Gingrich wove falsehoods into assertion that Wilson "guaranteed" Plame's outing
On the October 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, former Speaker of the House and Fox News analyst Newt Gingrich (R-GA) wrongly presented as fact the claim that former CIA operative Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, was responsible for arranging Wilson's February 2002 trip to investigate purported efforts by Iraq to obtain uranium from Niger. The facts surrounding Wilson's selection for the trip are disputed.
In addition, Gingrich suggested that when Wilson made public his findings from that trip, he "guaranteed that his wife would be outed." But, in fact, Bush administration officials reportedly had undertaken steps to discredit Wilson even before the publication of his July 6, 2003, op-ed in The New York Times challenging administration claims that Saddam Hussein had sought to acquire uranium from Niger. The effort to discredit Wilson reportedly included disclosing his wife's connection with the CIA and her purported role in selecting him for the trip.
Gingrich promoted as certain the questionable claim that Plame had secured the Niger assignment for Wilson. As Media Matters for America has explained on multiple occasions, CIA officials have disputed reports of Plame's role in recruiting Wilson for the assignment. According to CIA officials, a State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research memo claiming Plame had suggested Wilson for the mission was written by an INR analyst who could not possibly have attended the meeting where Wilson's selection took place. In its report on prewar intelligence about Iraq, the Senate Intelligence Committee did not reach a conclusion on the question, mentioning reports indicating that Plame had indeed suggested her husband but also indicating that officials from the CIA's Counterproliferation Division were not in accord with this conclusion.
Gingrich's further contention, that Wilson's public criticism of the Bush administration "guaranteed" Plame's outing, relies on a dubious chronology of events. Gingrich presumes that the deliberate outing of Plame occurred after Wilson made his allegations public in his Times op-ed. But as Media Matters has noted New York Times reporter Judith Miller has testified to the federal grand jury investigating the case that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, had disclosed Plame's identity to her well in advance of Wilson's op-ed. In her own account of her testimony before the grand jury, Miller said that "well before Mr. Wilson published his critique, Mr. Libby told me that Mr. Wilson's wife may have worked on unconventional weapons at the C.I.A."
From the October 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity and Colmes:
GINGRICH: As you know, I've always been very doubtful about this whole case, because I always thought that ambassador Wilson guaranteed that his wife would be outed when he became a public figure in a job that she had gotten for him. I didn't understand how he thought that could possibly --
HANNITY: Good point.
GINGRICH: -- work out without her having -- ending up, you know, being outed.
"As you know, I've always been very doubtful about this whole case, because I always thought that ambassador Wilson guaranteed that his wife would be outed when he became a public figure in a job that she had gotten for him. I didn't understand how he thought that could possibly --"
Um, why is that, exactly? Even in the neocon fantasy where she pulled strings to send her husband on this task, how does her involvement become public knowledge without someone else outing her? It's not relevant to his findings, so why would he think that would become public knowledge?
There you go...of course. The whole thing was Clinton's...er....Wilson's fault. As SH said..."good point." The WHIG's were just kinda doing what they do I guess.
Gingrich: "I didn't understand how he thought that could possibly -- work out without her having -- ending up, you know, being outed."
Of course, it was silly of Joe Wilson to think that the White House would protect our national security secrets.
I'm reminded of the old movie cliche, the part where the psychopath is torturing the helpless woman, and he says, "Why did you MAKE me do this to you??" in agonized tones.
OF COURSE the psycopath isn't acting on his own evil directives. Somebody MAKES him do all those bad things. Son of Sam was told what to do by an evil dog that talked to him.
Wilson clearly MADE these poor innocents in the White House violate national security. It's all Wilson's fault, he should have known the consequences of his actions and SHUT UP.
Newt tells us this is so; Wilson is the criminal.
Evil dogs told White House officials to out Plame.
Was it Barney and Spot? [link to www.presidentialpetmuseum.com] [link to www.presidentialpetmuseum.com]
Or.... perhaps it was Miss Beelzebub. [link to www.presidentialpetmuseum.com]
Gringrich deserves his new life of speaking in fromt of Las Vegas audience about his life like he is some sort of carnival freak.
gingrich has been getting lots of air time on the today show, unopposed, as o'reilly was this morning. katie showed a clip from john tierney of the ny times that said plame's outing was more or less all in the political game. and naturally o'reilly agreed. katie offered no counterpoint. the today show has taken a hard turn to the right. as for gingrich's assertion, had rove and libby not been discussing classified info with several reporters, her name wouldn't have come out.
If you make a list of all the Republican excuses for why they do what they do and why it's justified, it begins to look like the dairy of a disaffected nine year old with ADD. (No actual disaffected nine-year-olds were hurt in the writing of this comment.)
I think that the psychopathic torturer analogy is more accurate.
I certainly feel like this country has been tortured throughout the Bush Administration.
It really doesn't matter WHAT these rethugs spew out. Because the FACTS are the FACTS and when it's in court, they won't be able to hide behind the 'wilson outted his wife' or 'wilson said dick cheney sent him' or 'wilson's wife got him his job' stuff anymore.
Right now, all they can do is spin/lie/distort/misrepresent and claim 'there was no crime here'... IF THERE WAS NO CRIME HERE WHY ARE WE HAVING AN INVESTIGATION?
DUH?!
Clearly a crime was committed...Several crimes. by a lot of people...there was a conspiracy to commit the crime and then a conspiracy to cover it up. Every time one of these talking heads gets on and says: well we just don't have all the facts, and well there probably wasn't a crime, ARE FULL OF CRAP. If *I* can piece all the information together, WHY CAN'T THEY?!
