying to p**s you all off or they really do have some issues with things. Either way it causes others to never take anything they say seriously and tune them out. I am trying to figure out if this is you.

Sorry just because I disagree with you does not mean that I agree with them. You seem to be a very prejudice labeling individual. You do know that not all people fit into your molds you have cast for us all right? I only say this because you have lumped me in with them before. This happens some here by others usually when I ask them something they do not wan to to truthfully answer either. But go back and read and if you still think I am in the same boat of thinking as those you accuse me of then it shows you are nothing more than a troll, wishing the worst for our country and for our division.

So again when can I expect an actual answer?

You also show yourself to be a phony if the amount of deaths from the peanuts bother you but the murders don’t.

See I’ll even help you from time to time, the murder rates are higher. Since you were unable to google that information for me, or maybe you were and once again chose to only use the information that you like.

Dodge, duck,dive,dip, and Dodge. ESPN ocho baby.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
2:58 pm

AmVet -

Be sure to tell the families of David Gibbs and Kevin Reichert that the Yugoslav War was fought without losing a single American life.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/dgibbs.htm

As usual, your comments demonstrate ignorance of facts.

Paul

February 25th, 2009
2:59 pm

Jay

Nice. Very nice.

Kinda glad you were wrong on your first assumption. Hope you’ll be wrong on the second. But I doubt it.

Taxpayer

[[I don’t understand why Republicans get such a thrill out of wars.]]

Roosevelt and Johnson were Republicans?

G 1:23

[[Bush lied to win popular support]]

Please, that was stale five minutes after VP Gore’s chant.

[[Bush’s only plan for Iraq after the illogical invasion was to run out the clock and let his successor solve the problems he created.]]

Did you make that up yourself? From Jay’s excerpt, it’s pretty obvious there’s nothing left to solve. The remaining troops aren’t doing anything new. Or solving anything old.

[[Bush had no business being president]]

Except for the small detail that he was elected. Twice.

getalife

[[ran won and will start up their first nuclear plant.

Saddam bluffed and lost and with Iran’s help Iraq will be like Iran.]]

Bingo!

Hopefully G will think about “Bush lied” in the context of “Saddam bluffed and lost.”

As far as Iran going nuclear, didn’t I hear somewhere that Pres Obama and SecState Clinton have said we will not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon? I really, really kinda think I heard that somewhere…. but I could be wrong…

Mrs. Godzilla 1:28

That’s fair. But I’ll bet the staff on MoveOn are in a tizzy ’cause they’re not all gone. I’ll have to cruise on over and check sometime. See their take on it –

BDAtlanta 1:41

[[outsourcing some basic military needs to private contractors.]]

That’s a common misperception. Law and policy on outsourcing refer only to those functions that are not inherently governmental. I’m reading your ‘needs’ as inherently governmental. Lots of people think of the Blackwater example – but they were not military units, primarily guards. Got way out of hand, though. May want to Google OMB Circular A-76 sometime.

As far as Pres Bush orchestrating the runup in oil prices given his oil background, that was a pretty slick accomplishment for a guy who’s such a bungler, isn’t it?

DB, Gwinnettian 1:43

I guess they couldn’t bring themselves to headline “we won” or “mission accomplished”?

Management 1:57

Isn’t that the Status of Forces Agreement Senate Dems were so upset over ’cause Bush hotdogged it through and the Senate didn’t get to vote on it so it was another example of a failed Bush policy?

Bosch 2:00

[[By weakening Iraq, we’ve basically handed them over to Iran. Iran will have a nuclear weapon in the next couple years, and we will be forced to deal with that.]]

I keep tellin’ ya’, man, don’t worry about it! Pres Obama’s said repeatedly that he won’t let that happen! He’ll do anything, whatever it takes!

[[I do trust Obama not to blunder things as bad]]

That’s funny! Realistic, but funny! “He can still screw things up, but it just won’t be as bad.” LOL!

Seriously, do you really think elements in this country would react with horror at the idea that, if we were hit with an Iranian-supplied nuke, that we would obliterate Iran? That they wouldn’t call for ‘proportionality’ – you know, they only lit off a small nuke in NYC so we should only light off a small nuke in a non-capitol city.

Personally, the Genghis Khan part of me would want to turn the entire country into a sheet of glass.

Mike 2:58

That’s the test of when we should unleash our military on another country? It’s okay as long as our guys don’t die?!!?

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
3:00 pm

Actually, I think all that New World Order stuff started with Bush Senior and his neo-con buddies. He was CIA, you know. They’re devilish little fellas with their preemptive ways.

Paul

February 25th, 2009
3:03 pm

Mike 2:58

Sorry about that last post. I read your comment completely incorrectly.

But the question still stands as a general one (though not to AmVet – we’ve hashed this over) – many people cite the US led, UN resisted, NATO drag along as a good thing ’cause of the paucity of casualties. That, in my opinion, is a dangerous way to evaluate the worthiness of intervention.

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

February 25th, 2009
3:06 pm

NOW JUST HOLD ON THERE FOR A MOMENT!!!!

I just checked yesterday’s “The ‘50 percent pay no tax’ fraud, Part II” and have a bone to pick. Nothwithstanding, the erroneous and improper claims made against me, I did not enage in hate speach. It is hurtful to me that a clinical statement, such as that which I wrote, could be so heinously misrepresented by others. It would take a truly sick mind to categorize anything i wrote as offensive, let alone hate speach.

Incidentially, Jay, my research indicates that welfae benefits and food stamps are not taxable income and, as such, a personal wholly dependant on welfare-benefits and food stamps is not required to file a tax return. Which, to some extent, eviscerates your 38% number and proves up my theory.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
3:06 pm

So, tcoach, you want to jump into my exchange with Dusty and proclaim yourself as having some understanding of the context. Well, I don’t believe you. Your next task is to pull up each post between Dusty and myself and explain to me what we were talking about. Then, we’ll see where it goes from there. K.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
3:07 pm

Paul -

I agree. If casualty count was the metric than the Viet Nam war was a more worthy endeavor than WW2.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
3:14 pm

Roosevelt and Johnson were Republicans?

Who am I to say. Hey, if Perdue can be a Republican, anyone can. Even Phil Gramm started out as a Democrat and then changed to the Republican party once he figured out his true calling.

Observer

February 25th, 2009
3:19 pm

Taxpayer – In Jay’s earlier blog, I posted in reference to the debt service (interest) on the $787 billion bailout driving the true cost well north of a trillion.

Your response was, “By the way, $787 billion plus something as outrageous as a 10% annual interest rate would only be $866 billion.”

You are so far off the mark it’s laughable. The current yield on 30 year treasury bonds is 3.58%. Take $787 billion and pay 3.58% on it for 30 years and you come up with a total cost to the taxpayers of $2.3 TRILLION. Lucky for us that we’re not using your outragous 10% rate, huh?

I’ve got to go back into a meeting but I’ll check back later to see your response. I’m sure it will be another fact-filled gem.

tcoach

February 25th, 2009
3:22 pm

taxpayer,
I can stay at it.
It is there for all to see you my friend are guilty of lying about that, you did equate a district to a political party.
It is your honor and integrity in question. You asked I provided. See that is how it is done by rational adults. This would be your time for a rebuttal. But you know that you do not have one.

