Obama's 3 Biggest Mistakes

[PoliticalChic]

1. A Stimulus Bill that will burden our economy and future generations:” annual deficits averaging in excess of $926 billion over the next decade and more than triple what taxpayers pay each year in interest charges on the national debt, according to new estimates released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office.” (Politico.com)

“Anna Schwartz …at the National Bureau of Economic Research…with Milton Friedman, she wrote A Monetary History of the United States, a book that forever changed our knowledge of economics and the way that governments operate. ‘Bernanke is right about the past’, Schwartz says, “but he is fighting the wrong war today; the present crisis has nothing to do with a lack of liquidity.” President Obama’s stimulus is similarly irrelevant, she believes, since the crisis also has nothing to do with a lack of demand or investment. The credit crunch, which is the recession’s actual cause, comes only from a lack of trust, argues Schwartz. Lenders aren’t lending because they don’t know who is solvent, and they can’t know who is solvent because portfolios remain full of mortgage-backed securities and other toxic assets.”

Monetarism Defiant by Guy Sorman, City Journal Spring 2009

2. Hobbles our Counterterrorism Efforts
“Over the past couple of weeks, we have been carefully watching the fallout from the Obama administration’s decision to release four classified memos from former President George W. Bush’s administration that authorized “enhanced interrogation techniques”… , our contacts in the intelligence community report that the release of the memos has had a discernible “chilling effect” on those in the clandestine service who work on counterterrorism issues….the debate over the morality of such interrogation techniques …has distracted many observers from examining the impact that the release of these memos is having on the ability of the U.S. government to fulfill its counterterrorism mission.” (Stratfor.com)

3. Disavows the Exceptionalism of America. President Obama probably wouldn’t have enjoyed a beer, or a wine, with Alexis de Tocqueville, who, in his seminal work in 1835 referred to America as “exceptional.” Instead, he goes around the world apologizing for a multitude of wrongs and oversteps by his country, calls us arrogant, and finds common ground with tyrants and tin-pot dictators. He hires an attorney-general who calls Americans “cowards,” and glad hands leaders who claim the economic woes of the world are due to “white people.” Certainly, there are errors in our history, but where is our President trumpeting the greatness of a country that has accumulated more power than any other in history, and used it more judiciously?

By comparison, President Sarkozy, in Senegal in 2007, actually said this about his country’s colonialism: “They took, but I would like to say, with respect, that they also gave: they built bridges, roads, hospitals, chemists, schools. They made virgin soil bear fruit, they invested their concern, their labours and their knowledge. I want to say it here: The colonials were not all thieves. The colonials were not all exploiters.
There were bad men among them, but there were also among them men of goodwill, men who thought they were carrying out a civilising mission, men who thought they were doing the right thing.”

 

[Xenophon]

Not just the stimulus, his budgets are blaoted monsters of over spending.

 

[Iriemon]

I depends our your perspective I suppose as to whether you think those are mistakes.

I view the stimulus bill as necessary for hopefully preventing a far worse recession; the release of the memos as an important first step to restoring America as that shining city on the hill, and his humble approach as important to show that the arrogant bully America of the previous 8 years is gone -- this again goes toward the shining city objective.

If these are his three greatest "mistakes," he's doing a pretty good job from my persepective.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I depends our your perspective I suppose as to whether you think those are mistakes.

I view the stimulus bill as necessary for hopefully preventing a far worse recession; the release of the memos as an important first step to restoring America as that shining city on the hill, and his humble approach as important to show that the arrogant bully America of the previous 8 years is gone -- this again goes toward the shining city objective.

If these are his three greatest "mistakes," he's doing a pretty good job from my persepective.

Now, each of us is aware of where the other is coming from, and if the following seems like a trap, I don't mean it as such.

And, as I said as far back as November, I hope President Obama is so successful for my country that I vote for him...

but, is there some point definite where you will say that the Stimulus didn't work, or proved too expensive...

and if his squeeze of the intelligence community doesn't, heaven forbid, keep us as safe as the Bush years...

and if policy for Afghanistan, and with other countries, for example if we see no greater freedom for the people of Cuba, bear no fruit,

is there a point where you might cast your vote for a dfferent party?

