Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Were you still active-duty then, Commander?the fact remains: a majority of congressional democrats thought it was a bad idea to invade, conquer and oppupy Iraq in order to effect regime change and to rid Saddam of his (non-existent) stockpiles of WMD's.
try as they might, republicans cannot change the fact that they overwhelmingly supported our invasion of Iraq to rid Saddam of weapons he didn't have, and that invasion has had enormous easily calculated costs in blood and treasure, and not many calculable benefits.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam and his secular baathists stood as a bulwark minimizing Iran's plans for regional theocratic hegemony. Now, Iraq is run by a shiite majority sympathetic to Iran and will, in all probability, closely align themselves with Iran upon our eventual departure.
Whether you were, or not...are you going to sit there and tell me you weren't chanting, "Bomb those fuckers!" when it was all going down??
I retired in '93, and no, I was appalled that we unleashed shock and awe on an arab city's population that had done NOTHING to harm us on 9/11.
I spent two years on active duty in Lebanon with the UN contingent there and I KNOW that the arab world's opinion of the USA is nowhere near as monolithic and negative and violent as the Bush administration would have had us believe.
The citizens of Baghdad were NOT our enemies, but now, as a result of our invading, conquering, and occupying their country.... many of them are.
I was 100% behind our early actions in Afghanistan and volunteered to go back on active duty to participate in that action. I have been dead set against our war in Iraq since before it started.
And Mags links to a winger site as proof... go figure.... but sorry mags, what you have posted is not proof of your assertion
DiamondDave said:jill... you have been told before to stop posting about some debunked surplus... THERE WAS NO FUCKING SURPLUS and you have been shown this over and over and over again
She's been "told"??? Who the fuck made you God? There was indeed a B.U.D.G.E.T surplus. It is you and your ilk who constantly confuse that with deficit reduction, which did not happen.
You're claiming a myth as truth.... Hey... I know.... you make 40K a year, and spend 80K, but figure you can borrow from mom an additional 40K to cover... and you consider that breaking even too I betor maybe if you don't write a purchase in your checkbook, it really isn't spending, right??
There was no surplus.. we have (as shown by the motherfucking facts so many motherfucking times) not had a surplus since 1957... this is a cold hard and ABSOLUTE fact
It is your kind who refuse to look at a little thing called intergovernmental spending that was PURPOSELY left off the books while claiming this mythical surplus...
Epic fail, mags... epic fail
Are you also aware that the Republicans tried to regulate Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae in 2003,2005,2006? But they did not have enough power to stop any Democratic fillabuster.
Dear GOP: Fannie, Freddie Did Not Cause the Financial Crisis | Mother Jones
A report (pdf) by the Government Accountability Office, the non-partisan investigatory arm of Congress, supports all these arguments. According to the GAO report, Fannie and Freddie didn't go wild in the mid-2000s buying up mortgages in the secondary market because of some government mandate, like the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, to increase homeownership among low-income Americans. On the contrary, "Former [Federal Housing Finance Agency] Director [James] Lockhart stated that the enterprises primary motivation in purchasing [Alt-A and subprime mortgage backed] assets was to restore their share of the mortgage market, which declined substantially from 2004 through 2007 as the 'nontraditional' (for example, subprime) mortgage market rapidly increased in size. FHFA further stated that the enterprises viewed such mortgage assets as offering attractive risk-adjusted returns." In other words, they wanted to be bigger players in the mortgage business again, to make money where they thought they couldnot because Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) or some other politician told them what to do.
Much more at the link, all sourced material.
Don't have time to go to the link but (see the part I colored red) do the initials CYA mean anything to you?
The reasons as to why they did it are immaterial. They did it. That is all that matters.
The housing market collapsed. There are many reasons for that one of which is simply that the bubble had to burst eventually. It will, eventually, recover. One thing I wonder about is if things hadn't turned sour, would those that are throwing around blame be patting those that did this on the back and congratulating them for "a job well done"?
Prayerfully, I can hold out long enough for the market to recover.
Immie
I'm not sure that some of the far right even understand what Fannie and Freddie are supposed to do.
I'm not sure that some of the far right even understand what Fannie and Freddie are supposed to do.
You would think that with every economist and politician, both on the right and the left, saying the cause of the economic collapse was a deregulated Wall Street, they would quit with the "Freddie/Fannie".
Try to explain, "Wall Street took control of most of the mortgage market, gave the mortgages away, bundled them, sold them as securities, had the securities insured, and when the "securities" tanked, collected the insurance money", and they still don't get it.
Do they even wonder why insurance giants failed?
But oh no, it's all Barney Frank, Freddie and Fannie. How do you get through? I think it's just wasted effort.
Next, they will be telling us Iraq is a "success".
I wonder what they'll say about Iraq after we are kicked out and forced to leave a rebuilt oil industry? Won't that be a shocker?