I have seen you operate on here, and anytime you can prove it wrong or somehow have a good fact to use you do. When there are none available you go and want others to do all of your research. I have seen you jump in on others dialog, while not providing a running log of the post. Yet now you want one.

I get it, you are old, angry with how YOUR life turned out and trying to find someone anything to affix the blame to. I am truly sorry you are so bitter. Do you not have friends and family to talk to about your anger? If you treat them as you do others though they most likely do not want to engage in conversation with you.

Sir I have given examples and you have even made me out to be a soothsayer, since I called exactly the ways you would respond.

I will keep at it though, day after day after day until I receive my answer. I truly have grown tired of you trying to bully others and act as if you are smarter than them. You are no better than anyone else here, there or anywhere. So why do you feel you are.

It is fine for you to make an assertion that something is fact without a source but complain when others do. You are truly hypocritical in almost every facet of your life that we see. So actually I guess in a strange way you are not hypocritical because you are so consistently hypocritical.

Just because you are older does not mean smarter that usually only last until like adulthood, then most have kinda caught up.

Paul

February 25th, 2009
3:23 pm

Taxpayer

In all seriousness, I think we’re going to see just a bit of military action out of this administration. They may dress it up as “humanitarian action” but it’s still using American military forces to impose America’s view of morality on the world. And, it’s already begun. George Clooney missed the Oscars so he could tell Pres Obama about the Darfur disaster. Get ready – we’re going in.

And if we find out Pres Obama’s statements on Iran weren’t (what was his phrase?) ‘campaign rhetoric’ then we can also get ready for (to use VP Biden’s words) “an uptick” in American casualties.

Bosch

February 25th, 2009
3:25 pm

Paul,

And I keep telling you man, there ain’t gonna be no nuclear attack. Now, I could be wrong, and Gods know I hope I am not (catch the ‘Gods’ ref.? ha, ha, only oh, I don’t know your the stopwatch), but if these freaking jihadist idiots were gonna do something like that, we’d be toast already – North Korea’s weirdo dictator is crazy as bat shit, yet smart enough to know his bat shit crazy self and country (who he doesn’t even care about the populace) would be blown to bits right back. It ain’t gonna happen. You watch way too much Battlestar Galactica (did you just spit coffee/water/Coke/drink of choice on your keyboard when you read that? I couldn’t resist).

Mike

February 25th, 2009
3:26 pm

Observer -

LOL. Did Taxpayer really say, “By the way, $787 billion plus something as outrageous as a 10% annual interest rate would only be $866 billion.”

That is hysterical. On this blog, it seems that the angrier you are the less knowledge of basic facts you posses.

$866 billion. LOL

NRB

February 25th, 2009
3:27 pm

So we’re out of Iraq in 18 months, which we probaby would have been anyways regardless of whos in office.

But now chicken-hawk Oblaham is sending 17,000 troops to Afghanastan to die for oil…where’s the left wing screeching over that tidbit?

I guess the AJC will just print more cute stories about Oblahma’s favorite bubblegum or somesuch nonsense as usual.

fed up

February 25th, 2009
3:27 pm

Not sure who on this said (or why for that matter) that Republicans love war. What kind of crazy statement is that? I thought that Dec. 2011 was already established as to when we left Iraq? If that’s right why is this something that Obama would get/take credit for?

Bosch

February 25th, 2009
3:28 pm

Paul,

Forgot:

“That’s funny! Realistic, but funny! “He can still screw things up, but it just won’t be as bad.” LOL!”

Are you making fun of me? You better not be, doodoo head.

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

February 25th, 2009
3:29 pm

Observer, though I loathe it more than I loathe John Kerry, himself, I am, nonetheless called to defend.

For those educated in matters of finance, the concept that you use to arrive at 3.23 trillion is the sum of a stream of payments.

If you one desires to determine the “true cost” of such a stream of payments, one would calculate the “net present value.”

Let me explain, in a manner in which even the most simple liberal could understand, by asking if were to pay you a dollar, would your rather get it now or 30 years from now. A stream of payments must be discounted over its term to reflect anticipated expected returns to convert it into a present value.

As to you, Taxpayer, you are wrong about everything else.

Dusty

February 25th, 2009
3:34 pm

Wyld Byll @2:29,

You have posted a very fine piece…. right here in the middle of the white flagger, anti-war, cut’n'runners of our day.

Bush saw the danger to our country from Iraq. The CIA reported the dangers. Congress read the reports and knew the danger. British Intelligence saw the danger as did their Prime Minister. So Bush and ALL Congress except one did what was necessary for our protection.

If everything in reports was not accurate, what was in Iraq was most harmful as our military has proven. American hating terrorists swarmed to Iraq instead of heading to America. Iraq is now on its way to becoming a stable country in the MidEast (just as you said, Wyld Byll.) We still have to fight the terror loving Taliban in Afghanistan. Even Obama realizes that. It is almost more than his far left libs can bear.

White flaggers have tried everything against the Iraq conflict. They say Bush was doing it for more oil and money (He was already rich and we had other sources for oil). They blamed Cheney because they said he wanted to get rich (He was already rich being a smart business man.) They blamed Halliburton (one of the few companies large enough to handle world wide supplies). They blamed the Blackstone Security Company who was hired for non-military work. Blackstone employees treated as subversives by the press instead of security. Libs declared the Defense Department was not supplying our armed forces but complained about the cost of the war. They tried to use flag wrapped coffins from Iraq as propaganda. Nothing was too “low” for anti-war far left liberals to declare.

Now, what will these cut’n'run complainers say when Obama tells them again that more troops and supplies are needed in Afghanistan? Will they drag out their old book of complaints? How about a few protests? Will they burn Bush in effigy but not Obama?

Meanwhile Bookman does his little dance around dutiful dissent and other ways of getting around anti-Americanism. Someone said:”If you aren’t with us, you are against us.” Not so, say libs. They opine “If we are against you, we are all for you.” I haven’t figured that one out yet. That’s why I don’t run with their crowd.

gttim

February 25th, 2009
3:36 pm

Do you also place the violent crime rates of Chicago, L.A., New York, Detroit, and Washington D.C. on the democrats?

You should look up the word density, and then Google urban density and its effect on crime. That has nothing to do with political parties, it has to do with density. Man you guys are a few cards short of a deck.

BTW, I feel safer in an urban environment than I do paddling a canoe down a river through a red state. Plus, if something happens to me in an urban environment, it will probably be reported to the authorities. In red states with sparse populations and old white sheriffs, I bet most things never get reported officially.

Paul

February 25th, 2009
3:36 pm

Bosch

My good man, have you taken leave of your senses? Do you wish to cast doubt upon all your current and future arguments by stating someone can watch too much BattleStar Galactica?”

I sure hope you’re right. But you do see the position it puts America in when Candidate Obama, then President Obama, makes the statements he’s made?

Credibility goes out the window. And frankly, in such cases in international relations, a bit of fear on our enemies part is a good thing. But if they think they have nothing to fear (the phrase from long ago was “America as a paper tiger”) then there is little to inhibit another country’s actions.

And when you’re dealing with nukes and religious fanatics, you’ve got a dangerous mix.

NRB tellin' it like it is as usual

February 25th, 2009
3:38 pm

In the twentieth century, every war has been led by a democrat in the white house with the exception of the Persian Gulf Conflict. WWI, Wilson, WWII, Roosevelt, Korea, Truman, Vietnam, Johnson.

