Here comes the OFF scandal...

[Yonivore]

Allies 'resisted' stopping oil ploy (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041006-012159-1086r.htm)


"The governments of France, Russia, China and Syria blocked U.S. efforts within the United Nations to stop Saddam Hussein from misusing the oil-for-food program, a State Department official told Congress yesterday."
I really think the term "Ally" can be dropped from any description of our relationship with France or Russia and, I'm not certain it's ever applied to our relationship with China or Syria.

"'Through cynical yet subtle manipulation, he and an undeclared coalition of the venal on the Security Council exploited structural flaws in the program and institutional naivete at the U.N. to transform a massive humanitarian aid effort into a multibillion-dollar, sanctions-busting scam,' Mr. Shays said at the hearing."
"...undeclared coalition of the venal..." :hat

It's unraveling.

[whottt]

France will be our ally again...as soon as we win the war we will find out France was always on our side.

Give the French credit...they always manage to wind up on the winning side as long as they aren't doing the fighting by themselves.

Actually the French have a lot in common with John Kerry...no doubt we will see Kerry distancing himself from his UN comments fairly quickly...if he's smart he'll start distancing himself from his comments that he could have gotten France to send troops to Iraq...since they flat out said there were no circumstances in which they would do that and would veto any millitary action in Iraq.


But the bigger question that needs to be asked...why aren't Bush and Cheney attacking this issue like a mofo when Kerry is alleging we didn't really try to utilize the UN prior to kicking Iraq's ass?


Something is telling me that there's a sledgehammer with Kerry's name on it coming soon.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

whott,

France and Germany came up last night in the VP debate. Edwards ducked it completely and rambled on about training troops in Iraq.

I wish Cheney woulda called him out on it, but there was so much ammunition for Cheney to fire away with last night, and so little time to do it.

[Yonivore]

"France will be our ally again..."
I hope not. Frankly, I hope they're invaded by Germany again.

[JoeChalupa]

Oh like Cheney didn't duck some questions of his own.

[exstatic]

Like Jobs, Joe? ;)

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Well Kerry and Edwards keep saying they'd get France and Germany involved, and how that's how they'd handle Iraq differently. France and Germany effectively told them to fuck off in the last week, so I want to know who else they want to call on.

Kerry said that he wanted to give Iran nuclear fuel in the debate last week so that they could have fuel for reactors for generating power.

Iran came out not a day later and told Kerry to fuck off, that they'd never put their national interests in the hands of a foreign country or foreign countries.

Seems to me the Kerry foreign policy bubble has burst. Rather damning considering this is what he's constantly sniping at Bush about, don't you think?

[whottt]

They both ducked...but Edwards didn't pass on many opportunities for cheap shots at Cheney or Bush...

Cheney did pass on quite a few he could have taken, he pretty much passed on every one of them, it was a little bit frustrating to me if you want to be honest about it...

He could have bitchslapped Edwards on the differences between the Persian Gulf Coalition and this one...since he was one of the main people involved in putting that coalition together while Edwards momma was still changing his diapers.

The Haliburton attack is easily defensible.

While on the other hand...

Most of his attacks on Edwards were easily substantiated.....but the question is why didn't he go after the UN controversy since this is one of the biggest vulnerabilities Kerry has IMO... When there is plenty there to show how much of an error in judgement it would have been to rely on UN approval for this war....That's one of the key issues Kerry is using to justify his flip flopping stance on the war.

Why? Why did Cheney pass on that? It's a huge issue and point for the Republicans...it also doesn't really get into personal mudslinging which I think Bush and Cheney are trying to avoid.

The only thing that makes sense to me...I have to think there is going to be some big news coming out on this that really discredits what the UN has become and just how untrustworthy the UN is on the issue of Americas security.

I just have a feeling we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg on this. That the reason Bush and Cheney are taking the high road on this is issue is because they want total confirmation before they unload... I mean if some of the allegations against the UN, and Anan and Chiraq are true, this is a slam dunk justification for why the US was right to act unilaterally and it is going to make Kerry look really foolish and naive for wanting UN approval. It's going to absolutely justify the major criticism of Kerry as commander in chief...