They KNOW a crime was committed, but their brain fluid has been replaced with kool-aid and the ability to tell the truth has been removed and replaced with a big 'oh yeah' kool-aid gene.
Screw them all -- they're going down and no amount of spin is going to get them out of it this time!
chief:
I hear your anger, and share your analysis. The usual spin will simply not work when there is a fair venue for FACTS, and to my amazement, it looks like America has been saved by a surprise return to checks and balances.
While I share your analysis, my reaction is quite different. I am more happy and optimistic than I've been in five years. It's delightful that all these hours of all this spin will be revealed to be so much poppycock (at the moment, Fred Barnes is the worst, in my opinion).
I'm guarding about counting chickens before hatched, of course, but as you note, from what we already know for sure, most of the top in this Administration, INCLUDING BUSH, have been lying about the Plame conspiracy. There IS a there there.
In order of certainty, the results of this criminal investigation might include obstruction of justice, perjury, conspiracy to defraud, violating the Espionage act during wartime (that's TREASON). That's just with Plame. With any luck, Fitzgerald has delved into the greater conspiracy, the attempt to defraud the nation and the Congress by promoting false reasons for WAR.
Congress, of course, SHOULD be doing this job, but being majority GOP, they are hopelessly partisan, and care little for what happens to the nation when compared to covering up for and defending their GOP colleagues.
Fitzgerald is set to announce his findings next week. It's hard to be patient, but we have no choice. UNTIL then, try to be "of good cheer" (to cop a Hannity-ism). Already, Bush has been crippled so much, he won't be able to advance any more of his horrendous agenda. Indictments would just be gravy. Try not to be angry; time heals all wounds, and wounds all heels.
Congress, of course, SHOULD be doing this job, but being majority GOP, they are hopelessly partisan, and care little for what happens to the nation when compared to covering up for and defending their GOP colleagues.
************************
tex,
And of course the non-partisan Democrats are anything but hopeless.....I would say your partisan hack left wing bias is hopeless. And the glee and delightful euphoria you are in just salivating at the thought of an indictment of anyone connected with the evil Bush is amazing. Let the process work and those that have broken the law should be punished, absolutely. But with all the problems facing this country and how they need Congress' attention, you would much prefer they spend the next three years investigating and bringing down Bush. Your contempt for him runs through your veins with so much poison, the country and it's issues run a pale second in importance.
I feel sorry for you and am grateful I don't share your view.
And, of course, Tommy was wringing his hands in disappointment as the Republican Congress squandered 5 years and tens of millions of dollars running Clinton to ground for an infraction that pales in comparison to the corruption we're now uncovering. Was he wagging his finger at them, I wonder?
nerzog,
To answer your question, the investigation of Clinton's sex life were a ridiculous waste of time. Yes, I shared your outrage then.
Tommy:
You say, "And of course the non-partisan Democrats are anything but hopeless.....I would say your partisan hack left wing bias is hopeless."
RESPONSE: If you're saying we disagree on policy, that's very true. We also have vastly differing views on issues like ethics, compassion, history, and reality. Since I deal in history and reality, I'm content promoting my Liberal ideas, and pointing out how they have made America a greater nation, while Republican policies are disasters for all concerned ... except for, of course, the very wealthy. And, of course, YOU can be depended upon to chime in with "CLASS ENVY". If you can name a policy of the GOP which did not have as its primary goal to further enrich corporations and the wealthy, at the expense of the American People, I'd love to hear what it is.
You say, "And the glee and delightful euphoria you are in just salivating at the thought of an indictment of anyone connected with the evil Bush is amazing."
RESPONSE: It's a good feeling to se EVIL getting its due.
You say, "Let the process work and those that have broken the law should be punished, absolutely."
RESPONSE: There goes your claim to "honor and integrity", as a loyal soldier for the rightwing. But then, we never believed it in the first place.
You say, "But with all the problems facing this country and how they need Congress' attention, you would much prefer they spend the next three years investigating and bringing down Bush."
RESPONSE: Everything this GOP Congress touches turns to disaster. From tax cuts that have bankrupted the country, to slashing environmental protections, to removing the right of average Americans to sue for damages, to supporting an unprovoked WAR, to No Bid contracts for their pals, to wiping out the constitution in the name of "security" ... the list is long of the grave damage the GOP have caused this nation. If they don't pass another law, America will be much better off.
You say, "Your contempt for him runs through your veins with so much poison, the country and it's issues run a pale second in importance."
RESPONSE: You've got it backwards. It is BECAUSE I care so deeply for this nation and its wellbeing, that I see the corruption and hard-hearted policies and arrogance of this Administration, and greatly oppose it.
The American People were RIGHT in 2000; they voted for the OTHER guy. Now, thanks to the Republicans in the Supreme Court, this nation has seen the GOP implement policy after policy which degrades everyone's quality of life. We've also seen that they have FURTHER plans to destroy protections for American citizens, if they can just cobble together enough of a "mandate" to pass more laws.
America has suffered enough under the GOP's ideas of Plutocracy and Elitism by the wealthy. It's time to reclaim our nation and return to a caring and helpful, optimistic government. This hate-filled, warmongering crew of arrogant megalomaniacs has to go. America will be on the road to recovery. And yes, I'm delighted.
I feel sorry for you and am grateful I don't share your view.
America has suffered enough under the GOP's ideas of Plutocracy and Elitism by the wealthy. It's time to reclaim our nation and return to a caring and helpful, optimistic government.
**********************
tex,
Speaking of talking points, this sounds like some right from page 1 of the Democrats. Just exactly, how do you propose to reclaim the nation and be caring and helpful? Apparently you want to level the playing field, take from the evil wealthy and give to the beaten down poor? That's Socialism, or Communism buddy - why can't you just be honest and admit that's what you want......at least you would have my respect for stepping out in front and being proud of your views, instead of disguising and hiding behind them so disingenuously.