People will say its the republicans in congress, but since 1931, the republicans have been inpower a total of 16 years, many times the democrats held a filibuster proof majority, especially during the vietnam war, at one point in the 70s, there was a 74-16 democrat majority.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
3:38 pm

Byll –

NPV aside, Taxpayer’s assertion that the total cost of $787 billion at a 10% APR is $866 billion is sheer ignorance.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
3:40 pm

” In red states with sparse populations and old white sheriffs, I bet most things never get reported officially.

Right because old white people are intrinsically immoral. Thanks for that insightful statement.

gttim

February 25th, 2009
3:40 pm

Yeah, Hussein was a bad man. But remember, it was the Reagan administration that funneled him weapons through a back door so he could stay in power in the 80’s. Hussein was the GOP’s boy for a long time. The guys fighting over there now should remember that. So should the wingnuts!

gttim

February 25th, 2009
3:42 pm

Right because old white people are intrinsically immoral.

Old white sheriffs are historically immoral. History backs that up. Even looking at the limited scope of the civil rights movement, that is clear.

I didn’t say old white people. That is what you are trying to put in my mouth. DIdn’t work. Need smarter wingnuts!

American Made

February 25th, 2009
3:43 pm

Ummmmm…i am probably mistaken, often am, but wasn’t that the plan all along well before Obama became President?

Mike

February 25th, 2009
3:43 pm

gttim –

Hmmm. You ramble on with silly attacks on “old, white men” and you are the one calling people wingnuts? Please

NRB

February 25th, 2009
3:44 pm

Mike,

You have to remember that Democrats know squat about money and finance. That’s why all of them are broke and make poor decisions about money.

They refuse to learn, and instead choose to let momma government shelter them at a cost to those of us who are productive and know what we’re doing.

If only are laws were based on Darwin’s principals. We could weed out those of us who are holding us back as a nation and progress at a rate not seen since the industrial revolution.

Of course, Democrats hate true progress. Progress to them means setting a bottom level standard and forcing everyone on earth to remain at that level.

Sad.

gttim

February 25th, 2009
3:44 pm

Taxpayer’s assertion that the total cost of $787 billion at a 10% APR is $866 billion is sheer ignorance.

1/3 of that 787 billion is tax cuts- the largest tax cut ever passed. How come you are trying to add interest to tax cuts? Seems disingenuous at best. Are you saying tax cuts cost us more than the actual cuts? So you would be against them, right?

Bosch

February 25th, 2009
3:46 pm

Paul,

I was just kidding. Of course no one can watch too much Battlestar Galactica – sorry, that’s almost blasphemous talk – it’s Ash Wednesday and when I’m repenting later, I’ll ask for extra forgiveness – it’s late in the afternoon, and I thought it would be fun to wake you up a bit.

Well, hell, of course, Candidate Obama is gonna say that – about Iran and nuclear weapons and we won’t let them get them and we’ll do anything, blah, blah, blah. That’s to appease the war nutters. You know, the guys who scream “but Democrats are soft on national security!!!!! YYYYYAAAAAA!!!!!” You know the type.

“And when you’re dealing with nukes and religious fanatics, you’ve got a dangerous mix”

So incredibly true. But it doesn’t scare me – how they gonna get it over here? In one of their Air Force jets? Oh yeah, they don’t have one.

And who are they anyway? Now I’ve confused myself.

Religious fanatics are more likely to blow themselves up with such a device – they ain’t that smart – the smart ones know you cripple an enemy with wiping out their bank accounts – you know, like what’s going on here.

gttim

February 25th, 2009
3:47 pm

You ramble on with silly attacks on “old, white men” …

Mike why do you feel the need to lie repeatedly. I attacked old, white sheriffs. Again, history is on my side. And wingnut fits. Are you wingnuts going to start throwing stones in your glass houses? You guys toss around more personal insults and names than anybody else I have ever seen.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
3:47 pm

gttim -

“Old white sheriffs are historically immoral. History backs that up.”

What nonsense. Back up the statement that an “old white sheriffs” are “historically” immoral than say, Sidney Dorsey.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9804EFD9143DF935A2575BC0A9649C8B63

Get over your bigotry and recognize that an individual’s morality has nothing to do with his age, race, political affiliation or residence.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
3:48 pm

Observer, it is truly sad that you have to make yourself look like such an udder cow over something so simple. We were talking at the time about annual spending and so, as with the deficit, one typically refers to annualized amounts. On top of that, I did not even attack your silly response in a serious manner but if you wish, let us talk about the whole story instead of your ridiculous little excerpt from time. Look back over the Bush years, for example, and tell me how much interest has been paid out on the nearly 3 trillion dollars in debt that he added to our national debt. Now, run along and do your homework, little fella.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
3:52 pm

I gave you your assignment, tcoach. Now run along like a good little boy and do it or else I will no longer reply to your childish accusations and name-calling again. That’s a good boy.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
3:52 pm

gttim -

When did I “lie repeatedly”?

You are the one who said that “old, white sherrifs are historiclly immoral.” What makes these folks different than other sherrifs who are more moral in your eyes? The fact that they are “old, white people”.

As for the personal insults and names, the only one I throw around is bigot, which your own statements demonstrate you to be. Stop complaining about name calling in a paragraph in which you call people “wingnuts” twice. Also, read the posts above and tell me that conservatives are any more likely to name call than liberals.

Your hypocrisy is laughable.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
3:53 pm

Taxpayer -

I can’t wait to tell my wife that the total payout of our mortgage is only the principal plus 6%. LOL

Mike

February 25th, 2009
3:54 pm

Taxpayer –

When are you going to run along and answer a single question that gets posed to you?

Paul

February 25th, 2009
3:56 pm

Bosch

I’ve gotta duck out for a couple hours, but I knew you were kidding – you can never get too much BSG!!!

Y’know, early on in the Clinton Administration officials pretty much laughed at OBL’s threats and statements because he was just a guy in the mideast with no air force or army – kinda like Stalin’s dismissal of the Pope of “how many divisions does the Pope have?”

All sorts of scenarios exist – and I’m sure Pres Obama’s been briefed on a few – but Israel and our ties to them are a likely possibility. As far as a homeland attack, more than one novel’s been done – heck, I think one was a Vince Flynn novel – where the device sailed into Galveston Harbor, home of more oil and gas storage tanks than just about anywhere, on board a cargo ship. You know, the ones we inspect…

Thinking about the unthinkable. Sobering stuff.

later -

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

February 25th, 2009
3:56 pm

Mike, please forgive me. I have been hanging around Jay’s blogs for a while; it goes without saying that Taxpayer is ignorant, uninformed, and, most of all wrong in the broader scope of things.

However, as best as i can figger, ol’ pea brain arrived at the $866b by adding the corpus ($787b) plus one year’s interest at 10%(78.7m.) Of course this is falacious as one can not reasonably expect the debt arising from the transaction to be repaid in one year. Nonetheless, Taxpayer is incorrigible and i did not feel it worth the effort.

On the other hand, I still hold out hope that Observer can become a productive participant, so I took the time to “Herman Cain” him.

Byll –

NPV aside, Taxpayer’s assertion that the total cost of $787 billion at a 10% APR is $866 billion is sheer ignorance.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
3:57 pm

gttim -

“1/3 of that 787 billion is tax cuts- the largest tax cut ever passed. How come you are trying to add interest to tax cuts?”

