Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever

Originally posted by pollard:
so will kerry use this tonight?

I doubt it, I thought tonight's debate was about domestic issues…or maybe I'm wrong…

Originally posted by hitman:
I doubt it, I thought tonight's debate was about domestic issues…or maybe I'm wrong…

i am sure we will hear about how lots of domestic programs are being neglected because of $200 billion in iraq, which by the way is 90% of the cost, oh and while we are on the topic, we also have 90% of the casualties

response: need some wood?

update

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/13/international/europe/13cnd-germ.html

Germany Rejects Speculation That Iraq Policy May Change
By RICHARD BERNSTEIN
Published: October 13, 2004

BERLIN, Oct. 13 - German officials today reaffirmed their policy of not contributing troops to the American-led coalition in Iraq and rejected speculation, prompted by a remark by the country's defense minister, that that policy might change in the foreseeable future.

Germany = Flip Flopper

Originally posted by pollard:
update

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/13/international/europe/13cnd-germ.html

Germany Rejects Speculation That Iraq Policy May Change
By RICHARD BERNSTEIN
Published: October 13, 2004

BERLIN, Oct. 13 - German officials today reaffirmed their policy of not contributing troops to the American-led coalition in Iraq and rejected speculation, prompted by a remark by the country's defense minister, that that policy might change in the foreseeable future.

If they do this just to avoid interfering with the US election, good for them. Actually, if this is the case, Republicans should learn from this and not stick with their policy of threatening latin american countries to stop aid funds or stop immigration policies as they have recently done in Bolivia or El Salvador. That would be a good lesson for Bush (and ironically his policy of bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world).

Better a Flip Flopper than a Fascist

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Germany = Flip Flopper

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Better a Flip Flopper than a Fascist

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Germany = Flip Flopper

true.

I'm hoping for tonight's debate that Kerry doesn't ramble on about Chris Reeve's death. But I know he will.

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Better a Flip Flopper than a Fascist

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Germany = Flip Flopper

or one that doesn't admit to being wrong, or can't use new information to change their mind.

<img src="http://mulling.net/vpdebate.jpg" alt=" - " />

What would the new information be?

German pre-war intelligence was actually more dire than our own – they estimated Hussein could have operable nuclear weapons within three years.

Are you saying now that they know this assessment was wrong, they would be happy to send troops?

Originally posted by hitman:

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Better a Flip Flopper than a Fascist

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Germany = Flip Flopper

or one that doesn't admit to being wrong, or can't use new information to change their mind.

Wasn't referring to Germany, but to our current administration.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
What would the new information be?

German pre-war intelligence was actually more dire than our own – they estimated Hussein could have operable nuclear weapons within three years.

Are you saying now that they know this assessment was wrong, they would be happy to send troops?

Originally posted by hitman:

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Better a Flip Flopper than a Fascist

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Germany = Flip Flopper

or one that doesn't admit to being wrong, or can't use new information to change their mind.

Originally posted by ggw&#8482;:
What would the new information be?

German pre-war intelligence was actually more dire than our own – they estimated Hussein could have operable nuclear weapons within three years.

Are you saying now that they know this assessment was wrong, they would be happy to send troops?

Originally posted by hitman:

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Better a Flip Flopper than a Fascist

Originally posted by ggw&#8482;:
Germany = Flip Flopper

or one that doesn't admit to being wrong, or can't use new information to change their mind.

ggw, have you ever criticized Bush on this board or admitted that he might have been mistaken? Even The Economist has been critical of Bush (even though they supported him at the beginning). You should at least admit that there is a chance that this people were so eager to go to war against Saddam that they might have manipulated information to make the case. You deny this? Don't you see a chance that this might have happened?

I've said that I'm not at all satisfied with the way Bush has run the war. I think he should have listened more to Powell (If you go in, do it with overwhelming force) and less to Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz (We can get this done quickly and cheaply).

But on the issue of Iraq possessing WMD, I don't think one can say Bush was mistaken unless one also says Kerry was mistaken, Al Gore was mistaken, Hillary Clinton was mistaken, the United Kingdom was mistaken, Russia was mistaken, Germany was mistaken, etc….