"That's Socialism, or Communism buddy - why can't you just be honest and admit that's what you want"
Good Lord! So anyone who doesn't like all the breaks going to the already-rich must be a socialist? Anyone who talks about "caring and helpful government" is a commie?
And by the way, you linked that to "page 1 of the democrats"...so you are also accusing all democrats of being communists or socialists. Is that what you intended to say?
brabantio,
I did not accuse all Democrats of anything? Don't panic. I said that anyone who wants to "reclaim the nation away from the wealthy and return it to a caring helpful nation" sure sounds like income redistribution to me. If one believes in socialist or communistic views, so be it. Be proud of it if that's where your heart is, I don't care. At least be honest.
I still haven't heard any specifics from tex or anyone on how to reclaim the nation from the wealthy? What do you think he means?
"I did not accuse all Democrats of anything?"
You clearly did imply it, and I am bringing it to your attention. You linked what you claim is a key talking point of democrats to communism and socialism. If that was not intentional, then you have the opportunity to correct yourself.
"I said that anyone who wants to "reclaim the nation away from the wealthy and return it to a caring helpful nation" sure sounds like income redistribution to me."
But are you denying that this administration has been redistributing income itself, from the poor to the rich? I hope not! So that's perfectly acceptable, but any mention of sending any of that money back the other way is communism?
I think he means undoing Bush's policies which have widened the income gap, simple as that. You seem to have made some wild assumptions in this area to come up with the labels you did.
brabantio,
Please read the post I just addressed to tex if you think Bush is screwing the poor.
Tommy:
Communism is, "A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people."
Socialism is, "Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. A system of society or group living in which there is no private property. A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state"
-----
So, Tommy, now you have TWO challenges.
FIRST, kindly tell me which Liberal policies you consider to be "SOCIALIST" and/or "COMMUNIST", and it would be great if you then state that you oppose them for that reason (Social Security, Medicare, the GI Bill, Public Education, Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA, you have a long list to choose from).
SECOND, you haven't answered my challenge to produce one policy by this GOP Congress and Administration which did not have as its goal to further enrich the already very wealthy at the expense of the rest of America.
Looking forward to your response.
SECOND, you haven't answered my challenge to produce one policy by this GOP Congress and Administration which did not have as its goal to further enrich the already very wealthy at the expense of the rest of America.
Looking forward to your response.
*******************************************
Here's a start tex, I can give you more;
Since Bush took office, according to the Heritage Foundation, federal anti-poverty spending -- including Medicaid, food and nutrition programs, housing, earned income tax credit and child credits, plus other programs -- increased 42 percent. This is nearly double the rate of increase under President Clinton. Some critics claim increased poverty has driven up poverty costs. But poverty rates have increased less than 1 percent under Bush, and remain lower than the average poverty rates under Clinton.
"But poverty rates have increased less than 1 percent under Bush, and remain lower than the average poverty rates under Clinton."
Let's be honest. The poverty rate has increased every year since Bush took office. The poverty rate decreased every year Clinton was in office.
The only reason why Bush's average is lower is because Clinton handed him a low poverty rate. If you want to have a fair comparison, you would use the net change for each administration...but then Bush would look bad so why be fair.
He also handed Bush a recession, which thankfully Bush cut taxes and got us out of.
leatherhelmet - Friday October 21, 2005 06:12:18 PM
Once again you are just flat wrong. Recessions are official designations with officially designated dates they begin. Bushs began April 2001, this is not an opinion it is an idisputable FACT. So NO Clinton did NOT hand Bush a recession, just because Rush or O'falafel said it doesnt make it true.
But poverty rates have increased less than 1 percent under Bush, and remain lower than the average poverty rates under Clinton.
by tommy - Friday October 21, 2005 01:23:20 PM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Of course this ignores the fact that poverty rates decreased during the time Clinton was president and have increased during the time Bush has been president. Take a look at the graph, tommy and you can see that your statement from the Heritage foundation is misleading. [link to www.census.gov] (PDF)I don't have time to find the numbers for poverty spending right now, but you really have to figure in inflation and how many people are in poverty in order to evaluate how much is being spent.
wanderwoman,
Do you want more evidence that spending under Bush for Education has increased; Under No Child Left Behind, Bush increased federal spending on education – in inflation-adjusted dollars – from 2001 to 2005 by 38 percent. During the same period, Education for the Disadvantaged Grants (this includes Title I) – the program designed to decrease the performance gap between urban and suburban school districts – received an inflation-adjusted increase of 58 percent. Bush increased spending on Education for Homeless Children and Youth by an inflation-adjusted 57 percent during those same years. Bush has increased by 52 percent (from 2001) funding for Pell Grants used at technical schools and community colleges.
Do you want more?........
Do you want more?........
by tommy - Friday October 21, 2005 02:27:18 PM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I don't because:
1. My point was never about spending by Bush, but was rather about you using misleading statistics (which I now see you just cut and pasted from Larry Elder's column). The fact that you wove a whole philosophy for me about Bush and poverty from my challenging your numbers is just proof that you have a vivid imagination. Or poor reading comprehension.
and
2. After seeing how you used the first set of numbers, I don't trust anything else you provide without actually tracking down the numbers and doing the analysis myself.
I'm not sure whether you don't know why the numbers you used were misleading, or whether you don't care. But it makes everything else you post suspect. If your point is valid, the numbers would back you up without being twisted beyond their actual meaning.