Uh, I was pointing out the simplicity of the math that Taxpayer laid out. Take it up with him.

gttim

February 25th, 2009
3:58 pm

When did I “lie repeatedly”?

Every time you said I said something I didn’t. You said I said “Old, white men,” and “Old, white people.” I didn’t.

You are the one who said that “old, white sherrifs are historiclly immoral.” What makes these folks different than other sherrifs who are more moral in your eyes? The fact that they are “old, white people”.

If I say my dog is white, it does not mean all dogs are white. You either a liar, or are stupid. Or both. Study logic a little.

What nonsense. Back up the statement that an “old white sheriffs” are “historically” immoral than say, Sidney Dorsey.

Because one, or more, “old, black sheriff” was immoral does not mean that “old, white sheriffs” were not. Again, I suggest you study logic a little. You are claiming false equivalencies. You can look that word up.

“Old, white sheriffs” have a long history of immorality. You can Google that.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
3:58 pm

Taxpayer
In all seriousness, I think we’re going to see just a bit of military action out of this administration. They may dress it up as “humanitarian action” but it’s still using American military forces to impose America’s view of morality on the world. And, it’s already begun. George Clooney missed the Oscars so he could tell Pres Obama about the Darfur disaster. Get ready – we’re going in.
And if we find out Pres Obama’s statements on Iran weren’t (what was his phrase?) ‘campaign rhetoric’ then we can also get ready for (to use VP Biden’s words) “an uptick” in American casualties.

Paul,

I suppose time will tell. As I have said before, our going into Afghanistan was justified since the Taliban were clearly in bed with those that attacked us. I cannot say the same for Iraq unless one views it as a gigantic mistake on the part of the US back in Reagan’s day. Then, one could look at Saddam’s reign of terror as being at least partially our fault and that we needed to undo that mess and then get out and let things develop as they should — without our nose in it. Then, there is Obama goodwill effort with the Gaze rebuilding and the message that sends and Iran is now wanting to start up serious talks with us. We will see how things go.

NRB

February 25th, 2009
4:00 pm

Why do I have the feeling that “taxpayer” is more like “welfare recepient”.

Democrats hardly pay any taxes at all…if anything they get back more than what they ever pay into “the system”. The free lunch express.

I could never sleep at night knowing that I was letting the government steal from others,at gunpoint, on my behalf so that I could just take easy street and work 8 hours per day at a lame job that a 12 year old could do.

gttim

February 25th, 2009
4:01 pm

Uh, I was pointing out the simplicity of the math that Taxpayer laid out. Take it up with him.

You didn’t answer the question. Plus, my point supports Taxpayers claim that the trillion dollar thing you wingnuts keep bringing up is wrong, and Taxpayer is right. If Taxpayers math was so simplistic, why didn’t you point out the other wrong parts. Oh, because they did not assert you wingnuts lie?

GodHatesTrash, Superstar

February 25th, 2009
4:03 pm

gttim, the Bookman RightWingnutterbutters think slavery, lynching, and Jim Crow were all moral.

So naturally they think those ol’ white sheriffs were just nice good ol’ boys.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
4:04 pm

Hey, what do you kids expect. I’m one lone retiree trying to teach a whole class that all has its hands up at the same time. It’s really cool — all the interest — but my little ole phalanges can only move so fast and on top of that, I had to leave to pick up my daughter from school and then come back and figure out where I left off and start up my posts again. I have not had this much excitement since earlier today with my exchange with Dusty.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
4:05 pm

Oops. The “kids” reference was not meant for all such as Paul, Mrs. G, Midori, BD, DB, well, you know.

NRB

February 25th, 2009
4:11 pm

Yeah, we really care.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
4:12 pm

gttim –

“Every time you said I said something I didn’t. You said I said “Old, white men,” and “Old, white people.” I didn’t.”

First of all, as I demonstrated it wasn’t a lie. Second of all, even if it was, it was a single event. Do you know what repeatedly means?

“If I say my dog is white, it does not mean all dogs are white. You either a liar, or are stupid. Or both. Study logic a little.”

Thanks for the silly ad-hominem attack. My response actually was a very logical argument. You just aren’t capable of understanding it. To use your analogy, what you said is “Dogs are historically white”, not “your dog”.

“Because one, or more, “old, black sheriff” was immoral does not mean that “old, white sheriffs” were not. Again, I suggest you study logic a little. You are claiming false equivalencies. You can look that word up.”

Again, you are very confused, but most bigots are.

I was simply pointing out that you don’t have to white to be an immoral sheriff. I never claimed that there are no immoral white sheriffs. (I am saying “are” instead of “were”, as your intital bigoted comment was in the present tense.)

Can you provide any logic for your statement that “old, white” sheriffs are more likely to be immoral than other sheriffs?

““Old, white sheriffs” have a long history of immorality. You can Google that.”

Hmm. That sounds like a Midori line. When pressed to back up one of her silly claims, she tells people to just Google it. Well, I did and it provided nothing to back up your claim. How about you backing up your bigoted argument.

And remember, your argument has to be “logical”, meaning that the exisitence of a few immoral “old, white sheriffs” does not prove that they tend to be immoral, as you claimed.

Frankly, I just think you have apply a bunch of stereotypes from movies and tv to the real world. Thats what bigots do.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
4:15 pm

Trash –

“gttim, the Bookman RightWingnutterbutters think slavery, lynching, and Jim Crow were all moral.”

What a silly statement. Please give any supporting evidence to your claim that anyone on this board thinks slavery, lynching and Jim Crow laws were moral. I know that your twisted, ignorant and bigoted mind likes to think this, but please present any evidence.

“So naturally they think those ol’ white sheriffs were just nice good ol’ boys.”

Nah, we just think that bigoted stereotypes like the ones you throw out every day are rooted in ignorance.

DebbieDoRight

February 25th, 2009
4:15 pm

Doesn’t anyone remember the treaty that Bush signed with the Iraqis before he left office? You know the one where All American troops would be out by the end of 2011?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-12-14-bush-iraq_N.htm

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
4:16 pm

All right, you mathematically challenged kids. Someone in the thread below, possibly Observer, made the claim that the 787 billion dollar package would cost over a trillion dollars with interest added and the context, as I recall was with respect to the deficit spending of over 1 trillion dollars that Bush left us with. If I am wrong about the context then pull up the series of posts to point it out. Anyway, to keep the comparison in an apples-to-apples sort of consistency, one would need to add in the annualized interest to the 787 billion and I jokingly threw in a 10 APR value to prove that even that outrageous amount would not push the 787 billion to the trillion dollar deficit level that Bush left us with and that is assuming that the trillion dollar level even included things like the war expenditures and interest. Does it? Anyone. K. Any more questions on this topic?

Chad Harris

February 25th, 2009
4:19 pm

At this moment, there have been no significant political decisions made in Iraq. They have been kicked down the road continually, and I don’t expect them to be made by 2011. Oil division and administration is still a bone of contention among the 3 factions there. Territorial division among the 3 has not been decided. The disposition of Muqtada el-Sadir’s massive force that can turn Iraq into a killing freny.

Tom Ricks has called the surge an uncategorical political failure, because the above problems were supposed to be resolved during the surge and not a finger has been lifted to resolve them.