To me it's the seminal issue of the campaign, and there is no way Bush and Cheney would be passing on attacking this unless they were really going to unload on Kerry at a later date.

[JoeChalupa]

No, I don't.

[Yonivore]

Like Jobs, Joe? ;)
He didn't duck the jobs issue, he just talked about complex economic issues of which you and John Edwards have no understanding. A robust economy creates jobs, not the federal government.

I know, I know, you don't professionalize unless you federalize.

But, that's the whole problem with Liberal job creation. It's all about making them out of whole cloth with my tax dollars. Why not stimulate the economy into growing to accommodate jobs growth?

Here's what the Vice President said about jobs, (Jeeze, you people need an education.):


"I think probably the most successful thing we can do with respect to ending poverty is to get people jobs. There's no better antidote to poverty than a good, well-paying job that allows somebody to take care of their own family."

"To do that, we have to make America the best place in the world to do business. And that means we've got to deal effectively with tax policy. We've got to reduce the litigation costs that are built into our society. We've got to provide the adequate medical care and make certain that we can, in fact, create the opportunities that are vital to that process."

[JoeChalupa]

Well, that sounds great Yonivore but the fact remains that they have a net job loss during their administration and that fact is indisputable no matter how well president, err..vice-president Cheney spins it.

[Yonivore]

Well, that sounds great Yonivore but the fact remains that they have a net job loss during their administration and that fact is indisputable no matter how well president, err..vice-president Cheney spins it.
Well, gee, it didn't help that they entered the White House on the downward slope of near-recession. Then, it further didn't help that over a million jobs evaporated on September 11, 2001.

I think this administration has performed phenomenally on the economy -- despite the sluggish jobs numbers -- in light of the obstacles over which they've had to overcome; and, all during a state of war.

Wow!

[Marcus Bryant]

What should have been done differently?

[JoeChalupa]

They shouldn't have spent so much time blaming Clinton.

[exstatic]

What should have been done differently?

Why are you asking us? We're just a bunch of people on an internet board.


Well, gee, it didn't help that they entered the White House on the downward slope of near-recession. Then, it further didn't help that over a million jobs evaporated on September 11, 2001.

I think this administration has performed phenomenally on the economy -- despite the sluggish jobs numbers -- in light of the obstacles over which they've had to overcome; and, all during a state of war.

The plain fact remains that net job loss during an administratoin hasn't happened in 70 years, through peacetime, wars, and recessions, GOP, Democrat...until now. All of your protestations are just excuses. The Bush administration is responsible because it happened on their watch. Aren't you conservatives big on accepting responsibility? Then do it, and stop your bellyaching.

[Yonivore]

They shouldn't have spent so much time blaming Clinton.
What are you talking about?

The President set right to work on his own agenda with tax cuts. I don't recall him blaming Clinton for the economy.

[Marcus Bryant]

Why are you asking us? We're just a bunch of people on an internet board.

Answer the fucking question.

[exstatic]

Ask the question of Bush.

[Marcus Bryant]

If you don't have an answer to that question, why is it that you claim Bush is "responsible" for the "job loss"?

[exstatic]

Because he's the fucking President, and SHOULD have the answers.

[exstatic]

Really, MB, go have a beer and fuck something.

[Marcus Bryant]

So it's more ignorant partisan bitching. Awesome.

[exstatic]

Just like you.

[Marcus Bryant]

You made the claim. Now back it up.

[JoeChalupa]

Cheney correctly noted that 1.7 million jobs have been added in the past year, since payroll employment bottomed out in August of last year.
New employment figures are due on Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the last report before election day. It now appears certain that Bush and Cheney will end their term with payroll employment still below where it was when they took office, the first time that's happened since the Hoover administration.

Just the facts please...just the facts.

[exstatic]

The only claim I made was that jobs were lost. You dispute that?

[Marcus Bryant]

Re-read the thread. Here is what you posted:


The plain fact remains that net job loss during an administratoin hasn't happened in 70 years, through peacetime, wars, and recessions, GOP, Democrat...until now. All of your protestations are just excuses. The Bush administration is responsible because it happened on their watch. Aren't you conservatives big on accepting responsibility? Then do it, and stop your bellyaching.

Shut up already.

[exstatic]

Well, of course it's their fault. It happened on their watch.