Don't forget to include the huge influx of illegal immigrants and the children they are having here in the US. This has a huge effect on the poverty levels from a statistical stand point. I would be interested in seeing what the numbers are like removing the illegal immigrant familes from the equation. If you look at the rates of home ownership for minorities they have risen at an alarming rate under Bush. A larger percent of minorities have also moved into the middle class and upper middle class under Bush than did under Clinton. The reality of it is that regardless of the party more and more minorities are moving up the social ladder than moving down.
libby,
You and I could give these people all the statistical evidence and facts out there to refute this "Bush hates the poor" charge they throw up at every turn, but I have little confidence it will matter at all. With kool aid liberals, facts even presented in their context, are useless to them - they only muddy the waters of their hatred for Bush and they want nothing but smooth sailing on that front.
You and I could give these people all the statistical evidence and facts out there to refute this "Bush hates the poor" charge they throw up at every turn, but I have little confidence it will matter at all. With kool aid liberals, facts even presented in their context, are useless to them - they only muddy the waters of their hatred for Bush and they want nothing but smooth sailing on that front.
by tommy - Friday October 21, 2005 02:32:11 PM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Whatever, tommy. Your statement was misleading but I was mistaken to think you cared, apparently. I have never said, nor implied, that "Bush hates the poor", but feel free to drag that in when I point out that you have made a misleading statement. I do appreciate that the figures you subsequently posted were inflation adjusted - that comes a little closer to giving an accurate picture. However, in the future when you make a misleading statement from a partisan web site I will remember that you don't appreciate being given real data.
wanderwoman,
I put the "Bush hates the poor" in quotes on purpose - as it was not directly attributed to any one person but a generalized statement in summary of many here's feelings - do you understand that?
As for the economic statements, they were accurate and I stand by them......whether they were taken from a "partisan" web site or anywhere else is irrlevant if they are verifiably true. Sorry, if you can't or won't accept that - your problem.
by tommy - Friday October 21, 2005 05:40:52 PM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well, I had mistakenly put you in the column of people who try to be fair about the facts. Sorry for the mistake...I'll move you over to the other column.
Tommy is just repeating Heritage Foundation talking points. I found the same deceptive statistics almost verbatim in a Larry Elder column. While technically "accurate", they give a misleading impression. Of course, the careful insertion of the word "average" is a dead giveaway.
nerzog,
The Heritage Foundation is a conservative bunch and they are not exactly thrilled about Bush's spending us into oblivion....so be honest in your context. And yes, the points are accurate and it drives you bonkers.
No, what drives me bonkers is you pretending that you don't use talking points. The point is, which you know, and which two previous posters have mentioned, is that the poverty rate went down every year under Clinton, and has gone up every year under Bush. The fact that the "average" was higher under Clinton only shows that he inherited a high poverty rate from Sr. Bush. It does not show, as was your deceptive intent, that Bush has improved conditions for the poor more than Clinton.
Another bogus talking point exposed.
Nerzog, if that is how you are going to play then let's really look at the reality of it. The internet boom of which Clinton had no hand in created the economy under which most naive liberals give Clinton credit for. The internet boom fueled the economy, job growth, and tax receipts. Every little thing you try and give Clinton credit for had nothing to do with Clinton. Carter would have produced the same results. So poverty decreasing under Clinton had nothing to do with any policy of Clinton's.
nerzog,
I could care less whether or not you think I just repeat talking points or not, it is so silly - not worth refuting, get over it. My assertion remain, I said that poverty increased a little less than one percent under Bush (from 11.7%/Clinton to 12.5%/Bush) but remains lower as an average from Clinton's, so far. Also, we had 9/11 and Iraq to figure into the mix - so go back to your talking points and brush up.
Libby, dearest, we all know that what the president does has little effect on the economy. Therefore, the claim that Bush's policies have helped the economy are equally bogus.
"Libby, dearest, we all know that what the president does has little effect on the economy. Therefore, the claim that Bush's policies have helped the economy are equally bogus"Nerzog
I am suprised by your post. Readings your other posts gave me the impression you did understand that. You may want to educate your fellow liberals because they certainly do not understand that concept.
nerzog:
You mean, when Bush promised his tax cuts would lead to an avalance of job creation, it was a DOUBLE LIE?
First, a lie because it didn't happen ... the "plan" was sold on a bogus premise.
Second, a lie because a President can't affect the economy anyway.
TWO LIES FOR ONE, according to these Rightwing armchair economists. Too funny.
"You mean, when Bush promised his tax cuts would lead to an avalance of job creation, it was a DOUBLE LIE?
First, a lie because it didn't happen ... the "plan" was sold on a bogus premise.
Second, a lie because a President can't affect the economy anyway.
TWO LIES FOR ONE, according to these Rightwing armchair economists. Too funny." --tex
-------------------------------------------------------
Call me crazy, but I like Alan Greenspan. His predictions and warnings have been very accurate in my opinion and I greatly value what he says even when it doesn't support my point of view. He would not be as accurate as he is if he were a partisan. Partisans predictions usually rely too much on their hopes.
Alan Greenspan believes that the tax cuts prevented job losses from being much greater during the last recession. I tend to agree with him.
Tax cuts are a temporary shot of adrenaline to the economy. Data that I have seen show it does not usually change the baseline, but it does have a definite impact on the short-term economy.
Republican partisans frequently overstate what most tax-cuts do. I know. That doesn't mean that they don't work at all.
Open Mind:
Again, I agree. Taxes can be adjusted, UP or DOWN, "ON THE MARGIN" and cause economic changes.
Depending on where you sit, those changes can be good or bad.
Cutting taxes TOO MUCH is bad for all, but good for those "targeted" in the short run. With Bush, it was a windfall to the very wealthy. Meanwhile, no new jobs, sky-high deficit, sky-high energy costs, etc, etc.
