Emanuel's War Plan for Democrats [Archive]

View Full Version : Emanuel's War Plan for Democrats

Da Raider

11-07-2008, 03:18 PM

So, do you really think that the Democrats are going to end the war? Well, the new Chief of Staff for Barak probably has something else to say about it...(this article is two years old and very relevant)
October 24, 2006
Emanuel's War Plan for Democrats

The Book of Rahm

By JOHN WALSH
Last week in CounterPunch (http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh10142006.html) (1), I wrote that the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Congressman Rahm Emanuel, had worked hard to guarantee that Democratic candidates in key toss-up House races were pro-war. In this he was largely successful, because of the money he commands and the celebrity politicians who reliably respond to his call, ensuring that 20 of the 22 Democratic candidates in these districts are pro-war. So the fix is in for the coming elections.
In 2006, no matter which party controls the House, a majority will be committed to pursuing the war on Iraq--despite the fact that the Democratic rank and file and the general voting public oppose the war by large margins. (I hasten to add that this state of affairs can be reversed even after the sham election between the two War Parties.)

What are Emanuel's views on war and peace? Emanuel has just supplied the answer in the form of a scrawny book co-authored with Bruce Reed, modestly entitled: The Plan: Big Ideas for America (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1586484125/counterpunchmaga). The authors obligingly boil each of the eight parts of "The Plan" down to a single paragraph. The section which embraces all of foreign policy is entitled "A New Strategy to End the War on Terror," a heading revealing in itself since "war on terror" is the way the neocons and the Israeli Lobby currently like to frame the discussion of foreign policy. Here is the book's summary paragraph with my comments in parentheses:
"A New Strategy to Win the War on Terror"
("War on Terror," as George Soros points out, is a false metaphor used by those who would drag us into military adventures not in our interest or that of humanity.)
"We need to use all the roots of American power to make our country safe. (He begins by playing on fear.) America must lead the world's fight against the spread of evil and totalitarianism, but we must stop trying to win that battle on our own. (Messianic imperialism.) We should reform and strengthen multilateral institutions for the twenty-first century, not walk away from them. We need to fortify the military's "thin green line" around the world by adding to the U.S. Special Forces and the Marines, and by expanding the U.S. army by 100,000 more troops. (An even bigger military for the world's most powerful armed forces, a very militaristic view of the way to handle the conflicts among nations. What uses does Emanuel have in mind for those troops?) We should give our troops a new GI Bill to come home to. (More material incentives to induce the financially strapped to sign up as cannon fodder.) Finally we must protect our homeland and civil liberties by creating a new domestic counterterrorism force like Britain's MI5. (A new domestic spying operation is an obvious threat to our civil liberties; MI5 holds secret files on one in 160 adults in Britain along with files on 53,000 organizations.)
There it is straight from the horse's mouth.(2)
How does Emanuel, the man who has screened and chosen the 2006 Democratic candidates for Congress, feel specifically about the war on Iraq, the number one issue on voters' minds. Emanuel and Reed do not so much as mention Iraq in their book except in terms of the "war on terror." Nor does Emanuel mention Iraq on his web site as among the important issues facing us, quite amazing omission and one shared by Chuck Schumer who is his equivalent of the Senate side, chairing the DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee). However a very recent profile in Fortune (9/25/2006), "Rahm Emanuel, Pitbull Politician," by Washington Bureau chief Nina Easton notes: "On Iraq, Emanuel has steered clear of the withdraw-now crowd, preferring to criticize Bush for military failures since the 2003 invasion. 'The war never had to turn out this way,' he told me at one of his campaign stops. In January 2005, when asked by Meet the Press's Tim Russert whether he would have voted to authorize the war-'knowing that there are no weapons of mass destruction'-Emanuel answered yes. (He didn't take office until after the vote.) 'I still believe that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, okay?' he added."(3)
When Jack Murtha made his proposal for withdrawal from Iraq, Emanuel quickly declared that "Jack Murtha went out and spoke for Jack Murtha." As for Iraq policy, Emanuel added: "At the right time, we will have a position." That was November, 2005. In June, 2006, it was obviously time, and Emanuel finally revealed his policy in a statement on the floor of the House during debate over Iraq, thus: "The debate today is about whether the American people want to stay the course with an administration and a Congress that has walked away from its obligations or pursue a real strategy for success in the war on terror. We cannot achieve the end of victory and continue to sit and watch, stand pat, stay put, status quo and that is the Republican policy. Democrats are determined to take the fight to the enemy." The refrain is familiar; more troops are the means and victory in Iraq is the goal.