[Marcus Bryant]

What should have been done differently?

[Yonivore]

"The only claim I made was that jobs were lost. You dispute that?"
This wouldn't have happened under a Demoncratic administration, I suppose?

"Well, of course it's their fault. It happened on their watch."
So, your criticism stems from the fact that something, beyond the control of the administration, occurred?

[exstatic]

The plain fact remains that net job loss during an administratoin hasn't happened in 70 years, through peacetime, wars, and recessions, GOP, Democrat...until now. All of your protestations are just excuses. The Bush administration is responsible because it happened on their watch. Aren't you conservatives big on accepting responsibility? Then do it, and stop your bellyaching.

It happened to lots of administrations in the last 70 years. This one seems to be the only one too incompetent to deal with it, Yoni

[JohnnyMarzetti]

You break it, you own it.

Net job loss.
Massive deficit.
A war without end.

[Marcus Bryant]

So what should they have done that other administrations over the past 70 years have done?

Come on, if it's so clear even you should be able to state it.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

It is crystal clear. NET JOB LOSS!!!!!

[exstatic]

Marcus, you imply that if they don't have the answers, I should. I don't get paid to run the country, they do, and they've failed, economically speaking. Attacking me doesn't change that, although you're probably going to continue, since you can't defend them without making a bunch of weak excuses about conditions, none of which is any worse than conditions over the last 70 years.

[Marcus Bryant]

So you have no basis for your claims except ignorance. Very well.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Yes, please tell us Mr. Knowitall.

[exstatic]

70 years of history. The economy is in the shitter, Jobs are down during an administration for the first time. That's my basis.

[Marcus Bryant]

So what should they have done differently? Surely in the course of your review of 70 years of American economic history and presidential leadership you would have gained some insights.

Should they have reduced tax rates even more? Should they have pushed the Fed to lower interest rates even more? Should they have pushed for even greater government spending growth? Should they have pushed for an even weaker dollar?

Come on, take a stab.

[Marcus Bryant]

Also, to pretend that the burst of the tech bubble (which occurred on Clinton's watch so it's obviously his fault) and the subsequent slowdown in GDP growth which resulted from that as well as reduction in employment as a result of that as well as the direct impact the 9/11 attacks had on the financial markets and employment in this country was some kind of regular occurrence is silly, especially looking back over the course of the last 70 years.

[exstatic]

Marcus - It doesn't matter. You act as though this were a classroom exercise, which shouldn't be a surprise coming from a professional student. The bottom line is: they fucked it up. It doesn't matter how or why. I don't want W's hands on the throttle of our economy for another 4 years. For whatever reason, he can't get the job done.

[exstatic]

Pearl Harbor, WW II, rationing, Korea, Vietnam...those all happened in the last 70 years. Bushco doens't have some sort of monopoly on earthshaking events. Plenty of recessions during that time.

Oh, and I'll accept Clinton's responsibilty for the Tech bubble bursting. You now cannot use it as an excuse.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

So how many times in the last 70 years did something like 9/11 happen? Call it an excuse if you want, but the economy went into the shitter after that.

I don't know how WWII can be pointed to, Korea, or Vietnam. Of course the economies didn't slide during those events - we had a lot more troops being churned out to fight, along with a lot more supplies for said troops.

Different war, different economic environment at home.

[Marcus Bryant]

Marcus - It doesn't matter. You act as though this were a classroom exercise,
Why can't your argument be examined? Why are your claims immune from critique?



which shouldn't be a surprise coming from a professional student.


Um, I've worked full-time for 5 and a half years, have an undergraduate degree and a grad degree. The graduate degree was a "professional" degree so if you mean it in that sense, you are correct. Otherwise, you better come up with something else.



The bottom line is: they fucked it up. It doesn't matter how or why. I don't want W's hands on the throttle of our economy for another 4 years. For whatever reason, he can't get the job done.

So you don't know, you just want to bitch.

[exstatic]

So how many times in the last 70 years did something like 9/11 happen? Call it an excuse if you want, but the economy went into the shitter after that.

The stock market has recovered to pre-9/11 levels by now. Where are the jobs?


...we had a lot more troops being churned out to fight, along with a lot more supplies for said troops.