This has been emphasized by every credible journalist who has spent most of the entire occupation on the ground in Iraq including Ware from Time, Richard Engle, NBC’s Chief Foreign Correspondent, and Tom Ricks who has been there at length many times.

I would put the chances of Obama’s drawing down to 50-60,000 by 2011 at about 30-70.

I don’t know how many of you have been to Vatican City, but that’s the size of the enormous fortress of an embassy that has been constructed. The secret cost estimates are well over a billion.

In case you haven’t been to Vatican city but have been to or seen a football game, the new embassy is the size of 80 (eighty) football fields. Why the cost and size is so prodigious or Ginormous is a great question that no one seems to want to answer.

“What kind of embassy is it when everybody lives inside and it’s blast-proof, and people are running around with helmets and crouching behind sandbags?” Edward Peck, a former American diplomat in Iraq, asked in 2006.

The cost of running this boondoggle will be so off the wall high that plans are being made to rent out part of it–to whom, and how security is going to work when and if that is done is a novel question but it sounds plain whacky.

Many have suggested that it be built far underground.

What we have succeeded in buiding is an exponentially increasing upward curve on the graph of female suicide bombers.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
4:19 pm

gttim -

“You didn’t answer the question.”

Yes I did, but let me be more explicit: I never made any statements as to ultimate cost of the stimulus. I was simply pointing out how ignorant Taxpayer’s math was.

“Plus, my point supports Taxpayers claim that the trillion dollar thing you wingnuts keep bringing up is wrong, and Taxpayer is right”

OK. If Taxpayer is right, provide the formula for how he arrived at his $866 number. Personally it looks to me that he multiplied $787 time 10% and added it to the principal which comes to $865.7 which rounds up to $866.

Please provide me with your formula, and no calling me a wingnut and a liar is not a formula. LOL

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
4:20 pm

Wyld Bull,

I have called you out before and you declined. Are you now accepting my offer to put it on the line for Jay to decide? Any time dude. Put up or shut up, like I have had to tell you repeatedly now.

gttim

February 25th, 2009
4:21 pm

First of all, as I demonstrated it wasn’t a lie. Second of all, even if it was, it was a single event. Do you know what repeatedly means?

I documented two. Two is repeatedly. Can you not count either?

Thanks for the silly ad-hominem attack. My response actually was a very logical argument.

It was not “ad-hominem.” It was directly on point.

I was simply pointing out that you don’t have to white to be an immoral sheriff.

Which I never expressed, nor disagree with.

Can you provide any logic for your statement that “old, white” sheriffs are more likely to be immoral than other sheriffs?

Here is one. This will also show you how to find others.

And remember, your argument has to be “logical”, meaning that the exisitence of a few immoral “old, white sheriffs” does not prove that they tend to be immoral, as you claimed.

Actually, there are lots of cases, and finding a high number would be able to allow you to claim that ” “old, white sheriffs” does not prove that they tend to be immoral.”

Another one! Not in the civil rights time.

Sorry, I don’t have time to do research for you.We know I am right, however.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
4:21 pm

Taxpayer -

Ohhhh. Taxpayer was just joking when he was dead wrong. That’s so much easier than just admitting he was wrong. LOL

gttim – Why don’t you ask Taxpayer your tax cut question? You can call him a wingnut and a liar if it soothes your fragile ego.

gttim

February 25th, 2009
4:23 pm

Actually, there are lots of cases, and finding a high number would be able to allow you to claim that ” “old, white sheriffs” does not prove that they tend to be immoral.”

Should be:

Actually, there are lots of cases, and finding a high number would be able to allow you to claim that “old, white sheriffs do tend to be immoral.”

Copy and paste error.

gttim

February 25th, 2009
4:25 pm

Mike, be a man and accept that you are wrong, and quit trying to deflect blame. You wingnuts always whine that it is somebody else’s fault! That is not what real men do! They accept blame when they are wrong. Suck it up. Your whining is really unbecoming.

NRB

February 25th, 2009
4:25 pm

“The long-term cost of the $825 billion economic recovery package before Congress could rise to $1.2 trillion over 10 years, a top budget official said Tuesday.”

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/27/news/economy/stimulus_spending/index.htm?postversion=2009012709

caz1158

February 25th, 2009
4:26 pm

I’m tryin to figure out “burger boy” claim that the right love war’s. Enlighten us oh great one (in your own mind),what party was in power when the majority of wars were started? Like all normal humans,I wish there other ways to solve problems besides war. But as long as there are LOONEY’S in this world that do TERRIBLE things there will be war. Can anyone tell me of a time in the history of man when there was’nt a war somewhere? You don’t have to think hard-there has’nt been a time.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
4:26 pm

gttim -

LOL. You are so predictable. I knew you would throw Bull Conner out there. LOL

Yes. Bull Conner was a bad man. And the source of his badness? The fact that he was old and white. LOL

How about googling “old white sheriffs” like you said?

Your bigotry is pathetic, but hey, if you think that one’s age and race is a good indicator of your morality, good for you.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
4:27 pm

From gttim, …Need smarter wingnuts…

Now wouldn’t that be a pleasant change. Then again, they would no longer be wingnuts. Such a conundrum — we desire smarter wingnuts so we can finally have decent exchanges with the knuckle-draggers yet they would necessarily evolve into non-wingnuts in order for that decent exchange to take place.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
4:29 pm

gttim -

Please tell me what I was wrong about.

The fact that I don’t think being old and white makes you more likely be an immoral sheriff

or

The fact that I think that Taxpayer’s math was a joke

Be specific and feel free to call me a wingnut or some other silly attack.

gttim

February 25th, 2009
4:32 pm

“The long-term cost of the $825 billion economic recovery package before Congress could rise to $1.2 trillion over 10 years, a top budget official said Tuesday.”

One month ago. More than the actual plan passed. Again, interest on tax cuts? Plus, the only reason the number could possibly be that high is because we are still paying Reagan and Bush and Bush’s debt still. It is hard to pay off debt when you are saddled with the debt of previous spendthrifts.

Still, way to high. Why do you guys suddenly trust a number coming from the government?

Hey, I would love to play longer, but I have a life!

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
4:33 pm

You guys toss around more personal insults and names than anybody else I have ever seen.

gttim,

Some of them even get all bent out of shape if you call them Republicans. They even resort to calling themselves Constitutionalist whatevers and Liberated Libertarians, etc., and all while proudly proclaiming to have voted for the Republican candidate.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
4:34 pm

gttim –

Here is some logic for you

A) Taxpayer said:

“I will no longer reply to your childish accusations and name-calling again”

b) Taxpayer then said:

“Such a conundrum — we desire smarter wingnuts so we can finally have decent exchanges with the knuckle-draggers yet they would necessarily evolve into non-wingnuts in order for that decent exchange to take place.”

c) Taxpayer is a hypocrite

I’d call him a wingnut too, but apprently that term can only be applied to people who disagree with him. On the other hand, AmVet and GodHatesTrash are reasonable fellow by virtue of the fact that they hate conservatives too.