The war on Iraq benefited Israel by laying waste a country seen to be one of its major adversaries. Emanuel's commitment to Israel (4) and his Congressional service to it are not in doubt. The most recent evidence was his attack on the U.S. puppet Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al Maliki, because Maliki had labeled Israel's attack on Lebanon as an act of "aggression." Emanuel called on Maliki to cancel his address to Congress; and he was joined by his close friend and DSCC counterpart, Sen. Chuck Schumer, who asked; "Which side is he (Maliki) on when it comes to the war on terror?" In terms of retired Senator Fritz Holling's statement that Congress is Israeli occupied territory, Rahm Emanuel must be considered one of the occupying troops. And he certainly is a major cog in the Israel Lobby as defined by Mearsheimer and Walt. Nor is the idea that the Lobby exists and has tremendous influence on Middle East policy any longer a taboo in the minds of the general populace. According to a poll just carried out by Zogby International for CNI (5), 39% of the American public "agree" or "somewhat agree" that "the work of the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran." A similar number, 40%, "strongly disagreed" or "somewhat disagreed" with this position. Some 20% of the public were not sure.
But in some respects, Emanuel is a mysterious fellow, as evidenced by his biography, which is readily available on Wikipedia and in the piece in Fortune (3). But there are a few things missing or not fully explained. First, as is often pointed out, Emanuel's physician father was an Israeli émigré; but, according to Leon Hadar, he also worked during the 1940s with the notorious Irgun, which was labeled as a terrorist organization by the British authorities.(6) Perhaps Rahm's current interest in terrorism was first kindled at his father's Irgun knee.
Second, during the 1991 Gulf War, Emanuel was a civilian volunteer in Israel, "rust-proofing brakes on an army base in northern Israel." (Wikipedia, New Republic). This is peculiar on two counts. Here the U.S. goes to war with Iraq, but Emanuel, a U.S. citizen, volunteers not for his country, but for Israel. Moreover, here is a well-connected Illinois political figure with a father who had been in the Irgun, but he is assigned to "rust-proof brakes" on "an army base." Maybe.
Third, immediately upon his return from his desert sojourn, Emanuel at once became a major figure in the Clinton campaign "who wowed the team from the start, opening a spigot on needed campaign funds."(3) How did he do that after being isolated overseas, and with no experience in national politics? Fourth, after leaving the Clinton White House, he decided that he needed some accumulated wealth and "security" if he were to stay in politics. So he went to work for Bruce Wasserstein, a major Democratic donor and Wall Street financier.
According to Easton, "Over a 2 1/2-year period he helped broker deals-often using political connections-for Wasserstein Perella. According to congressional financial disclosures, he earned more than $18 million during that period. His deals included Unicom's merger with Peco Energy and venture fund GTCR Golder Rauner's purchase of SBC subsidiary SecurityLink. But friends say his compensation also benefited from two sales of the Wasserstein firm itself, first to Dresdner Bank and then to Allianz AG." Again for a newcomer to haul in $18 million in two years is almost miraculous. How did he do it? Next Emanuel won a seat in Congress in 2002, and by 2006 he was chair of the DCCC. Another near miraculous rise.
But Emanuel and his fellow hawks may yet fail to get their way. Major figures among the rulers of U.S. empire, and their well-compensated advisors, from James Baker to Jimmy Carter to Zbigniew Brzezinski to Mearsheimer and Walt, see disaster looming unless the neocons of both War Parties with their dual loyalties to the U.S. and Israel are brought to heel. Second and more important, the people are fed up with the war on Iraq and wary of other wars the hawks like Emanuel have planned for us. The politicians who win office, whether Rove's Republicans or Emanuel's Democrats, will have to deal with this rising tide of anger or risk losing their sinecures. That risk is offset by the machinations of Emanuel and others to guarantee that there is no genuine opposition party or movement. And that lack of a real opposition is a problem we must solve.

kareyn01

11-07-2008, 03:36 PM

Obama and Emanuel differ on a lot of issues, from the war to universal health care. Why don't you wait and see what the Obama administration does, or hell, even after the inauguration ceremony, to see what changes in course are in store under a President Obama.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people shouldn't be vigilant in holding Obama to his word. But in my opinion, all the uproar about Emanuel is just Chicken Little journalism from a MSM that has to have something to cover in the post-election vacuum. Emanuel was also a member of the Clinton administration, and that didn't stop Hillary Clinton from trying to pass universal healthcare...