 

[NOBama]

I depends our your perspective I suppose as to whether you think those are mistakes.

I view the stimulus bill as necessary for hopefully preventing a far worse recession; the release of the memos as an important first step to restoring America as that shining city on the hill, and his humble approach as important to show that the arrogant bully America of the previous 8 years is gone -- this again goes toward the shining city objective.

If these are his three greatest "mistakes," he's doing a pretty good job from my persepective.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

1. A Stimulus Bill that will burden our economy and future generations:” annual deficits averaging in excess of $926 billion over the next decade and more than triple what taxpayers pay each year in interest charges on the national debt, according to new estimates released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office.” (Politico.com)

“Anna Schwartz …at the National Bureau of Economic Research…with Milton Friedman, she wrote A Monetary History of the United States, a book that forever changed our knowledge of economics and the way that governments operate. ‘Bernanke is right about the past’, Schwartz says, “but he is fighting the wrong war today; the present crisis has nothing to do with a lack of liquidity.” President Obama’s stimulus is similarly irrelevant, she believes, since the crisis also has nothing to do with a lack of demand or investment. The credit crunch, which is the recession’s actual cause, comes only from a lack of trust, argues Schwartz. Lenders aren’t lending because they don’t know who is solvent, and they can’t know who is solvent because portfolios remain full of mortgage-backed securities and other toxic assets.”

Monetarism Defiant by Guy Sorman, City Journal Spring 2009

2. Hobbles our Counterterrorism Efforts
“Over the past couple of weeks, we have been carefully watching the fallout from the Obama administration’s decision to release four classified memos from former President George W. Bush’s administration that authorized “enhanced interrogation techniques”… , our contacts in the intelligence community report that the release of the memos has had a discernible “chilling effect” on those in the clandestine service who work on counterterrorism issues….the debate over the morality of such interrogation techniques …has distracted many observers from examining the impact that the release of these memos is having on the ability of the U.S. government to fulfill its counterterrorism mission.” (Stratfor.com)

3. Disavows the Exceptionalism of America. President Obama probably wouldn’t have enjoyed a beer, or a wine, with Alexis de Tocqueville, who, in his seminal work in 1835 referred to America as “exceptional.” Instead, he goes around the world apologizing for a multitude of wrongs and oversteps by his country, calls us arrogant, and finds common ground with tyrants and tin-pot dictators. He hires an attorney-general who calls Americans “cowards,” and glad hands leaders who claim the economic woes of the world are due to “white people.” Certainly, there are errors in our history, but where is our President trumpeting the greatness of a country that has accumulated more power than any other in history, and used it more judiciously?

By comparison, President Sarkozy, in Senegal in 2007, actually said this about his country’s colonialism: “They took, but I would like to say, with respect, that they also gave: they built bridges, roads, hospitals, chemists, schools. They made virgin soil bear fruit, they invested their concern, their labours and their knowledge. I want to say it here: The colonials were not all thieves. The colonials were not all exploiters.
There were bad men among them, but there were also among them men of goodwill, men who thought they were carrying out a civilising mission, men who thought they were doing the right thing.”

We shall see if this is thinking overload for the reflexive Obamians as it was the Bush43ians, etc.

 

[Iriemon]

I depends our your perspective I suppose as to whether you think those are mistakes.

I view the stimulus bill as necessary for hopefully preventing a far worse recession; the release of the memos as an important first step to restoring America as that shining city on the hill, and his humble approach as important to show that the arrogant bully America of the previous 8 years is gone -- this again goes toward the shining city objective.

If these are his three greatest "mistakes," he's doing a pretty good job from my persepective.

Now, each of us is aware of where the other is coming from, and if the following seems like a trap, I don't mean it as such.

And, as I said as far back as November, I hope President Obama is so successful for my country that I vote for him...

but, is there some point definite where you will say that the Stimulus didn't work, or proved too expensive...

and if his squeeze of the intelligence community doesn't, heaven forbid, keep us as safe as the Bush years...

and if policy for Afghanistan, and with other countries, for example if we see no greater freedom for the people of Cuba, bear no fruit,

is there a point where you might cast your vote for a dfferent party?

I might vote for another party anyway, if there is an old fashioned type fiscal conservative (one focusing on balancing the budget as opposed to tax cuts) and social moderate.