Taxes which are TRULY too high stagnate an economy. So, were taxes TOO HIGH under Clinton? An objective look at economic indicators, things like how many new millionaires and billionaires were created, jobs, the stock market ... shows us clearly that Clinton's taxes WERE NOT too high for a healthy economy and a prosperous America.
But, Bush thinks America's Number One Problem is that his wealthy friends just don't have enough money. When you focus on one goal like this, you get the results we see around us every day ... an economy that is in deep trouble.
Taxes which are TRULY too high stagnate an economy.......
************************
Tell me tex, Can taxes ever be high enough for you? Is there really a tax you don't like? For rich people, I mean.
"So, were taxes TOO HIGH under Clinton? An objective look at economic indicators, things like how many new millionaires and billionaires were created, jobs, the stock market ... shows us clearly that Clinton's taxes WERE NOT too high for a healthy economy and a prosperous America." --tex
-----------------------------------------------------
I think the current administration made a good case for the tax cut. The problem with the first and/or second tax cuts is that they weren't designed for growth. That is a consequence of the 2000 presidential campaign. When those tax cuts were originally drafted in 1999 when the GDP was around 5%, we had not experienced the fairly sharp drop in GDP at the end of the Clinton Administration. The tech boom was just starting to lose steam because the telecom sector made some huge mistakes.
Although these original tax cuts were not designed to stimulate growth (or stunt negative growth as it turned out), they did do some of that and the subsequent tax cuts DID do that quite a bit.
Remember by the time the Bush Administration took over, GDP was around 3% and shrinking.
The Bush tax cuts did shorten the recession in my opinion. I have a hard time giving them much credit for it, because tax cuts are a permanent campaign promise of the Republicans and the original ones they passed were not designed for growth. They were designed to not overheat an economy with a 5% GDP. The same tax cuts were going to happen whether the GDP was increasing at the time or not.
What are you talking about?
Clinton's wonderful high taxes and balanced budget got us a nice recession. Bush had to cut taxes to get growth going again. Job creation has been strong despite Mr. Greenspan trying to slow the economy with interest rate increases and high energy prices.
Clinton's taxes were absolutely too high.
clinton produced 22 million jobs. bush has barely produced a net million jobs. which record is better? well, wingnut math or actual math?
"Clinton's wonderful high taxes and balanced budget got us a nice recession." --leatherhelmet
---------------------------------------------------
You are confused. If anything the drastic defecit reduction under Clinton with the necessary help from the Republican Congress is the reason the boom lasted as long as it did. Bush came in at the right time with tax cuts to limit the dip of the next recession, but it was originally a poorly designed tax-cut that was not designed for the situation in which it was implemented.
Your revisionism just shows severe partisanship. The truth on this matter is much more nuanced than you appear to be able to accept.
I just hope that you realize one-party rule is the absolute worst thing for an economy. Do you like what the Republicans are doing on the economy? Do you think they are really acting like real conservatives? Is it a good idea to borrow hundreds of billions mostly from Chinese banks?
Open, you do get it. I spit beer all over my keyboard in shock. I will definitely hold you in a new light now. I apologize for the evil thoughts I almost typed in response to some of your posts.
Libby,
Don't be so easy on me. I still deserve the evil posts. I am sure we will get back down to fisticuffs soon enough.
"The internet boom of which Clinton had no hand in created the economy under which most naive liberals give Clinton credit for."
Wrong! Clinton signed all kinds of legislation that expanded the infrastructure of the internet and opened it up to commerce.
And who was the Senator from Tennessee that drafted, sponsored, and introduced the bill that eventually created the "information superhighway"? It was Al Gore!
Please......... give me a break.
Stop making things up and maybe I will.
phreak:
The rightwing mantra is that Democrat Presidents don't have a thing to do with the economy, unless it's Jimmy Carter.
Likewise, Republican presidents can't be held to blame for a bad economy, but the "boom" in the 80's was all Reagan's brilliant leadership (and pay no attention to that huge deficit behind the curtain).
Get with the program. Anything GOOD cannot be credited to a Democrat, and nothing BAD can be attributed to a Republican.
Once you learn these truths, you will be in line with Rightwing "LOGIC" on matters economic, and can discuss such issues without raising thier ire.
Tex,
What you said is true, but can also be attributed to Democrats. My favorite government is a mix where the purse-strings and congress are controlled by Republicans and the Presidency is controlled by a Democrat. I am convinced one-party control (no matter Dem or Rep) leads to the problems we have today. Republicans don't act like real Republicans when they are in complete control. I will leave it to you to speculate why. Democrats seemingly endless need for programs and money are equally as irresponsible when they are in complete control. I realize I am greatly oversimplifying my perceptions, but IMO one-party rule appears to be the worst government either way. I hope you don't advocate that.
open mind:
Agreed. Good government comes from a BLEND of ideas, outreaches and restraints, and of course, checks and balances.
However, I prefer for Conservatives to counterbalance Liberals (with Libs in majority, of course), but I can't seem to find any real Conservatives around these days. These Bush NeoCons ain't anything CLOSE to Conservatives, and their policies aren't formulated as a "balance" to anything ... they are in the realm of dictates.
"These Bush NeoCons ain't anything CLOSE to Conservatives, and their policies aren't formulated as a "balance" to anything ... they are in the realm of dictates." --Tex
-------------------------------------------------------
I agree. Real conservatives have principles. These guys only support principles that coincidentally happen to serve their own self-interest or the interest of the party.
nerzog--You're a riot--You accuse the Right of using "talking points" Yet all you do here is parrot Democratic talking points.
Pot calls the kettle black. Duh!
That is Nerzog's only counter to any fact laid before him. Talking points. If he throws that out there you know you have won the argument. I guess it's his way of saving face.
