New Quote

Yep I updated the quote at the top of the page--so enjoy. Read it over and over again, and pass it along to your friends.

The Sixth Great Supply Side Periods

Larry Kudlow, conservative commentator, lists Six Great Supply Side periods, of which the sixth is the current economic disaster we call the Bush Economic Plan. Let's look at some of the earlier periods to see what we might need to get ready for.

1). Ulysses S. Grants presidency (1872?). Of course Grant's presidency is remembered also for scandal. After all, check out this passage from an essay by an Illinois Junior High School Student.

Grant is often accused of failing as a president because of the many scandals and the corruption that marked his presidency. The federal government's corruption was, for the most part, due to the spoils system. Because Grant was unwise in his appointments within the federal government, many of those under him proved themselves untrustworthy. Although Grant was not personally involved in any of these scandals, he is blamed because he stood by those people.

2). Presidents Harding and Coolidge (1921 to 1928). Of course again we have the spectacle of corruption. As the White House website comments on President Harding, "By 1923 the postwar depression seemed to be giving way to a new surge of prosperity, and newspapers hailed Harding as a wise statesman carrying out his campaign promise--"Less government in business and more business in government."

Behind the facade, not all of Harding's Administration was so impressive. Word began to reach the President that some of his friends were using their official positions for their own enrichment. Alarmed, he complained, "My...friends...they're the ones that keep me walking the floors nights!"

Looking wan and depressed, Harding journeyed westward in the summer of 1923, taking with him his upright Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover. "If you knew of a great scandal in our administration," he asked Hoover, "would you for the good of the country and the party expose it publicly or would you bury it?" Hoover urged publishing it, but Harding feared the political repercussions.

He did not live to find out how the public would react to the scandals of his administration. In August of 1923, he died in San Francisco of a heart attack. "

Also, shortly after the Harding and Coolidge Administration (within a matter of months, really) we have what has come to be known as the Great Depression.

The third Period was under JFK (1961-63). Not much to say there--everybody wants to connect their ideas to JFK. Funny how the fifties are remembered a time of incredible prosperity, and then JFK institutes his policy of Supply Side Economics and we get the seventies--but of course that was LBJ's fault.

The Fourth Period was under Ronald Reagan (of course). I'm not going to comment on any scandals in the Reagan administration, but I will comment that his economic policies did empty out the budget.

I'll just quote Kudlow here. "The fifth was -- if you can believe it -- Bill Clinton's second term." Not sure I can believe it--but since Kudlow isn't offering any evidence, I guess I have no choice. But once again we see that the economy tanked right after Supply Side theories were put into place. And didn't Clinton go through some kind of impeachment scandal his second term?

So now that we have our Sixth Supply Side President we know what to expect--a scandal ridden administration and a despression/panic. Something to look forward to.

Of course this is all based on the flimsiest of threads. So don't be surprised if I am wrong.

Troubling Comments

Salon printed an interview with Ray McGovern, a 27 year veteran of the CIA who's organization, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, has recently sent a letter calling for Dick Cheney's Resignation. In it he talks about the failure of intelligence.

"The current situation is, by definition, a huge problem for the intelligence community. The people not at all demoralized right now, by and large, occupy senior-level positions. It's a sad commentary, because leadership is the key. George Tenet is very malleable and likes to be a team player. Witness what he did on Feb. 5: He sat himself down behind Colin Powell as Powell served up this embroidery of intelligence information before the U.N. Security Council, and Tenet sat there like a potted plant, as if to indicate that the CIA stands -- or sits -- behind everything the secretary of state is saying.

That was an incredibly demoralizing gesture for folks in the CIA who've resisted tremendous pressure ever since 9/11 to prove a link between Iraq and 9/11. There's no evidence of that, and these people, to their great credit, said, "Sir, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to write something I don't believe." So here's Tenet sitting behind Powell, and Powell's drawing a picture of al-Qaida operatives in Iraq. Sure, there were a couple there, but what Powell didn't say was they were in a place that was not controlled by Saddam's government. [The small Ansar al-Islam militant group, which fought Saddam from its enclave in northern Iraq until its fighters were killed or expelled during the war, has been linked to al-Qaida.] So the evidence used to "prove" this link was fraudulent from the get-go. And these analysts had to watch this on TV, with Tenet sitting right behind Powell as he's telling this cooked-up story.

Oh well, if those pansy CIA Agents have their feelings hurt because their research contradicts the President, they should resign. After all the CIA's mission is to prepare cases to justify what the President or Vice President have already decided to do.

Ann Coulter's Latest

Manifestly, there is no civil-liberties crisis in this country. Consequently, people who claim there is must have a different goal in mind. What else can you say of such people but that they are traitors?