As I have said before, I am no fan of Obama's long term deficits.

The problem with your benchmarks is that they are a bit vague.

The right will argue the stimulus was unnecessary and too expensive regardless of what the economy does.

Keeping us safe? Over 5000 people died from terrorist attacks under Bush, if you include what are called terrorist attacks in Iraq. We've had an orange alert status for 7 years. Bush administration officials have always said another terrorist attack is possible. If there is another does that automatically prove Obama's policy is a failure?

Afghanistan is very probably a losing cause. I don't expect democracy to sweep over Cuba regardless of US policy.

I'll judge Obama like any other president; how he handles things he can control like the budget, which is a biggie with me, what he does with health care and other entitlements, and observations of accomplishments on the foreign policy side, amongst a host of other issues.

 

[Pyrite]

Now, each of us is aware of where the other is coming from, and if the following seems like a trap, I don't mean it as such.

And, as I said as far back as November, I hope President Obama is so successful for my country that I vote for him...

but, is there some point definite where you will say that the Stimulus didn't work, or proved too expensive...

and if his squeeze of the intelligence community doesn't, heaven forbid, keep us as safe as the Bush years...

and if policy for Afghanistan, and with other countries, for example if we see no greater freedom for the people of Cuba, bear no fruit,

is there a point where you might cast your vote for a dfferent party?

On all three fronts, Obama is basically doing what I would recommend for the situation. Government spending is necessary to lessen the effects of economic recession, and torture is both ineffective and morally bankrupt. Foriegn relations questions, especially strategy questions, are a bit dicier, but I think ending Cuba's isolation would be a good first step.

A complete failure on the first front would mean that essetially my entire conception for how economics works is wrong. If that's the case I'd have to try and figure out a new one.

But in the real world it's impossible to measure whether a hypothetical future terrorist attack could have been prevented by interrogating the right person with the right methods, or whether that same terrorist attack could have been committed by someone outraged by the fact that his countrymen were tortured. But just as the economic benefits of slavery could not justify the practice of slavery, the strategic benefits of torture, (supposing that there are any) cannot justify torture.

 

[ItsFairmont]

Obama's three biggest mistakes (in my book):

1. He allows Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy, Wolfie, and the other neo-cons to not be imprisoned.

2. He hasn't withdrawn all troops.

3. He hasn't sent the CIA after the rightwingers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now, each of us is aware of where the other is coming from, and if the following seems like a trap, I don't mean it as such.

And, as I said as far back as November, I hope President Obama is so successful for my country that I vote for him...

but, is there some point definite where you will say that the Stimulus didn't work, or proved too expensive...

and if his squeeze of the intelligence community doesn't, heaven forbid, keep us as safe as the Bush years...

and if policy for Afghanistan, and with other countries, for example if we see no greater freedom for the people of Cuba, bear no fruit,

is there a point where you might cast your vote for a dfferent party?

On all three fronts, Obama is basically doing what I would recommend for the situation. Government spending is necessary to lessen the effects of economic recession, and torture is both ineffective and morally bankrupt. Foriegn relations questions, especially strategy questions, are a bit dicier, but I think ending Cuba's isolation would be a good first step.

A complete failure on the first front would mean that essetially my entire conception for how economics works is wrong. If that's the case I'd have to try and figure out a new one.

But in the real world it's impossible to measure whether a hypothetical future terrorist attack could have been prevented by interrogating the right person with the right methods, or whether that same terrorist attack could have been committed by someone outraged by the fact that his countrymen were tortured. But just as the economic benefits of slavery could not justify the practice of slavery, the strategic benefits of torture, (supposing that there are any) cannot justify torture.

First, welcome to the board. I hope you have as much fun here as I do.