Pogo

February 25th, 2009
4:35 pm

If anyone here thinks that only Republican politicians benefit from war and they only are susceptible to the enticements of the money to be made from wars, then these people are simplistic fools. The Democrats are as much involved in the allocation of defense monies and they have been for quite a while now. Don’t fool yourselves into thinking that Democrats haven’t been wined and dined by the defense contractors, the oil companies and anyone else with a vested interest in Iran. They are just as vunerable as the Republicans. What always amazes me the most about this blog is just how simplistic and how easily you people think you can define the differences between conservatives and liberals. It is not a case where the specifics are black and white folks. It is more a case of gray and there are plenty of our politicians on both sides that just “love to be loved” (in the words of David Bowie)who live operate in this gray zone. Simply stated, they play you all for suckers by throwing out this idealistic “us against them” bull tripe which so readily swallow.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
4:38 pm

gttim –

“Still, way to high. Why do you guys suddenly trust a number coming from the government?”

Yeah, why should we trust the Director of the CBO when we can use Taxpayer’s brilliant math.

Are you ever going to “be a man” and provide the formula that backs up your assertion that “Taxpayer was right?”. Or you could “be a man” and admit that you were wrong.

Let me guess. You will do neither and call me a liar, a wingnut or something else..

Mike

February 25th, 2009
4:38 pm

Pogo -

Well said and every word is the truth.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
4:39 pm

I recall the AJC doing a piece (or, at least referencing it) on some of the ways in the good old days down southern way where some companies were in need of cheap, as in no cost, labor to do stuff like make bricks and the local good old boy, as in old white sheriff, was more than happy to round up folks to serve in chains for doing nothing but being in the wrong place at the right time. Perhaps Jay, if he’s around, could provide a link to that story for the reading pleasure of some folks on this here blog.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
4:40 pm

gttim ?

The formula please?

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

February 25th, 2009
4:41 pm

Taxpayer

You have called me out before, but I did not decline, I called submitting to “arbitration by Jay” stupid, meritless idea. I imagine, though, that you touch yourself, whenever you think of Jay having dominion over you.

Why don’t you get off the high noon fantasy of “calling out” me and just deal with the facts. Addled as it may be, even though mind would have troubles contorting principal plus one year’s interest into cost.
February 25th, 2009
4:20 pm
Wyld Bull,

I have called you out before and you declined. Are you now accepting my offer to put it on the line for Jay to decide? Any time dude. Put up or shut up, like I have had to tell you repeatedly now.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
4:43 pm

Taxpayer -

Well gee Taxpayer. Your vague recollection of an event that might have happened or not definitely proves the case that old white sheriffs are inherently immoral.

Did the article that you think you might remember start off with “The old, white sheriff..” LOL

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
4:45 pm

If someone has a simple interest loan for 6% APR, then they should be upset if they find out that they are paying more than 6% annually on the outstanding principal. I’d call my Congressman or Senator or someone and complain if it were otherwise. Also, watch out for those nasty pre-payment penalties that some of those low-lifes like to sneak into those contracts. Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do…

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
4:47 pm

Call it whatever you want to Wyld Bull but the bottom line is that you declined. You’re a coward and all you will do is continue your little rants — rants full of Wyld Bull.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
4:49 pm

Of course, if someone really wanted to check out my vague recollection, they could contact Jay and ask him instead of, well, you know, “w”ing about it.

John Galt Jr.

February 25th, 2009
4:58 pm

Taxpayer-exactly how much tax did YOU pay last year? Do you know?

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
5:02 pm

My jokes are, sometimes, obvious but I’m obviously not dead wrong and I’m not joking.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
5:04 pm

Taxpayer -

Man you are grasping at straws with these last few posts. Why are you are so desperate to prove your stereotypes of “old, white sheriffs”?

Feel free to call me a wingnut for daring to question your “evidence”. Of course, anyone who doesn’t share your opinions is wingnut, unlike the rational people who do like AmVet and GodHatesTrash. LOL

gttim -

Where did you slink off to? I want to see the formula that proves Taxpayer was right or I want you to do as you say and “be a man and admit you were wrong.:

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
5:06 pm

John Galt,

Which “tax” would you be referring to and by “tax” do you include all things labeled “fees” as well or what. You are being far too vague. Are you a Republican and if so, what do “Drill, baby drill” and “I believe in family values” mean to the inquiring taxpaying voter.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
5:07 pm

I offered up a viable approach to one person’s dilemma with all things vague. That person can choose to accept it or not. Makes no difference to me.

John Galt Jr.

February 25th, 2009
5:09 pm

Total tax liability-excluding sales tax. That would mean county-federal-state-FICA.I paid almost 73K. Do you know? Taxpayer.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
5:10 pm

John Galt -

Look out! Taxpayer is about to blow! He is spouting boilerplate rhetoric completely unrelated to the discussion.

caz1158

February 25th, 2009
5:10 pm

POGO-Excellent blog!!!!

John Galt Jr.

February 25th, 2009
5:11 pm

Let me guess-you qualify for the EITC. Redistribution of others hard earned money.

John Galt Jr.

February 25th, 2009
5:13 pm

Mike, in my years as a business owner, it is my experience most people have no clue what hey pay, only what the “get back”. Usually what they get back came from others who carry the water.

AmVet

February 25th, 2009
5:14 pm

34% of Americans support the Afghan “surge”. Knowing that the neoliths here prefer anecdotes and irrelevant clichés and hate numbers as a basis for stating positions, I will press ahead anyway.

That means that about two thirds of us do not support Quagmire, Part Deux.

The fundamental question is what does the Do Nothing Right Party do? Do they play along with the misguided business as usual commander-in-chief to keep their blood lusting base satisfied. Or do they risk being seen as pansy “liberals” and advocate no surge?

BTW, Ed Koch wrote a fantastic article at Newsmax about this topic.

So who has written Suxby? What’s his position on this? And what’s the story with the rest of you chest pounders? Yeah or nay?

Mikey the Chaste and Pure? Dusty? Duhng?

Two more divisions?

This just keeps getting better and better…

NRB

February 25th, 2009
5:20 pm

Better yet, AmVet, will the liberal media take Obama to task for maintaining the Afghanastan war, or will we just get more front page stories about his new pet dog and favorite rap cd?

AmVet

February 25th, 2009
5:29 pm

I was pretty amazed that only Joey noted with satisfaction the crash of the recently launched satellite to study global warming.

I’d though the flat-earthers would be rejoicing en masse and attributing it to ___’s will. (it’s an old Jewish thing)

But of course, Curly and the other stooges may have noted it with glee and I would never have noticed.

And though I’ve ragged on Obama quite a bit recently, at least he overturned The Hero of the Texas ANG’s edict to promote mercury poisoning.

The days of the science-free White house are thankfully behind us.

Thank (your favorite deity here.)

Chad Harris

February 25th, 2009
5:31 pm

Let’s see the former Soviet Union had about 170,000 and couldn’g do jack in Afghanistan militarily. The US is going to have 10% of that, pulling resources from Iraq and will put a minimal dent in the instalibity and Taliban dominance that is now solidified in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Bush threw about 10-12 billion into a dictator’s hands in Pakistan, and there is nothing to show for it except Taliban dominance.

Gates himself has said several times that you are not going to control Afghanistan by increasing troops there without many other types of resources. Gates told Bushie explicitly to quit casting Afghanistan and Pakistan in WWII terms that are completely nonapplicable and outdated. He told Senate Foreign Relations Committee that several times. He told House Armed Services. He told Senate Armed Forces the same thing.