I'm not sure that some of the far right even understand what Fannie and Freddie are supposed to do.
You would think that with every economist and politician, both on the right and the left, saying the cause of the economic collapse was a deregulated Wall Street, they would quit with the "Freddie/Fannie".
Try to explain, "Wall Street took control of most of the mortgage market, gave the mortgages away, bundled them, sold them as securities, had the securities insured, and when the "securities" tanked, collected the insurance money", and they still don't get it.
Do they even wonder why insurance giants failed?
But oh no, it's all Barney Frank, Freddie and Fannie. How do you get through? I think it's just wasted effort.
Next, they will be telling us Iraq is a "success".
I wonder what they'll say about Iraq after we are kicked out and forced to leave a rebuilt oil industry? Won't that be a shocker?
Provide a link for your claim that "every economist and politician, both on the right and the left, saying the cause of the economic collapse was a deregulated Wall Street".
Mr. Roberts, who follows the free-market Hayek school of economics, argues in a new paper that almost any attempt to reform the nations financial regulatory structure will fail to prevent another crisis, as the government will continue to limit the downside risk to both Main Street and Wall Street, encouraging reckless behavior.
THE FANNIE-FREDDIE BAILOUT - DealBook Blog - NYTimes.com
Is Wall Street really to blame for the economic collapse? - The Highland County Press - Hillsboro, Ohio
You would think that with every economist and politician, both on the right and the left, saying the cause of the economic collapse was a deregulated Wall Street, they would quit with the "Freddie/Fannie".
Try to explain, "Wall Street took control of most of the mortgage market, gave the mortgages away, bundled them, sold them as securities, had the securities insured, and when the "securities" tanked, collected the insurance money", and they still don't get it.
Do they even wonder why insurance giants failed?
But oh no, it's all Barney Frank, Freddie and Fannie. How do you get through? I think it's just wasted effort.
Next, they will be telling us Iraq is a "success".
I wonder what they'll say about Iraq after we are kicked out and forced to leave a rebuilt oil industry? Won't that be a shocker?
Provide a link for your claim that "every economist and politician, both on the right and the left, saying the cause of the economic collapse was a deregulated Wall Street".
Mr. Roberts, who follows the free-market Hayek school of economics, argues in a new paper that almost any attempt to reform the nations financial regulatory structure will fail to prevent another crisis, as the government will continue to limit the downside risk to both Main Street and Wall Street, encouraging reckless behavior.
THE FANNIE-FREDDIE BAILOUT - DealBook Blog - NYTimes.com
Is Wall Street really to blame for the economic collapse? - The Highland County Press - Hillsboro, Ohio
Put aside the philosophical analyses, and just watch and listen to how it was done straight from those who did it.
CNBC Originals S01E13: House of Cards: Full Episode - MovieWeb
Dear GOP: Fannie, Freddie Did Not Cause the Financial Crisis | Mother Jones
A report (pdf) by the Government Accountability Office, the non-partisan investigatory arm of Congress, supports all these arguments. According to the GAO report, Fannie and Freddie didn't go wild in the mid-2000s buying up mortgages in the secondary market because of some government mandate, like the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, to increase homeownership among low-income Americans. On the contrary, "Former [Federal Housing Finance Agency] Director [James] Lockhart stated that the enterprises primary motivation in purchasing [Alt-A and subprime mortgage backed] assets was to restore their share of the mortgage market, which declined substantially from 2004 through 2007 as the 'nontraditional' (for example, subprime) mortgage market rapidly increased in size. FHFA further stated that the enterprises viewed such mortgage assets as offering attractive risk-adjusted returns." In other words, they wanted to be bigger players in the mortgage business again, to make money where they thought they couldnot because Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) or some other politician told them what to do.
Much more at the link, all sourced material.
Don't have time to go to the link but (see the part I colored red) do the initials CYA mean anything to you?
The reasons as to why they did it are immaterial. They did it. That is all that matters.
The housing market collapsed. There are many reasons for that one of which is simply that the bubble had to burst eventually. It will, eventually, recover. One thing I wonder about is if things hadn't turned sour, would those that are throwing around blame be patting those that did this on the back and congratulating them for "a job well done"?
Prayerfully, I can hold out long enough for the market to recover.
Immie
I'm not disputing F&F aren't in this mess, but there continues to be a large proportion of the far right who think they are ALL at fault, which couldn't be further from the truth. At least once a day on C-Span's Washington Journal, someone will claim that as gospel and of course with no one to refute the claim, a million more people who are listening will believe it. THAT'S what makes me angry.
The financial reform package still wending its way through Congress doesn't deal with Fannie & Freddie yet. Supposedly there will be an entire proposed fix for them, but I don't know what that will be. I actually hope they just allow the agency to fold.
Don't have time to go to the link but (see the part I colored red) do the initials CYA mean anything to you?