As far as "Government spending is necessary to lessen the effects of economic recession," there is no historical evidence for this, but there is for the opposite:
"Instead of bailing out failing businesses, expanding government, and redistributing taxpayer money with a "stimulus" plan, Harding responded by cutting spending and removing burdensome regulations and taxes. During his campaign, he argued, "We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation." In stark contrast with the Bush-Obama response of ever-more government spending and debt, Harding had federal spending cut in half between 1920 and 1922 and ultimately ran a surplus.
As a result, the recession that started in 1920 ended before 1923. Lower taxes and reduced regulation helped America's economy quickly adjust after the war as entrepreneurs and capital were freed to create jobs and push the economy to recover. Harding's free market policies lead to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women's rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history. Still, he is ranked as one of the worst presidents by many in academia's ivory tower."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obama_should_channel_harding_n.htm

I can see that you and I would differ on the definition of "torture," but if we stick to the methods exposed by the Obama Administration, they clearly resulted in high value intell that saved lives:
WASHINGTON - President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
NYT: Harsh techniques worked, intel chief says - White House- msnbc.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obama's three biggest mistakes (in my book):

1. He allows Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy, Wolfie, and the other neo-cons to not be imprisoned.

2. He hasn't withdrawn all troops.

3. He hasn't sent the CIA after the rightwingers.

I had to read this post several times, pondering what species, er, educational level could have penned this. Had it been on paper, I'm sure that it would have been done in crayon.

I can only conclude that the thought behind it, if there is any, was to validate your left left left wing creds.

Item 1, imprison American citizens for having a different opinion? And the criminal statutes infracted would be...?

Item 3, send government agents after those with whom you differ, ah, how very liberal of you. But consistent with item 1.

Your knowledge of the Federal government is as extensive as your knowledge of the Constitution, as you are unaware of the agency that would be involved in your policies of political oppression: it would be the FBI, not the CIA.

As for Item 2, there is no reason to question your grasp of geopolitics based on how well you handled 1 and 3.

 

[driveby]

Obama's three biggest mistakes (in my book):

1. He allows Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy, Wolfie, and the other neo-cons to not be imprisoned.

2. He hasn't withdrawn all troops.

3. He hasn't sent the CIA after the rightwingers.

end yourself......

 

[Seraega]

Obama's three biggest mistakes (in my book):

1. He allows Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy, Wolfie, and the other neo-cons to not be imprisoned.

2. He hasn't withdrawn all troops.

3. He hasn't sent the CIA after the rightwingers.

Not just Bush, Cheney, Rice... anyone who signed on for violating the Geneva Conventions needs to be prosecuted. I like that Obama is trying to move forward and not dwell on the past, but he has a duty to uphold the law. There is absolutely no such thing as an unlawful combatant, this was decided in the 1950s. Somebody in the Bush Administration should have been smart enough... nevermind, what am I saying.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obama's three biggest mistakes (in my book):

1. He allows Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy, Wolfie, and the other neo-cons to not be imprisoned.

2. He hasn't withdrawn all troops.

3. He hasn't sent the CIA after the rightwingers.

Not just Bush, Cheney, Rice... anyone who signed on for violating the Geneva Conventions needs to be prosecuted. I like that Obama is trying to move forward and not dwell on the past, but he has a duty to uphold the law. There is absolutely no such thing as an unlawful combatant, this was decided in the 1950s. Somebody in the Bush Administration should have been smart enough... nevermind, what am I saying.

What Geneva Convention covers terrorists?

 

[Seraega]

Obama's three biggest mistakes (in my book):

1. He allows Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy, Wolfie, and the other neo-cons to not be imprisoned.

2. He hasn't withdrawn all troops.

3. He hasn't sent the CIA after the rightwingers.

Not just Bush, Cheney, Rice... anyone who signed on for violating the Geneva Conventions needs to be prosecuted. I like that Obama is trying to move forward and not dwell on the past, but he has a duty to uphold the law. There is absolutely no such thing as an unlawful combatant, this was decided in the 1950s. Somebody in the Bush Administration should have been smart enough... nevermind, what am I saying.

What Geneva Convention covers terrorists?

yawn. terrorists are not some special category. There are civilians and combatants, period. This shit was already pulled in 1958 and the Red Cross said no way. Civilians and combatants, period.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1. A Stimulus Bill that will burden our economy and future generations:”
2. Hobbles our Counterterrorism Efforts

3. Disavows the Exceptionalism of America.

1. So you are concerned with the economic burdens that MAY be faced by future generations? Where were ou during the years of GOP rule in the Senate, House and in the WH during the last 30 years? It looks like you're talking out of your ass o this one.