Manifestly it's entirely possible to disagree with Ann Coulter and her extreme branch of Conservatism while loving your country and believing in it. Manifestly, it's possible to love your country and believe that invading Iraq was a bad idea. Manifestly it's possible to believe that President Bush has been a failure economically and in the foreign policy arena and still want a strong prosperous America.

And yet Ann Coulter characterizes those who dare to question President Bush's policies as a treasonous fifth columnists, stirring up fears of terrorist liberals who hate America and try to destroy it.

What else can you say of such a person?

Article here.

Strong Words from Ariana Huffington

At its core, Watergate was about making sure that Nixon won an election. Yellowcake-gate is much more than a dirty trick played on the American public. It's about the Bush administration's pattern of deception as it shoved this country into a preemptive war — from the much-advertised but nonexistent links between Iraq and Al Qaeda to the hyping of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

No one died as a result of Watergate, but more than 200 U.S. soldiers have been killed and thousands more wounded to rid the world of an imminent threat that wasn't. To say nothing of the countless Iraqis who have lost their lives.

And those numbers will only rise as we find ourselves stuck in a situation that Gen. Tommy Franks predicts will continue for at least four more years.

Something to consider.

Why it Matters

Well, conservative commentator after conservative commentator has argued that this whole Africa story is a big bit of nonsense. That even if it was a lie, it's one small part of a much larger truth. Take Herbert London's assessment today. "The furor over nuclear material is a sideshow conducted to mobilize Democratic voters. As such, it is a sideshow with deadly consequences because it tries to obviate the legitimate conditions for invasion." I'm not sure what deadly consequences Mr. London is talking about; does he worry that we will hop in a time machine and go back and halt the invasion?

But let's run down how this invasion of Iraq has failed, so far. We didn't get Saddam. He's still out there, possibly waiting for a come back, once we leave. We didn't find the Weapons of Mass Distruction. Either they weren't there, or they have been transported to country X (to be determined after the election), or they just haven't been found yet. Now it's possible that the ongoing occupation will eventually lead to accomplishing both those goals, but until they have been accomplished, than there's nothing wrong with asking how we got here.

Wait A Minute, Didn't we Invade Iraq?


Thomas Friedman decries the focus going into attacking President Bush's possible misdirections leading up to the recent war in Iraq, but, unlike many others, he has a good point.

"For me, though, it is a disturbing thought that the Bush team could get itself so tied up defending its phony reasons for going to war — the notion that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction that were undeterrable and could threaten us, or that he had links with Al Qaeda — that it could get distracted from fulfilling the real and valid reason for the war: to install a decent, tolerant, pluralistic, multireligious government in Iraq that would be the best answer and antidote to both Saddam and Osama."

This is a fair point. And if a pluralistic democratic society arises from the ashes of Iraq, than that will stand as a proud legacy of President Bush. But I'm not sure that the current focus on the veracity of Bush's claims will really distract the administration. I'm pretty sure that if it wasn't this, it would be something else distracting us.

What a Difference a Day Makes!

David Limbaugh in 2000.

As to character issues, Bill Clinton has given Gore his stamp of approval. "My experience is that he is exceedingly honest and exceedingly straightforward." That's like Bonnie Parker denying that Clyde Barrow was a bank robber. Even major media outlets are beginning to show concern about Gore's similarity to Clinton in the veracity department.

David Limbaugh today.

I also believe the deliberate effort to paint President Bush as a deceiver will damage our nation far more than this lone sentence. Those responsible for charging Bush with deceit and those repeating it endlessly in the media have to know that the next time the administration accuses another rogue nation, based on intelligence data, of engaging in a vigorous program to produce WMDs, many may well believe the information has been hyped. Perhaps those responsible for such a diminution of the credibility of the president and our intelligence agencies will delight in this outcome -- as they are inclined to oppose military interventions in such circumstances anyway.

Yep. David Limbaugh finds it reprehensible that we liberals would criticize our President's honesty. Such criticism only makes us weaker in front of the world. We should stand behind him, just like Republicans stood behind Former President Clinton.

This is such nonsense its hard to joke about it. It makes me angry--how dumb does David Limbaugh think we all are? After he and his brother spent eight years tearing down the Clinton presidency, calling him a liar at every turn, to come around and complain that attacking this President is betraying the nation is just, well, it shows what he thinks of his fellow citizens.

And as for Democrats holding President to the Bush making us look bad, maybe you should talk to your President about not being insane.

A Look Inside

Added a new document to the list of special Stuff over there on the right (and by right I mean left of course). As always you apparently need to make this webpage full screen to make that stuff on the left look right. Anyway it's an interview with the founder of this website-- Me! Enjoy.