It is pretty standard fare here among many, when they cannot address or argue the facts or points stated and their ego's can't bear to lose that argument on it's merits, they do one of the following;
1) Dismiss it by saying it is just talking points,
2) Call it "straw man"
3) Throw out an insult or name call
4) Or just make a general hateful invective about Bush and the evil heartless Republicans.
Sometimes they use all four in one post! Slick.
"It is pretty standard fare here among many, when they cannot address or argue the facts or points stated and their ego's can't bear to lose that argument on it's merits, they do one of the following;
1) Dismiss it by saying it is just talking points,
2) Call it "straw man"
3) Throw out an insult or name call
4) Or just make a general hateful invective about Bush and the evil heartless Republicans.
Sometimes they use all four in one post! Slick."...by tommy
===================
Sad but TRUE...you NAILED it tommy.
Oh, dear, the flying monkeys disapprove of me. How ever will I cope.
It is pretty standard fare here among Conservatives, when they cannot address or argue the facts or points stated and their ego's can't bear to lose that argument on it's merits, they do one of the following;
1) Dismiss it by saying it is just talking points,
2) Accuse you of playing the "Race Card"
3) Accuse you of "Class Warfare"
4) Or just make a general hateful invective about Clinton and the evil socialist Democrats.
nerzog,
Very original indeed. I am always bashing Clinton here and spewing my hateful rhetoric about him, you nailed me. And if you were to count the number of times I have accused anyone of using talking points compared to the number of times you do - well the gap is larger than the one that exists between your ears........but nice try though.
Original? Like the TALKING POINTS you copied and pasted from this column?
[link to www.townhall.com]
It's okay that you use talking points. Just admit it.
"Oh, dear, the flying monkeys disapprove of me. How ever will I cope.
"It is pretty standard fare here among Conservatives, when they cannot address or argue the facts or points stated and their ego's can't bear to lose that argument on it's merits, they do one of the following;
1) Dismiss it by saying it is just talking points,
2) Accuse you of playing the "Race Card"
3) Accuse you of "Class Warfare"
4) Or just make a general hateful invective about Clinton and the evil socialist Democrats."...by nerzog
==========================
I just KNOW you can't be talking about ME.
Sorry nerzog YOU must have me confused with SOMEONE else.
1) I've NEVER written ANYWHERE on this forum to ANYONE that they were using "talking points", Why state the obvious?...though I've seen plenty of accusations of THAT on YOUR part.
2) I've NEVER accused ANYONE here of playing the "Race Card"...though Lord knows I've seen it done here on TOO many occasions by Democrats/Liberals.
3) I've Never Ever written ANYTHING here about "Class Warfare"...IF others have, then take it up with THEM.
4) I like&admire Bill Clinton, have SAID so MANY times on THIS forum...and I've NEVER accused ANY Democrat/Liberal here of being a Socialist--a radical maybe--BUT never a Socialist...BUT I've seen PLENTY of Democrats/Liberals here make "hateful invective" about Bush and evil Fascists Republicans.
=====
BTW what is a "flying monkey"? I must have missed that one.
Jeter2,
You are the conservative in here that ruins all of our perfect theories and stereotypes about conservatives.
1) You make an attempt to understand arguments.
2) You ask for clarification if you don't understand.
3) You are honest.
4) You are not a partisan.
5) You don't self-servingly misrepresent our positions
Of course, I am sure some conservatives wrongly believe these things about liberals as well.
If we really care about not being a stereotype ourselves, we should heed Jeter2's example.
And Jeter2, please shutup already, you are constantly making people re-think their stereotypes. It is quite unnerving to witness. :)
by open_mind - Friday October 21, 2005 04:42:21 PM EST -
Hey thanks open_mind, though I'm SURE there are ONE or TWO posters here that wouldn't agree;-).
It's appreciated and it's nice to hear, and coming from a poster I respect it means a lot.
"Sneaking" out of work early TGIF!!...homeward bound. Lata :-)
Hey thanks open_mind, though I'm SURE there are ONE or TWO posters here that wouldn't agree;-).
It's appreciated and it's nice to hear, and coming from a poster I respect it means a lot.
****************************
Oh please, I said a group hug, not an orgy!! I am so glad jeter2 and open_mind are getting close, it's heartwarming....(kidding). Actually, more respectful and kinder posts are a welcome diversion, good to see.
Besides, now that Sue has mysteriously left - who else is there to cuddle up to?
Have a good weekend, tommy. I won't torment you any longer. Peace.
If none of this applies to you, feel free to ignore it. As for "playing the race card", that cuts both ways. When conservatives say that the black people who were left homeless by Katrina deserved it because they were poor by choice and because they are immoral, is that "playing the Race card?" Is it "playing the race card" to point out the absurdity of that statement? You tell me.
nerzog,
I don't remember reading anywhere here where a conservative or anyone else said that black people affected by Katrina deserved it. That is a horribly inflammatory statement and I would condemn it flat out.
What was equally reprehensible is how some people accuse the government of blowing up holes in the levees to flood poor, black areas intentionally......now that is racist.
As for being lumped in with other posters, it happens to all of us. I've been accused of "always calling people racist", which is simply not true. I have called them selfish, greedy and insensitive to the poor, but I don't recall using the R word in referring to a specific poster. If I did, it was probably well deserved.
Here's a deal; you stop using Straw Man fallacies and we'll stop nailing you for it. Fair enough?
Perhaps the same way you guys whine "race card" or "class warfare" or "yea, but Clinton..."?
You people take yourselves way too seriously.
Tommy:
Let's take one of the policies you mentioned, which you claim the Bush Administration has promoted as a benefit for All Americans, instead of the Very Rich.