2. So you disagree with all the counter-terrorism experts that advised Obama and those woh warned Bush/Cheney?

3. What planet are you living on?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not just Bush, Cheney, Rice... anyone who signed on for violating the Geneva Conventions needs to be prosecuted. I like that Obama is trying to move forward and not dwell on the past, but he has a duty to uphold the law. There is absolutely no such thing as an unlawful combatant, this was decided in the 1950s. Somebody in the Bush Administration should have been smart enough... nevermind, what am I saying.

What Geneva Convention covers terrorists?

yawn. terrorists are not some special category. There are civilians and combatants, period. This shit was already pulled in 1958 and the Red Cross said no way. Civilians and combatants, period.

Obama’s Attorney General: Terrorists Not Protected by Geneva
Convention

by Bill Levinson

The Democrats have bleated for years about the detention of illegal
combatants at Guantanamo, while the Left and the “international
community” have demanded that captured terrorists be treated as
prisoners of war. We read in the November 22-23 Wall Street Journal
(page A13) that Barack Obama’s selected Attorney General, Eric Holder,
agrees with us that terrorists are not uniformed combatants who are
entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. Per an interview
on CNN in January 2002...
Re: Obama’s Attorney General: Terrorists Not Protected by Geneva Convention

 

[Pyrite]

Now, each of us is aware of where the other is coming from, and if the following seems like a trap, I don't mean it as such.

And, as I said as far back as November, I hope President Obama is so successful for my country that I vote for him...

but, is there some point definite where you will say that the Stimulus didn't work, or proved too expensive...

and if his squeeze of the intelligence community doesn't, heaven forbid, keep us as safe as the Bush years...

and if policy for Afghanistan, and with other countries, for example if we see no greater freedom for the people of Cuba, bear no fruit,

is there a point where you might cast your vote for a dfferent party?

On all three fronts, Obama is basically doing what I would recommend for the situation. Government spending is necessary to lessen the effects of economic recession, and torture is both ineffective and morally bankrupt. Foriegn relations questions, especially strategy questions, are a bit dicier, but I think ending Cuba's isolation would be a good first step.

A complete failure on the first front would mean that essetially my entire conception for how economics works is wrong. If that's the case I'd have to try and figure out a new one.

But in the real world it's impossible to measure whether a hypothetical future terrorist attack could have been prevented by interrogating the right person with the right methods, or whether that same terrorist attack could have been committed by someone outraged by the fact that his countrymen were tortured. But just as the economic benefits of slavery could not justify the practice of slavery, the strategic benefits of torture, (supposing that there are any) cannot justify torture.

First, welcome to the board. I hope you have as much fun here as I do.

As far as "Government spending is necessary to lessen the effects of economic recession," there is no historical evidence for this, but there is for the opposite:
"Instead of bailing out failing businesses, expanding government, and redistributing taxpayer money with a "stimulus" plan, Harding responded by cutting spending and removing burdensome regulations and taxes. During his campaign, he argued, "We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation." In stark contrast with the Bush-Obama response of ever-more government spending and debt, Harding had federal spending cut in half between 1920 and 1922 and ultimately ran a surplus.
As a result, the recession that started in 1920 ended before 1923. Lower taxes and reduced regulation helped America's economy quickly adjust after the war as entrepreneurs and capital were freed to create jobs and push the economy to recover. Harding's free market policies lead to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women's rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history. Still, he is ranked as one of the worst presidents by many in academia's ivory tower."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obama_should_channel_harding_n.htm

I can see that you and I would differ on the definition of "torture," but if we stick to the methods exposed by the Obama Administration, they clearly resulted in high value intell that saved lives:
WASHINGTON - President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
NYT: Harsh techniques worked, intel chief says - White House- msnbc.com

Thanks for the welcome, though I've been here about a month.


I have heard conflicting reports from reliable authorities as to how effective it was, and I think we won't know the truth about it until we get more specifics about what exactly happened. but I really don't think that's the point.