Quote from Our Commander in Chief

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in.

For the moment you can access this quote at Whitehouse.gov.

Just so you know, Saddam Hussein did let inspectors in, unless you choose to believe that the President gets to define reality. In which case, you are in good company.

George Tenet

Of course you all know that Tenet, a Clinton Appointee, has taken the blame for bad information that President Bush presented in his State of the Union address. Well, Cal Thomas has chosen to damn him with faint praise. And then just to damn him.

"CIA Director George Tenet, who was named to the post by President Bill Clinton, performed an act unheard of in the previous administration by taking responsibility for an erroneous intelligence report that Iraq had sought uranium from the African nation of Niger. . . .

Clearly, Tenet should resign or be fired. He failed in ways that contributed to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and he stumbled on a matter of basic intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. He has hurt the president, and that is an unpardonable political sin for one in a high-profile position. The president says he has "full confidence" in the director. One wonders what Tenet would have to do to enjoy, say, half-confidence."

Nice.

Tenet gets the bill not only for President Bush's deception in the State of the Union, but Cal Thomas also holds him responsible for September 11th. I wonder if Thomas really thinks that he can smear Tenet with the blood of 3,000 dead Americans and not have some of the blood find its way into the Oval Office. Still let us not follow in Mr. Thomas's footsteps. I personally hold nobody responsible for September 11th except those who committed the atrocity and those who funded it.

Low Posting Today

Due to computer problems and being away from my computer combined, I haven't posted much today--but probably will as the afternoon wears on.

Time Isn't After Us

Listening to Hillary Clinton's memoirs, and thought I'd take a trip down memory lane in regards to the Clinton Impeachment. Came across an article written directly before the 1999 State of the Union. One might have expected Clinton to be in an apologetic mood--but instead he continued to articulate his policies. As Mr. Marshall puts it, "Glassman, Matthews and their indignant colleagues rightly understand that Clinton refuses to concede the legitimacy of the drive to impeach him. In fact, that's what's really behind all the calls for Clinton to come clean, to admit this or that misdeed, to show that he "gets it," that he takes responsibility and so forth. For most Americans, Clinton has apologized enough -- perhaps too much. (If there's one thing Clinton has done this year that really has transgressed the bounds of good taste it's his repeated, maudlin apologies. If he keeps it up, it may rise to the level of an impeachable offense.)

But apologizing for his personal misdeeds will never satisfy his critics. And, truth be told, neither will any apologies for misleading the public, or lying, or anything else. What Clinton's critics want aren't apologies, but vindication. They want the president to apologize in a particular way, and carry himself in a particular manner, so that he retroactively validates the idiot jihad that Kenneth Starr, the right wing and many in the press corps have been waging against him and his administration for at least four years. What drives the critics to distraction is that Clinton has steadfastly refused to do that; and the public has, in general, supported him in his refusal."

Interesting. Anyway hope you are all enjoying whatever day you happent to find yourself in.

Time Isn't Holding Us

Before we begin, I'd just like to point out that the Republicans want you to know that the American People don't care about this story. They don't care because they love and trust their President, President George W. Bush. Republicans would like to repeat that the American People don't care at every opportunity, so don't be surprised if it crops back up.

Paul Greenberg has discovered another similarity between Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler. In 1939, Albert Einstein convinced President Franklin D. Roosevelt to build the nuclear Bomb, based on fears that Germany might get there first. After the war, it happened that Hitler was not even close.

Let's count all the differences between World War II and the present.

1). President Roosevelt, sensitive to the Isolationist Republicans, did not actually begin his project until 1941, and the project was worked on during the war between the United States and Germany.

2). Roosevelt did not in fact order American troops in to invade and occupy Germany; he started a weapon development program. In fact he didn't declare war on Germany until after Pearl Harbor.

3). Roosevelt did not sell World War II to the American people on the basis of imminent Atomic Bomb attacks.

4). The few International Organizations had completely failed to contain Hitler; contrariwise, it's becoming more and more evident that since his expulsion from Kuwait, Saddam has been contained.

5). While the Germans were not, in fact, close to developing the atom bomb, there existed abundant evidence that they were looking for it.

So you see, perhaps the two situations aren't exactly the same. But as Mr. Greenberg would be the first to point out, the American people don't care about possible deception by the President. They believe and trust in their President.

New Quote

Just letting you know that i changed the quote up there at the top. Also if you don't see the archives and the links to the left of the screen, you might want to adjust your window to be full screen, or scroll down.

New Logo

Still working on getting a logo up at the top. Here it is--looks a lot like the previous iteration, but changed the color to fit current scheme.