Pakistan is very ripe for the Taliban stronger than ever on the Afgan Pakistan border to pick off, and they have nukes. They also have a consummately weak, completely corrupt government that’s on the verge of bankruptcy.

They seem to be completely indifferent to American efforts and have forged a poicy of cooperation with the Taliban.

Nice job Bushie.

It’s an inherentance you left Obama that Dante couldn’t have dreamed up with all those circles.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
5:31 pm

AmVet -

I don’t know what exactly you are asking me, as you are being your usual incogerrent self.

If you are asking what I think of the Afghan War, I don’t think escalation is the answer. I think we should stop trying to change the Afghan society and focus on smaller deployments focused on more targetted raids on AQ elements.

I have answered your question (I think). How about answering one of mine for once:

Why am I “chest pounder”? I know that you ascribe silly stereotypes on any who dare disagree with your “analysis”, but please tell me what I have said to fit the “chest pounder” label.

Frankly, I think a guy who constantly uses his service to diminish the opinions of other is chest pounder, but hey I am a “wingnut”, right?

Chad Harris

February 25th, 2009
5:36 pm

Bush through 10-12 billion per month into a dictator’s hands in Pakistan and ended up with a Pakistan government policy of complete cooperation with the Taliban.

During the Bush years, Iran matured to the cusp of nuclear bomb capability and soon will have multiple nuclear bombs.

Whether Pakistan can keep the Taliban from taking over their nukes is an open question.

From muck:

“Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s financial woes continue, as a special investigator hired by the Alaska Personnel Board looking into trips taken by the first family insists that Palin reimburse the state for nine trips taken by her children.”

How much and from how many did you steel girl?

Chad Harris

February 25th, 2009
5:38 pm

We only blew 235 million in direct costs of the satellite that just crashed and burned, and another 50 million in administrative costs.

It’s only money and this government is flush with it during the highest level of prosperity in history.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
5:41 pm

Chad Harris -

Do you also consider Geithner and Daschle to have “stolen” as well? Or is this another example of your hypocritical partisanship?

Chad Harris

February 25th, 2009
5:45 pm

In the good luck with this one turkeys category:

A group of wealthy conserviative republicans is suing USB to keep them from giving DOJ and IRS their identities in their illegal tax shelter activities claiming that they are violating Swiss bank secrecy laws.

They are doing this in a US District Court and last time I checked, the US does not have bank secrecy laws and the US has not adopted the bank secrecy laws of Switzerland.

PT Barnum said “a sucker is born every minute” and in this case he meant the attorneys suing and their Republican USB clients.

In regard to Iraq I should have mentioned that the US has stupidly been shoveling millions at insurgents of all stripes trying to bribe and pay them not to kill US soldiers. It ain’t workin.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
5:49 pm

Chad –

“In regard to Iraq I should have mentioned that the US has stupidly been shoveling millions at insurgents of all stripes trying to bribe and pay them not to kill US soldiers. It ain’t workin.”

Well, in another (more literal way) it is working.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

DebbieDoRight

February 25th, 2009
6:00 pm

U know what I’m tired of? I’m tired of the media calling Katherine Johnston’s MURDER a “botched” drug raid. It wasn’t botched!!! It was ILLEGAL.

Chad Harris

February 25th, 2009
6:00 pm

Mike asked me:

Chad Harris -

Do you also consider Geithner and Daschle to have “stolen” as well? Or is this another example of your hypocritical partisanship?

Sure and I’ve said so 15 times in the last month, but there is a big difference in degree and criminal liability and UBS clients now have the latter.

Surveys from the IRS just completed estimate that as to the Geithner violations, 85% of the people in Geithner’s category are tax cheating.

I would refer you to read any of my last 15 posts on Tim Geithner, but I understand you just want to take a shortcut and force me to repeat myself. I have already addressed the contrast between UBS’s very wealthy clients deliberate shoveling of millions off shore in Swiss banks to avoid taxes and Geithner’s income tax violations. I was explicit in condeming Geithner, and particularly because although the statute of limitations had run for his previous taxes not paid, he had broken the law in those years (I believe it was in 2002 and 2003 but I’d have to check those years).

So we’re talking about tax violations of course on the part of Tim Geithner and the UBS clients now pending indictment on tax charges, but there is an exponential amount of difference in their violations. That’s why Geithner isn’t being prosecuted and they will be.

The bigger concern for you and me now should be that Geithner did a miserable job with Lehman Brothers regulation as it crashed back in Sept. 2008 when he was head of the NY Fed., and in regulating Wall Street and Coordinating with the egregiously ineffective incometent SEC during many years of Madoff and other fiascos.

I consider Daschle to have stolen tax wise as well, and it was a tawdry arrogant let ‘em eat cake blot on the career of a terifically talented guy. However the good news there is that it afforded the now magnificent opportunity to put a high quality internist who is a superb political operative in at HHS when we need a revamp of health care from the stand point of patient coverage and issues like the recent stealing of hundreds of millions of dollars by United Health Care from myself and other physicians. United was recently forced into a $350 million dollar settlement in NY with AG Coumo and with the AMA, the Medical Society of News York, and the Missouri State Medical Association with other state settlements pending.

No one is better qualified to be HHS Secretary than Governor Howard Dean. He makes Kathy Sibelius look like a little leager. Hopefully he’ll be nominated.

Chad Harris

February 25th, 2009
6:06 pm

I’m sorry for the spelling errors. There aren’t that many but I see them and know better but don’t catch them on the fly. I have to hit this when I can.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
6:09 pm

Well, John Galt, thanks for not including sales tax because then I’d have to pull up Quick Books and Quicken (we do business and person taxes with different programs and on different computers) and do a lot of tedious work to answer your question and that’s just not the sort of thing that this old retired dude likes to do (the business is my wife’s and I just help). Anyway, without actually pulling out the Turboxtax records for last year and adding on taxes that we don’t get to deduct, I’d estimate that we had to pay several thousand dollars even after I get that earned income credit for my daughter. That’s a real bummer isn’t it. But, what really gets my goat, Galt, is the fact that I had to pay Capital Gains tax on her holdings last year. That really sucked, doncha know. When she turns 18, she’s paying her own dang taxes. Now, is there anything else that you would like to know about my personal life, John Galt, or is that sufficient for you. Further, do tell me what you think of me now. Do you hate me for living off of your dime, John Galt. After all, that earned income credit could have included a dime out of all those taxes that you paid. But, wait a moment. You did not state that you actually paid $73k, did you. Anyway, you just wait until I am old enough to collect my Social Security. Yes, I said MY Social Security. After all, I paid in and I have a right to MY money. What do you think about that. Do you want to just throw me to the wolves. Well, wait until you are paying my Medical Bills, Hack, Hack. Ouch, such a nasty cough. Tell me more, John Galt. You are a most curious one indeed.

Chad Harris

February 25th, 2009
6:13 pm

I should add that thus far to my knowledge, Governor Sarah Palin has not been prosecuted for her tax violations and probably will not be although she has violated state and federal tax laws and is paying them back as well as the money she stole for 8 trips for her childern I have no information she plans to resign as governor of Alaska.

According to the special investigator, the state of Alaska will only pay for family travel if family members serve an important state interest on the trip. Palin has 120 days to pay up.