The disagreement wasn't about whether Iraq had the capacity for building weapons. The disagreement between the U.S. and other nations was whether a military solution was warranted or whether inspections would keep him in check.

I don't think there is evidence that he "manipulated" information. Did he "spin" it? Sure. I think the chances that Bush faked intelligence or suppressed contrary evidence so successfully that he not only fooled his domestic opposition but many foreign intelligence agencies also, to be highly, highly unlikely.

The Clinton Administration believed that Iraq still had the capacity to build WMD. As did non-US intelligence sources. If you want to criticize everybody for being wrong on the intelligence that's entirely fair. However, the practice seems to be to blame "Bush" alone. If you want to blame Bush for being too aggressive or for not giving inspections more of achance, that's fair also. But this whole "Bush lied about WMD" is a sham.

I could find several other things on which to criticize Bush. The "Bush Doctrine" for instance, may well be the stupidest foreign policy ever enacted. As Kerry pointed out, the U.S. always reserved the right to act alone and strike first if we felt it was necessary. There was no need to put it down in writing and piss people off.

I also think Bush has been spending too much money. However, I chalk that up to first-term campaigning. If he were to be elected to a second term (which I find highly unlikely) spending would come way down.

Originally posted by Barcelona:
ggw, have you ever criticized Bush on this board or admitted that he might have been mistaken? Even The Economist has been critical of Bush (even though they supported him at the beginning). You should at least admit that there is a chance that this people were so eager to go to war against Saddam that they might have manipulated information to make the case. You deny this? Don't you see a chance that this might have happened?

regarding first term spending

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/rugy-030212.html

According to Chris Edwards at the Cato Institute, over the first three years of Bush budgeting, non-defense discretionary outlays will rise 18% â?? a number that far exceeds the spending increases during the first three years of the last six administrations. And it pales in comparison to the Ronald Reagan budgets. President Reagan restored America's military during his two terms, boosting defense outlays by 19.2% in the first term and 10.4% in the second. But Reagan also reduced non-defense outlays, cutting domestic spending by 13.5% in the first term and 3.2% in the second. That is real budget discipline.

President Bush is also spending more than Bill Clinton. Clinton actually reduced non-defense outlays in his first term, albeit by only 0.7%. And, for all his flaws, he still signed market-oriented reforms such as NAFTA, farm deregulation, telecommunications deregulation, and financial-services deregulation.

Bags told me to never trust the Cato institute…

Originally posted by pollard:
regarding first term spending

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/rugy-030212.html

According to Chris Edwards at the Cato Institute, over the first three years of Bush budgeting, non-defense discretionary outlays will rise 18% â?? a number that far exceeds the spending increases during the first three years of the last six administrations. And it pales in comparison to the Ronald Reagan budgets. President Reagan restored America's military during his two terms, boosting defense outlays by 19.2% in the first term and 10.4% in the second. But Reagan also reduced non-defense outlays, cutting domestic spending by 13.5% in the first term and 3.2% in the second. That is real budget discipline.

President Bush is also spending more than Bill Clinton. Clinton actually reduced non-defense outlays in his first term, albeit by only 0.7%. And, for all his flaws, he still signed market-oriented reforms such as NAFTA, farm deregulation, telecommunications deregulation, and financial-services deregulation.

Right, because they have no bias….

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Bags told me to never trust the Cato institute…

Clinton actually reduced non-defense outlays in his first term, albeit by only 0.7%. And, for all his flaws, he still signed market-oriented reforms such as NAFTA, farm deregulation, telecommunications deregulation, and financial-services deregulation.

trying to find other sources, it just looks like the same person is writing about it for everybody

Alas, ggw, because the numbers are NOT favorable to Bush, I'm tempted to believe the Cato numbers – and I believe they hated publishing them.

Similarly, if the Progressive Foundation reported that Kerry voted against 200 important tax cuts for the middle class, I'd believe that as their finding is not supportive of the organization's overall mission. But, if you have to decide, I'd err on looking for other sources as I believe Cato has a transparent bias.

Anyone see the debate last night? I missed it, though I hope to catch it and PBS' "Choice 2004" over the weekend on video.