Da Raider

11-07-2008, 03:41 PM

Gary_Busey

11-07-2008, 03:42 PM

The Iraqi government we put into place wants a time table for our withdrawal.

taters

11-07-2008, 05:34 PM

I wonder what all the anti-obama people will say once the war ends under Obama. Dimes to dollars they try to give Bush credit.

I said it here and now, mark my words.

HAWK

11-07-2008, 06:06 PM

I wonder what all the anti-obama people will say once the war ends under Obama. Dimes to dollars they try to give Bush credit.

I said it here and now, mark my words.

Da Raider

11-07-2008, 07:35 PM

I wonder what all the anti-obama people will say once the war ends under Obama. Dimes to dollars they try to give Bush credit.

I said it here and now, mark my words.

well, the Iraq war seems to be going our way now. No one wants to give the Bush Administration credit for escalating force size there. Granted, the reasons for even being there have been changed, modified and manipulated, so not sure he really deserves any credit anyway.

Either way, Afghanistan has been floundering for freaking six years now. We really need to finish the job there. And I don't care who gets credit.

Titus_Pullo

11-07-2008, 07:48 PM

http://i37.tinypic.com/2u7q9e9.jpg

"Nuke them into oblivion"

kid_vidrio

11-07-2008, 09:17 PM

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people shouldn't be vigilant in holding Obama to his word.
We should be very vigilant. Not to the point of overlooking reason, but BO should be held to a higher standard than W. Why? Because he's a better man.
He has a long leash from me, but little wiggle room, if you understand what I'm saying.

Yelram

11-07-2008, 09:25 PM

I wonder what all the anti-obama people will say once the war ends under Obama. Dimes to dollars they try to give Bush credit.

I said it here and now, mark my words.

Of course the war will end under Obama, why wouldnt it. I dont understand how if Bush led the initial effort, and everything starts to stabilize prior to Obama getting in office, how can you give him credit, and not Bush? You think Obama is going to wave a magic wand and suddenly everything goes away dont you? That somehow, every problem in your life was caused by GW Bush, and once he's gone, the world will be perfect.

kid_vidrio

11-07-2008, 09:33 PM

taters

11-07-2008, 10:01 PM

well, the Iraq war seems to be going our way now. No one wants to give the Bush Administration credit for escalating force size there. Granted, the reasons for even being there have been changed, modified and manipulated, so not sure he really deserves any credit anyway.

Either way, Afghanistan has been floundering for freaking six years now. We really need to finish the job there. And I don't care who gets credit.

No credit is due to Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.html

November 7, 2008
Obama Victory Alters the Tenor of Iraqi Politics

By ALISSA J. RUBIN
BAGHDAD — Barack Obama may have been elected only three days ago, but his victory is already beginning to shift the political ground in Iraq and the region.

Iraqi Shiite politicians are indicating that they will move faster toward a new security agreement about American troops, and a Bush administration official said he believed that Iraqis could ratify the agreement as early as the middle of this month.

“Before, the Iraqis were thinking that if they sign the pact, there will be no respect for the schedule of troop withdrawal by Dec. 31, 2011,” said Hadi al-Ameri, a powerful member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a major Shiite party. “If Republicans were still there, there would be no respect for this timetable. This is a positive step to have the same theory about the timetable as Mr. Obama.”

Mr. Obama has said that he favors a 16-month schedule for withdrawing combat brigades, a timetable about twice as fast as that provided for in the draft American and Iraqi accord.

Many Shiite politicians had been under intense pressure from Iranian leaders not to sign a security agreement. Iran, which has close ties to Shiite politicians, has feared the agreement would lay the groundwork for a permanent American troop presence in Iraq that would threaten Iran.