The special investigator works for the Alaska Personnel Board that Governor Palin hand picked and appointed herself. There are no plans right now to see prosecution of Governor Palin for the per diem money she stole from the US government or the state of Alaska or the trip for her kiddies money she stole from the state of Alaska.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
6:19 pm

Dang, Jay, this thread actually generated a little fun for me today even though much of it had nothing to do with Iraq

Anyway, I just plain lost track of where I was amongst all those inquiring minds but I tried to answer as many as I could in between picking up my daughter and fixing supper. I do hope that I did not leave too many of you kids hanging — Chad likely took care of you if I did though. If that was the case then a belated thanks, Chad.

Chad Harris

February 25th, 2009
6:37 pm

Last night in his exhortation to make move the right wing more to the right from where they are already in free fall, Governor Bobby Jindal made a rebuttal to the President:

Jindal has made a request for a billion dollar hurricaine project for the entire Louisiana Coast but he doesn’t want monitoring of Volcanos to protect other states who have them. Floods can drown you and volcanos can burn you to death or cause respiratory failure, and the ash can cause a gamut of respiratory problems.

If you’re within range of a volcano (stone mountain does not qualify) then it sure is nice to know when it’s going to erupt and how to keep from ingesting or inhaling the ash.

What should government do? A Jindal meditation

I thought Governor Jindal had a novel idea that since his party can’t be trusted to govern, you can’t trust government. That will be back in his face during any potential future primary.

Mr. Krugman has said that “the party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead.” He did not say whether Governor Jindal is Beavis or Butthead.

The Republican party then is posturing as the party of no government? It’s going to take more votes than the 20% or so who are the base.

tcoach

February 25th, 2009
6:42 pm

Taxpayer,
Sorry about that had something to do.

Looked around and was unable to find your answer.

Did see some awful math by you and others, but no answer to my question.

You have, I have shown with your own words, that you place the blame on political parties for what their constituants do. Therefor answer the question and I know because you are old you think you get to tell others what to do. But since it is obvious the only reason you do that is to avoid having to back up any of your claims when pressed.

You are a sad joke sir.

Quit with your bullying of other posters, or correct your earlier statements. A man with integrity would however once again I have read your post for a while now.

tcoach

February 25th, 2009
6:45 pm

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
4:47 pm
Call it whatever you want to Wyld Bull but the bottom line is that you declined. You’re a coward and all you will do is continue your little rants — rants full of Wyld Bull.

Did you seriously post that after you have dodged me since like 12:30 today?

How do you even take your own thoughts as a credible source, worth listening to?

A little void of character are we?

G

February 25th, 2009
6:58 pm

The fallacy of “they all saw the same intelligence” was a flat out lie. What happened to all the Intel that said Saddam did not have a nuke program. Did you hear this from Bush even once?

They voted to give Bush a big stick. A tool to get Saddam to listen. A tool that would be the absolute last and final option.

Bush got the vote and started moving troops.

He lied to the American people about the validity of the threat, he lied when he said it would be a last option, he even lied in the State of the Union address about a phony report about yellow cake.

This is why most intelligent people did not want this war, and why most intelligent
people wanted to catch bin Laden and his network in Afghanistan.

This was Bush’s war. It had zero to do with our security.

As for members in Congress? Yes, blame them for not identifying Bush as the lying piece of dirt he is. Who would have thought a President would stoop that low?

I find so amusing that the so called “pro-American” parts of this country think it is a good sacrifice of our soldiers for a war about oil, for it certainly was not about our security and our freedom.

tcoach

February 25th, 2009
6:59 pm

Chad Harris

February 25th, 2009
5:45 pm
In the good luck with this one turkeys category:

A group of wealthy conserviative republicans is suing USB to keep them from giving DOJ and IRS their identities in their illegal tax shelter activities claiming that they are violating Swiss bank secrecy laws.

Chad is that true it is known to be republicans or is that your guess? (site please)

Because last I checked on that issue it was filed under the lawyer’s name to protect the client. Could be a republican, democrat, independant, or anything.

If there has been a new development that shows PROOF, not opinion, that it is an active member of the republican party then I am sorry for any misguided allegations, and I thank you for the link.

If you have no proof……..

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
7:14 pm

I gave you your task, tcoach, and you have yet to even attempt it. The dodging is clearly yours. Now, try again and please stick to the facts next time.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
7:16 pm

tcoach, since you have made a lame attempt to question my math prowess, please provide details so I can disprove your claim. It will be my pleasure, little fella.

Chad Harris

February 25th, 2009
7:59 pm

I will have proof when that list is released based on the simple demography that 99% if not higher of millionaires who illegally hid their money with USB and are now beginning to serve the mental sentence that people do when they face indictment.

If you didn’t pick up on it Tcoach, they have zero chance of prevailing in their suit in federal court. USB has already agreed by contract with DOJ in a great settlement for USB.

That deferred prosecution agreement is not going to be nullified by a civil suit.

I will be delighted to give you access to the list as soon as it is provided. I wouldn’t expect to find many dems on the list but to be sure there may be some.

Are you headed to Alaaka to cheer Palin for paying back the money she illegally stole from your government?

catlady

February 25th, 2009
8:25 pm

Wyld Bill, those folks who subsist on welfare and food stamps can file to get the Income Credit money, I believe.

gttim

February 26th, 2009
9:05 am

Mike:

gttim -

LOL. You are so predictable. I knew you would throw Bull Conner out there. LOL

You are in fact an idiot. I did not bring up Bull O’Conner. My God, learn to read. Stupid, stupid wingnut!

gttim -

Where did you slink off to? I want to see the formula that proves Taxpayer was right or I want you to do as you say and “be a man and admit you were wrong.:

As I mentioned, I have a life. Evidently you do not. You live hear on Bookman’s page. You should really get a GF, a job, hobbies.

Assuming compounded interest at 4% of the actual spending in the bill, it will take 21 years to reach 1.2 trillion. If it is not paid off before then, that is only because of the debt left by Reagan, Bush and Bush. If those morons had not run up such huge deficits, we might not be in this situation to begin with. But if we were not paying the debt service on those debts, we would pay off the stimulus much earlier. Oh, and the CBO report you are citing that is a month old using old data, was requested by Republicans. I am certain they included assumptions for it, and those assumptions are certainly wrong. So no, I do not buy it. You can figure out the math. Or maybe you can’t, which is why you are a wingnut.

Don’t look for me to toy with you much today. I like being productive. Toying with wingnuts in their wasteland of stupidity is fun sometimes, but I am not about to make it my life, like you do.

The light at the end of the Iraq tunnel….

144 comments Add your comment

About Jay Bookman

Search this blog

Recent Posts

Archives

More from the AJC

Blogroll

FairTax archive

Laffer Curve debunked

The House GOP budget

All AJC blogs »

Tell us what you think about the site

Subscribe »

Customer Care »

AJC Services

Sections

Other Editions

Guides

Affiliates

Advertising

AJC Sites

Special Reports

Blogs

Opinion

Blogs

Topics

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Topics

Features

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

The light at the end of the Iraq tunnel….

144 comments Add your comment

About Jay Bookman

Search this blog

Recent Posts

Archives

More from the AJC

Blogroll

FairTax archive

Laffer Curve debunked

The House GOP budget

All AJC blogs »

Tell us what you think about the site

Subscribe »

Customer Care »

AJC Services

Sections

Other Editions

Guides

Affiliates

Advertising

AJC Sites