You mention Medicare. Although it's stunningly hypocritical of you to choose to present a LIBERAL policy (bragging on Bush using a "SOCIALIST liberal policy" ... almost priceless!) as an action of the Bush Administration, let's look at what CHANGES BUSH has made, and WHERE that "extra funding" is going.
Bush changed Medicare.
"The US Senate passed President Bush's Medicare legislation provides partial coverage of prescription drugs for seniors, marks a significant step toward the privatization and ultimate destruction of government-sponsored health care for those over age 65 ... The plan ... places prescription drug coverage entirely in the hands of private insurance companies and health care plans. The provision of a prescription drug benefit is the first major change in Medicare since the system was established in 1965.
However, the manner in which the addition of limited drug coverage is being implemented demonstrates that the underlying aim is to attack the foundations of the Medicare system itself, not strengthen or expand it. It explicitly forbids the government from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices. And it effectively blocks the import of drugs from Canada, where, because of the existence of a national healthcare system, drugs are up to 75 percent cheaper than in the US.
The law is tailor-made to allow the drug companies to continue their practice of price-gouging, while guaranteeing windfall profits from the unhindered exploitation of an expanded market for their products. One study estimates that the legislation will add $139 billion to the coffers of US drug makers over the next eight years ... drug industry profits could rise 30 percent ...
... In the trustees' report released yesterday, they wrote that Medicare's prospects have "deteriorated dramatically" with rising medical costs and the addition in 2003 of a prescription drug benefit.
... Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) today urged President Bush to address a looming funding shortfall for cancer clinics caused by the Medicare prescription drug bill that passed Congress ... oncologists may lose $13 billion in Medicare reimbursements by 2013 ... Congress cut funding for oncology clinics in order to pay for the prescription drug benefit ...
Monthly premiums for Medicare Part B—which covers doctor services, outpatient hospital care, some home health services and durable medical equipment—will increase 17.5 percent to $78.20 in 2005, HHS officials announced Sept. 3. The rise of $11.60 per month is the single largest dollar increase in Medicare's history.
Officials from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services acknowledged that 15 percent of the premium increase will go directly from seniors pocketbooks to HMOs every year.
Medicare premiums have risen 56 percent in the last four years.
Under the new Medicare law, payments to doctors in 2005 will rise by 1.5 percent instead of decreasing by 4.5 percent as was planned initially. The new Medicare law also calls for increased payments to private Medicare plans...Part A ...will increase by $36 to $912 in 2005 ...a "single-prong" test offered by CMS ...would count both employer and employee payments toward the employer subsidy. Such a subsidy could actually be a windfall for some employers ... Frist had indicated earlier this year that he would allow a floor vote on drug reimportation. Now, however, he says it looks doubtful ... the committee will probably not vote on the bill this year.
[link to www.aft.org]
------
To summarize, Bush takes Medicare, increases premiums, increases prices to pharmaceuticals (allowing them windfall profits), forces "business" to HMOs, decreases benefits, forbids competitive price savings, forbids mass purchases to save money for seniors.
While long, this summary is only the tip of the iceburg.
I must thank you, Tommy. Your example proves exactly what I've been saying. The Bush Administration seeks to make all law in the benefit of corporations, and to the detriment of the regular citizens. Each provision of Bush's Medicare CHANGES has this exact goal in mind, with the overall goal of eliminating Medicare altogether, privatizing health care entirely.
Tex,
There is so much crap in that column I don't know where to begin. What a joke analogy that the prescription drug program is out to destroy Medicare. Medicare NEVER covered prescription drugs so that claim is incredibly bogus.
Tommy was right in that you are basically a communist/socialist. Since you can't takeover a private company want to hold hostage private drug companies by mandating nationwide drug prices. Instead of allowing competition you want to destroy free enterprise. Instead of letting multiple insurance companies compete for the business of Medicare Part D, you want the government to run everything.
The medicare premiums you talk about are only the part that the seniors pay. The rest of the premium comes from tax payers. If you think that somehow government run insurance is going to be miraculously cheaper just look at how these government run plans are crushing the economies of Europe.
I prefer Bush's plan and 4-5% unemployment over Germany's 11 percent unemployment.
you're right , leatherhelmet, why let the government negotiate lower medicare drug prices? let's get behind the bush plan of let them charge whatever they want, and let those taxpayers you're so worried about add ever more to the already fat bottom line of the drug companies. of course, your hero bush lied about what it would cost, so he could get it passed.
leatherhelmet:
I'll give you one thing. You harken to ONE example of Bush telling the absolute truth. While campaigning against Gore (who got MORE votes in the 2000 election, if you'll recall), George W. Bush gave us fair warning about how he would handle the economy.
"Some say the economy is doing pretty well - well it may be," said Candidate Bush, "It’s time for a change.”
Source: William March, The Tampa (FL) Tribune Oct 26, 2000
-------
I'd say America has only itself to blame for electing Bush anyway, despite his claim he was going to enact change from an economy doing well (and boy, has he delivered on THAT promise!), but America chose the OTHER guy to be President.
We instead have the Republicans in the Supreme Court to blame. Americans voted wisely; the Supremes shafted us.
Of course, you THANK the Supremes. You think the economy is doing great. You look at the jobs lost, the (fewer) new jobs which pay LESS than the jobs lost, the price of gas, the deficit, the rising poverty rate, and say GOOD JOB, DUBYA!
Obviously, your criteria for determining "GOOD" is different from most Americans. To be sure, Dick Cheney would agree with you wholeheartedly. His Halliburtion stock (not held in "blind trust" as would be necessary to avoid conflict of interest) has soared to a value of over $9 million! HIS "economy" is doing great ... to hell with the rest of us.