The reasons as to why they did it are immaterial. They did it. That is all that matters.
The housing market collapsed. There are many reasons for that one of which is simply that the bubble had to burst eventually. It will, eventually, recover. One thing I wonder about is if things hadn't turned sour, would those that are throwing around blame be patting those that did this on the back and congratulating them for "a job well done"?
Prayerfully, I can hold out long enough for the market to recover.
Immie
I'm not disputing F&F aren't in this mess, but there continues to be a large proportion of the far right who think they are ALL at fault, which couldn't be further from the truth. At least once a day on C-Span's Washington Journal, someone will claim that as gospel and of course with no one to refute the claim, a million more people who are listening will believe it. THAT'S what makes me angry.
The financial reform package still wending its way through Congress doesn't deal with Fannie & Freddie yet. Supposedly there will be an entire proposed fix for them, but I don't know what that will be. I actually hope they just allow the agency to fold.
My unresearched and definitely not completely informed on the issue opinion is that there are too many factors that go into the market collapse to put the blame on any sole reason let alone any one party or politician.
Immie
I'm not disputing F&F aren't in this mess, but there continues to be a large proportion of the far right who think they are ALL at fault, which couldn't be further from the truth. At least once a day on C-Span's Washington Journal, someone will claim that as gospel and of course with no one to refute the claim, a million more people who are listening will believe it. THAT'S what makes me angry.
The financial reform package still wending its way through Congress doesn't deal with Fannie & Freddie yet. Supposedly there will be an entire proposed fix for them, but I don't know what that will be. I actually hope they just allow the agency to fold.
My unresearched and definitely not completely informed on the issue opinion is that there are too many factors that go into the market collapse to put the blame on any sole reason let alone any one party or politician.
Immie
'Tis true, but unfortunately, the only game in town these days is the blame game.
I'm not sure that some of the far right even understand what Fannie and Freddie are supposed to do.
That's true. They were never out on the street peddling mortgages like Countryside and all the others that filled our TV screens 24/7. They guaranteed those mortgages, which is where they took the hit.
I'm not sure that some of the far right even understand what Fannie and Freddie are supposed to do.
You would think that with every economist and politician, both on the right and the left, saying the cause of the economic collapse was a deregulated Wall Street, they would quit with the "Freddie/Fannie".
Try to explain, "Wall Street took control of most of the mortgage market, gave the mortgages away, bundled them, sold them as securities, had the securities insured, and when the "securities" tanked, collected the insurance money", and they still don't get it.
Do they even wonder why insurance giants failed?
But oh no, it's all Barney Frank, Freddie and Fannie. How do you get through? I think it's just wasted effort.
Next, they will be telling us Iraq is a "success".
I wonder what they'll say about Iraq after we are kicked out and forced to leave a rebuilt oil industry? Won't that be a shocker?
Provide a link for your claim that "every economist and politician, both on the right and the left, saying the cause of the economic collapse was a deregulated Wall Street".
Mr. Roberts, who follows the free-market Hayek school of economics, argues in a new paper that almost any attempt to reform the nations financial regulatory structure will fail to prevent another crisis, as the government will continue to limit the downside risk to both Main Street and Wall Street, encouraging reckless behavior.
THE FANNIE-FREDDIE BAILOUT - DealBook Blog - NYTimes.com
Is Wall Street really to blame for the economic collapse? - The Highland County Press - Hillsboro, Ohio
For all those people who defend Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae, and try to say that it wasn't the fall of Freddy and Fanny that caused the Economy to collaspe. Answer this one simple questioin why did the democratic control congress refuse to have both of them investigated?
For all those people who defend Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae, and try to say that it wasn't the fall of Freddy and Fanny that caused the Economy to collaspe. Answer this one simple questioin why did the democratic control congress refuse to have both of them investigated?
first...
give us a link that shows a democratically controlled congress refused to have them investigated....
So Bush had this informatiion that clinton had so clinton lied to Bush.What did Bill Clinton say about Iraq.....?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Want more ?
What he's saying is that Bush didn't believe Clinton when Clinton left a document that "An Attack was Imminent by al Qaeda", but Bush did believe that Saddam had WMDs. This is why Bush attacked Iraq instead of going after Bin Laden. He was so fucking stupid, that he was "confused" by Bill Clinton.
IS THAT WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE?
Oh these white wingers. They are insane.
Democrats voted for the war because the Bush administration said they had "proof" of:
And the most fantastic part of it all, Bush fooled those well educated and Washington experienced Democrats even before he got there...he must have been a fuckin' genius...
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
~~ Colin Powell, at a 2/24/01 meeting with Egypt's Foreign Minister
"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
~~Condoleezza Rice, 07/29/01, on CNN
So...two key players in the invasion of Iraq as a result of the attacks of 911, and nobody paid any attention to what they were saying months before.