Should our current troop "bubble" be having some positive effect on the economy?

[Marcus Bryant]

Pearl Harbor, WW II, rationing, Korea, Vietnam...those all happened in the last 70 years. Bushco doens't have some sort of monopoly on earthshaking events. Plenty of recessions during that time.

There were two within the span of 18 months and both were direct hits on economic activity in this country.



Oh, and I'll accept Clinton's responsibilty for the Tech bubble bursting. You now cannot use it as an excuse.

Then that takes away a good portion of the "job loss".

[Marcus Bryant]

The stock market has recovered to pre-9/11 levels by now. Where are the jobs?


New jobs are being added every month. And of course there are problems with how the government counts employment but I won't get into that as it might be too complex for you.

[exstatic]

Why can't your argument be examined? Why are your claims immune from critique?

Jobs are down. It hasn't happened in 70 years. Bush was the sitting President.

Those are all fact, not arguments. If you're contesting my assertion that it's Bush' fault, then fine. Who's fault is it, then? Certainly not the Democrats. They hold neither the Whitehouse, nor either house of congress.

[exstatic]

Then that takes away a good portion of the "job loss".

Stay with me here. We're starting at the beginning of the Bush administration. The tech bubble losses don't count, since those were on Clinton's watch, which, by the way, still managed to post positive job growth.

[whottt]

Who's fault is it, then?

Osama's? He nearly put the airline industry out of business...not just here but in Europe as well.

[Marcus Bryant]

Jobs are down. It hasn't happened in 70 years. Bush was the sitting President.

http://jtolentino.com/zoo_shots/images/Parrot.jpg


Those are all fact, not arguments.

You made the argument that the Bush administration was "responsible" for it.



If you're contesting my assertion that it's Bush' fault, then fine. Who's fault is it, then? Certainly not the Democrats. They hold neither the Whitehouse, nor either house of congress.

How about it being the result of a sustained rise in financial asset prices throughout the last half of the 1990s and its subsequent collapse due to the unsustainability of the widely optimistic scenarios implied in said prices, for starters? That certainly hit business spending which is pretty significant when it comes to job creation. Factor in a Fed raising interest rates and you had all the makings of an economic downturn. If you would like a good book I would recommend Irrational Exuberance by Robert Shiller. Also, any introductory macroeconomics text would be a good start.

Then of course there was 9/11 which introduced a great deal of uncertainty into financial asset prices and there was a rather immediate and significant reduction in employment.

Of course, I am just a "professional student". Better to remain dumb instead, I suppose.

[Samurai Jane]

Osama's? He nearly put the airline industry out of business...not just here but in Europe as well.


So true, my boss owns a travel agency and he had to let go of all his employees after 9/11.

[Marcus Bryant]

Stay with me here. We're starting at the beginning of the Bush administration. The tech bubble losses don't count, since those were on Clinton's watch, which, by the way, still managed to post positive job growth.


That's well and good but you are assuming that those effects did not continue.

I'm not going to 'stay with you' because your points are fucking childish and moronic. I've only wasted this much time on you because I used to actually have some respect for you.

Good day.

[exstatic]

How about it being the result of a sustained rise in financial asset prices throughout the last half of the 1990s and its subsequent collapse due to the unsustainability of the widely optimistic scenarios implied in said prices, for starters?

The tech bust. That happened in March 2000, about 10 months before Bush took office. The fallout from that had done fell out by then.

As for Osama, 9/11 did cause the market to drop, but hell, it's back to where it started now. Why do businesses still not feel like spending? Could it be that they lack confidence in this adminstrations policies? Could it be that all of this deficit spending is making them jittery? The only think worse than tax and spend is don't tax and spend. Getting this rampant Federal spending under control would be a good place to start. That's not going to happen while we're occupying Iraq.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Where are the jobs? Howabout taking a look at where the jobs were lost:

- airline industry
- travel industry
- tourism industry
- customer support/relations jobs outsourced

The last one is about the only one you could maybe blame on our administration, and outside of banning outsourcing, I don't see how you get around that.

And if you pass legislation banning outsourcing, that kills any number of trade ventures , not to mention if push comes to shove you'd have entire corporations moving their business out of the U.S.