But now, the Iraqis appear to be feeling less pressure from Iran, perhaps because the Iranians are less worried that an Obama government will try to force a regime change in their country.

In recent weeks Mr. Ameri, who spent years in Iran and leads the Badr Corps, a onetime paramilitary arm of the Supreme Council, was one of several senior party members who appeared to be reflecting Iran’s concerns with a reluctance to endorse the pact.

Of course, given the volatile and fractious state of Iraqi politics, the security agreement could still be delayed. But with Iraqis believing that Mr. Obama, as president, would move faster to withdraw American troops, Iraqi and American officials said obstacles to a security agreement appeared to be fading.

Jabeer Habeeb, an independent Shiite lawmaker and a political scientist at Baghdad University, put it simply: “Obama’s election shifts Iraq into a new position.”

Gen. David H. Petraeus’s decision to withdraw another combat brigade six weeks ahead of schedule reinforced the assurances by Iraq’s defense minister that his troops could handle more of Iraq’s security and sent a signal that the American troop withdrawals would become a reality.

An Obama administration is also expected to shift the focus to Afghanistan. American officials have said that as the war deteriorates in Afghanistan, any additional forces sent there would have to be from among troops withdrawn from Iraq.

Mr. Obama’s election also coincided with the American negotiators’ acceptance of many of the changes Iraqis demanded in the agreement, which created an overall picture that was easier both for the Iraqis and their neighbors — Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia — to accept.

The American negotiators sent a new version of the agreement to Iraqi leaders on Thursday that included many of the changes Iraqis had demanded. In public, Iraqis said merely that they were studying the document.

Over all, however, there was a new tone of optimism. “The atmosphere is positive with the American attempt to preserve the sovereignty of the Iraqi nation,” the government’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, told the news channel Al Arabiya. He praised the inclusion of a new provision stating that Americans would not launch attacks on Iraq’s neighbors from Iraqi soil.

The Americans also added language to make explicit what kinds of troops would remain after the withdrawal in 2011, said a Bush administration official knowledgeable about the security pact. Those still in Iraq would be primarily trainers and air traffic controllers, the official said.

“There’s going to be a significant presence, but they are not going to be ‘combat’ forces,” said the administration official. The official said that the most recent talks with Iraqis had given American negotiators confidence that a final agreement was close.

Mr. Ameri, who is chairman of the security committee of Iraq’s Parliament, said that Iraqi politicians did appreciate the Bush administration’s commitment to Iraq. Signing the agreement while President Bush was still in office would be “a minimum sign of appreciation,” Mr. Ameri said.

The security pact, the largest policy issue here since last spring, has become the way Iraqis define themselves ideologically, a shorthand for what they think of the American presence.

Sunni parties are particularly nervous about the pact because in the past couple of years Americans have often been their protectors in sectarian fighting, and the withdrawal could leave Sunnis vulnerable to Shiite forces.

The Iraqi government, made up of exiles who were able to rise to power only as a result of the American invasion, has been looking for a way to support the pact without appearing to be kowtowing to Americans.

Mr. Obama’s election, which in many ways tips the balance toward withdrawal, allows the government to parry the calls by more anti-American parties to reject any pact. But many Iraqis are unnerved by the notion of a rapid withdrawal.

“Iraqis are very relieved that Obama won, but this happiness or relief is accompanied by worry,” said Ali Adeeb, a lawmaker and a senior member of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s Dawa Party. “Because even if Obama calls for early withdrawal, there is still a need to rehabilitate the Iraqi security forces.”

Mr. Obama has said that a contingent of American troops would probably stay for a more extended period — to train Iraqi forces, to protect the American Embassy and to root out terrorists. That should help reassure some Iraqis, Mr. Habeeb, the lawmaker, said.

“Everyone believes that the Iraqi forces will be capable of handling things instead of American troops,” he said. “But we need some involvement of Americans to prevent neighboring countries from extending their influence in Iraq. I heard Obama say he would keep some troops, so even after 16 months we will have some, but it will be outside of towns. It will not be seen by Iraqis.”

Mr. Obama’s election could provide a chance for Iraq to start a new chapter, with greater ability to control its own destiny. But it also will leave Iraq more on its own between aggressive neighbors and unable to look to the Americans as mediators when political factions argue. So there is at once a sense of possibility and the potential for implosion.