Oh, and don't forget about the mysterious Carlyle Group, which Dubya's daddy in heavily invested in (along with the Bin Ladens). Carlyle is positioned to benefit from BOTH sides of any WAR, specializing in global arms production (among other services). War is very, very good for Carlyle, and Bush's daddy financially. Conflict of interest? Nah, just "family". Carlyle is raking in BILLIONS.
Link here [link to www.cooperativeresearch.org] for a brief synopsis of the Carlyle Group, as part of a well-researched 9-11 timeline; among the links (and a nice pic!) you will find there, is this link [link to observer.guardian.co.uk] to a Guardian Unlimited (Observer Magazine) article, from which I post these excerpts...
[ The Carlyle Group defines the next phase of power: a Washington-based private equity fund with a difference. It is headed by Frank Carlucci, former CIA director and defense secretary under Ronald Reagan and lifelong friend of George Bush Sr. Bush (also once director of the CIA) sits next to Carlucci on the board with a portfolio specialising in Asia and does not hesitate to communicate with his son on concerns of regional relevance to Carlyle such as Afghanistan or the Pacific Rim. Bush Jr was once chairman of a Carlyle subsidiary making in-flight food.
On Carlucci's other flank is the ubiquitous James Baker III. Chairman of Carlyle Europe is John Major. The group's new asset management is headed by Afsaneh Beschloss, former treasurer of the World Bank. Carlyle has grown quickly to be worth some $12bn (note: this atricle is dated 6-16-02), specialising in energy and defence, with particular attention to the oil-producing Gulf states. Among its most eager investors is Prince Bandar, Saudi ambassador to Washington and his father Prince Sultan, the kingdom's defence minister. ... Within a month of 11 September last year, Carlucci was meeting with Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, and 10 days later offered an assessment which exactly predicted the endless-war scenario: 'We as Americans,' he said, 'have to recognise that terrorism is more or less a permanent situation.'
...
(the concluding sentence of the article...) On 11 September, while Al-Qaeda's planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Carlyle Group hosted a conference at a Washington hotel. Among the guests of honour was a valued investor: Shafig bin Laden, brother to Osama. ]
tommy - Friday October 21, 2005 01:23:20 PM EST -
How much money is being spent is only part of the story. Lets take the prescription drug benifit program as an example. How much larger is that increase because of the 139 BILLION dollar subsidy to the pharmacuetical industry? If Bush is spending more but a higher percentage of that more is going to his corporate sponsers is that really more support?
solon:
You bring up a good point. Rightwingers like to use "entitlement" and "benefit" to describe health care, as these people are carrying money home in satchels.
Our citizens hopefully obtain only health from a health care policy. The MONEY goes to hospitals, health care personnel, manufacturers of medical equipment, and, or course, the producers of such things as prescription drugs.
The pile of money Congress allots does NOT go to the recipients of the care. They get the care, OTHERS get the money for providing that care.
The trick of the GOP is to play favorites in order to recut the pie to make sure larger shares go to their priorities (i. e. the companies that pay the largest campaign contributions.)
Total dollars is thus a worthless measure. What we're talking about is INCOME REDISTRIBUTION (called Socialism and "Class Envy" when Dems are perceived to be doing it).
Take Katrina. A school needed to be rebuilt in Mississippi. Someone in Washington decided the no-bid contract should go to a construction company in ALASKA. The cost was about $80,000 a classroom unit. Just down the street from the school was the Mississippi-owned and operated outfit which has been supplying portable classroom buildings to MS schools as their livelihood. They had enough pre-fab buildings on hand to fill the contract (no delay), and their units were $50,000 per classroom. The MS company owner scratches his head, wondering why he was not even CONSIDERED for the contract.
Moral of this story? The GOP can brag that they INCREASED the spending for building Mississippi schools. The bottom line of the actual deal? Cronyism, greed, and not a dime's more value to the people of Mississippi.
Don't tell me when Bush spends more money. Put it in perspective: Who exactly is GETTING all that money? (Hint: Bush cronies, friends of the GOP, some wealthy guy just got a lot wealthier.)
"Since I deal in history and reality" Tex.
Tex, when did you start this new outlook. Based on your recent posts you must be starting tomorrow. Dealing with history and reality will do you some good. I look forward to seeing your transition away from the left.
"But with all the problems facing this country and how they need Congress' attention, you would much prefer they spend the next three years investigating and bringing down Bush."
If it's actually a choice (they can't do anything else for three years? Really?), they should still investigate Bush. To have an administration with this little accountability and integrity can not be allowed to set a precedent. Otherwise, any special prosecutor could be fired at any time for the simple reason that Congress can't be bothered with a scandal. Besides that, the prospect of foregoing an investigation of this serious a nature for the sake of letting Congress rubber-stamp that very same administration's policies is simply sickening. Don't you agree?
In other words Gingrich is claiming that Wilson should have known that the cons were going to take revenge on him for writing the NYT op-ed and telling the truth about the Niger uranium.
Of course, as MMFA pointed out, Judith Miller already knew about Valerie Plame even before the op-ed. Revenge had already started.
As others here have said through indirection, Gingrich's comment is essentially an admission that the Bush Administration is so lawless,and so known to be so, that it was a foregone conclusion they would violate National Security merely to revenge themselves upon someone who showed them up as liars.
This is an appalling admission for Gingrich to make, and the agreement of Hannity or the non-response of a Couric is all the more dismaying for the complicity andor stupidity it reveals as rampant among our too-highly-paid quislings in the mainstream media.
Rove, Libby (and, it is to be hoped, Cheney)will certainly not be calling Gingrich as a witness for the defense at their trials for treason.