I think the whole point of principles is that you don't get to violate them whenever it seems advantageous to do so. And as for my opinion on torture: Waterboarding is torture, and the other methods outlined in the bush memos become torture if used more than sparingly. (ie. sleep depravation for a night is one thing, for a week is entirely another)

On economics, I don't know much about the economic situation of the twenties, but I do stand behind the effects we saw of FDRs new deal during the great depression. The efficacy of both policies is demonstrated in this graph.
File:Gdp20-40.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. A Stimulus Bill that will burden our economy and future generations:”
2. Hobbles our Counterterrorism Efforts

3. Disavows the Exceptionalism of America.

1. So you are concerned with the economic burdens that MAY be faced by future generations? Where were ou during the years of GOP rule in the Senate, House and in the WH during the last 30 years? It looks like you're talking out of your ass o this one.

2. So you disagree with all the counter-terrorism experts that advised Obama and those woh warned Bush/Cheney?

3. What planet are you living on?

1. Bush years (8 years) $2.3 trillion
Obama (8 yrs) $9.3 trillion
Big Deficit Projection Tests Obama Agenda - WSJ.com

2. Disagreed as far as what? That we wouldn't get high value intell? Clearly we ddi.

3. "Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan: "We are the oldest continuing democracy in the world. . . . We don't make refugees, we admit them. When the rich of the world get sick, they come here to be treated, and when their children come of age, they send them here to our universities. We have a supple political system open to reform, and a wildly diverse culture that has moments of stress but plenty of give. . . . The point is that while terrible challenges face us -- improving a sick public education system, ending the easy-money culture, rebuilding the economy -- we are building from an extraordinary, brilliant, and enduring base."

What's your point?

 

[PoliticalChic]

On all three fronts, Obama is basically doing what I would recommend for the situation. Government spending is necessary to lessen the effects of economic recession, and torture is both ineffective and morally bankrupt. Foriegn relations questions, especially strategy questions, are a bit dicier, but I think ending Cuba's isolation would be a good first step.

A complete failure on the first front would mean that essetially my entire conception for how economics works is wrong. If that's the case I'd have to try and figure out a new one.

But in the real world it's impossible to measure whether a hypothetical future terrorist attack could have been prevented by interrogating the right person with the right methods, or whether that same terrorist attack could have been committed by someone outraged by the fact that his countrymen were tortured. But just as the economic benefits of slavery could not justify the practice of slavery, the strategic benefits of torture, (supposing that there are any) cannot justify torture.

First, welcome to the board. I hope you have as much fun here as I do.

As far as "Government spending is necessary to lessen the effects of economic recession," there is no historical evidence for this, but there is for the opposite:
"Instead of bailing out failing businesses, expanding government, and redistributing taxpayer money with a "stimulus" plan, Harding responded by cutting spending and removing burdensome regulations and taxes. During his campaign, he argued, "We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation." In stark contrast with the Bush-Obama response of ever-more government spending and debt, Harding had federal spending cut in half between 1920 and 1922 and ultimately ran a surplus.
As a result, the recession that started in 1920 ended before 1923. Lower taxes and reduced regulation helped America's economy quickly adjust after the war as entrepreneurs and capital were freed to create jobs and push the economy to recover. Harding's free market policies lead to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women's rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history. Still, he is ranked as one of the worst presidents by many in academia's ivory tower."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obama_should_channel_harding_n.htm

I can see that you and I would differ on the definition of "torture," but if we stick to the methods exposed by the Obama Administration, they clearly resulted in high value intell that saved lives:
WASHINGTON - President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
NYT: Harsh techniques worked, intel chief says - White House- msnbc.com

Thanks for the welcome, though I've been here about a month.


I have heard conflicting reports from reliable authorities as to how effective it was, and I think we won't know the truth about it until we get more specifics about what exactly happened. but I really don't think that's the point.

I think the whole point of principles is that you don't get to violate them whenever it seems advantageous to do so. And as for my opinion on torture: Waterboarding is torture, and the other methods outlined in the bush memos become torture if used more than sparingly. (ie. sleep depravation for a night is one thing, for a week is entirely another)

On economics, I don't know much about the economic situation of the twenties, but I do stand behind the effects we saw of FDRs new deal during the great depression. The efficacy of both policies is demonstrated in this graph.
File:Gdp20-40.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No less an authority than FDR's Treasury secretary and close friend, Henry Morganthau, conceded this fact to Congressional Democrats in May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"

In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundred s of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.

In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
Michael Medved