“The other thing we witnessed through the Bush period was that when the Iraqi politicians couldn’t reach a compromise, Bush interfered,” Mr. Habeeb said.

“I don’t think Obama will do that; he will not try to set the Iraqi agenda,” he said. “I think the politicians will have to be mature enough to solve their own problems and dare to make compromises.”

Steven Lee Myers contributed reporting from Washington.

BIG PIZZLE

11-07-2008, 10:13 PM

Claydon

11-07-2008, 11:27 PM

Emanuel is a hard core zionist but he'll never admit it. It was a good pick for the republicans and teh jewz on a foreign policy note. But the GOP will still complain b/c he's been such a dick to them. I think Powell would make an awesome education minister. Runing schools with military percision would be beneficial to many kids.

Uhhh, we do not have ministers in this country. perhaps you are confusing us with the fusion of powers in the canadian and european parliaments? granted with an obama presidency I can understand your confusion.

Rover

11-07-2008, 11:43 PM

All the secretaries should be ministers. That would give anti-religion zealots something to think about.

taters

11-07-2008, 11:51 PM

All the secretaries should be ministers. That would give anti-religion zealots something to think about.

Heh, 'anti-religion zealot'. Its in one definition, an oxymoron.

Not taking a shot, just commenting.

freegood

11-08-2008, 03:45 PM

We should be very vigilant. Not to the point of overlooking reason, but BO should be held to a higher standard than W. Why? Because he's a better man.
He has a long leash from me, but little wiggle room, if you understand what I'm saying.

Damn right. The era of low expectations should be OVER.

No more Palin in the national stage, damnit.

satandole666

11-08-2008, 04:10 PM

No credit is due to Bush.

I'm not even a Bush guy and this is bullshit. I guess Iraq was the same shithole on Nov 6 2008 as it was on Nov 6 2006 or 2007? The only reason a timetable is even morally responsible is due to the improved conditions there. Bush might not deserve credit for the pullout but he helped set the stage for it (nevermind the fact we shouldn't be there in the first place).

This is the same bullshit you pulled in the off season thread.

Enough with the talk. Is there any possible way to set up a long term betting system, that the economy noticeably improves during the Obama presidency?Of course it will improve in the next four years. Shit, it would still improve if Bush miraculously had a third term. It would improve if McCain was elected. It would probably improve if you or I got elected.

Obama is the one word answer to all of America's problems and nothing else could possibly contribute.

kid_vidrio

11-08-2008, 04:38 PM

Obama is the one word answer to all of America's problems and nothing else could possibly contribute.
This should probably be the genesis of its own thread.
I have been hearing this a fair bit and I'm not sure why. Amongst most thinking people I know, Obama is no 'one word answer' or panacea of any kind. He is simply a leader with his head out of his ass, which should hopefully allow the rest of us to operate unfettered, which in turn should ideally set things in the right direction. It's not so much what he is going to do as a 'one word answer' as what he is not going to do as a de-motivational dunder head.

In addition, just what must he do/accomplish before all the naysayers get off his back? Bush proved his critics right. What must BO do to prove his critics wrong? That will be a moving target as long as he is in there. It will never be quite enough. It will always be someone else's plan or idea or influence.
I don't envy him at this juncture and I hope crow becomes the daily special all across teh country and that more importantly, the would-be crow eaters can man-up and do so.

cAsE sEnSiTiVe

11-08-2008, 04:56 PM

Ever get the feeling Taters, Feng, and Smuckers are renting space up Obama's ass?

satandole666

11-08-2008, 04:59 PM

This should probably be the genesis of its own thread.
I have been hearing this a fair bit and I'm not sure why. Amongst most thinking people I know, Obama is no 'one word answer' or panacea of any kind. He is simply a leader with his head out of his ass, which should hopefully allow the rest of us to operate unfettered, which in turn should ideally set things in the right direction. It's not so much what he is going to do as a 'one word answer' as what he is not going to do as a de-motivational dunder head.

In addition, just what must he do/accomplish before all the naysayers get off his back? Bush proved his critics right. What must BO do to prove his critics wrong? That will be a moving target as long as he is in there. It will never be quite enough. It will always be someone else's plan or idea or influence.
I don't envy him at this juncture and I hope crow becomes the daily special all across teh country and that more importantly, the would-be crow eaters can man-up and do so.

I'm not an Obama naysayer, I just don't think a lot (EDIT: or a few, but I hear it enough to be annoyed by it) of his supporters seem to have a grasp on how large our government and economy are and/or how they work. I'm hoping Obama will do great things as well, but to say that Bush deserves no credit for setting the stage for a pullout is bullshit. I made no further claim.

Just like everything that happened in the past 8 years was Bush's fault, everything that goes right in the next 4 years will be because of Obama. I think both of these cases are close-minded at best.

kid_vidrio

11-08-2008, 05:24 PM

Just like everything that happened in the past 8 years was Bush's fault, everything that goes right in the next 4 years will be because of Obama. I think both of these cases are close-minded at best.
I think we're in agreement here.
As far as W goes, I haven't yet wrapped my mind around how you find the good points in such a cataclysmic failure.

Claydon

11-08-2008, 05:31 PM

I think we're in agreement here.
As far as W goes, I haven't yet wrapped my mind around how you find the good points in such a cataclysmic failure.

We need time before making that call. Bush Sr. was pretty much considered the great satan when he left office and now he is seen as a fantastic diplomat, and his domestic polices were actually very good for the country as a whole. Perhaps Iraq will become a cess pool of civil war in the ME, perhaps it will be a shining beacon of democracy in the ME at this time we just do not know. I am a republican that will be the first to call Bush out on some of his bullshit but I also know that time needs to pass to get a full view of the impact of his polices.

kid_vidrio

11-08-2008, 05:58 PM

We need time before making that call. Bush Sr. was pretty much considered the great satan when he left office and now he is seen as a fantastic diplomat, and his domestic polices were actually very good for the country as a whole. Perhaps Iraq will become a cess pool of civil war in the ME, perhaps it will be a shining beacon of democracy in the ME at this time we just do not know. I am a republican that will be the first to call Bush out on some of his bullshit but I also know that time needs to pass to get a full view of the impact of his polices.
I never heard anyone suggest GHWB called the great Satan.
He said he'd raise taxes and voila, he was out.
He was a great president on many levels imo.
His kid on the other hand, please, list for me his successes after EIGHT YEARS as the POTUS. People moan about BO not having a record, well, he has one, and he was just a state rep and a 'one term senator.'
What, pray tell, with all the economic and military might of 'the greatest country on Earth' has that fuckign ass clown currently in the white house actually accomplished? And don't tell me he was blocked by a Dem congress. Even if that were true, it wouldn't have stopped a decent pres from doing something to speak of.

Claydon

11-08-2008, 06:07 PM

I never heard anyone suggest GHWB called the great Satan.
He said he'd raise taxes and voila, he was out.
He was a great president on many levels imo.
His kid on the other hand, please, list for me his successes after EIGHT YEARS as the POTUS. People moan about BO not having a record, well, he has one, and he was just a state rep and a 'one term senator.'
What, pray tell, with all the economic and military might of 'the greatest country on Earth' has that fuckign ass clown currently in the white house actually accomplished? And don't tell me he was blocked by a Dem congress. Even if that were true, it wouldn't have stopped a decent pres from doing something to speak of.

At least intially, I think the Bush's desire for aid to africa specifically sending billions in anti retrovirals is phenominal. Bush's humanitarian aid to sub sarhan africa is fantastic (abstinence training was total bullshit however). That is one example I could up with off of the top of my head. And yes, I am sure you could put up some article from the NYT or some other publication showing how it was targeted to certain countries (mostly based on need although some suggest it was to favor countries with certain resources). Bottom line, give it time. Perhaps in time he will be considered a Johnson or even worst. Perhaps in time he will be considered a visionary (not likely).

heelsguy

11-08-2008, 06:07 PM

I never heard anyone suggest GHWB called the great Satan.
He said he'd raise taxes and voila, he was out.
He was a great president on many levels imo.
His kid on the other hand, please, list for me his successes after EIGHT YEARS as the POTUS. People moan about BO not having a record, well, he has one, and he was just a state rep and a 'one term senator.'
What, pray tell, with all the economic and military might of 'the greatest country on Earth' has that fuckign ass clown currently in the white house actually accomplished? And don't tell me he was blocked by a Dem congress. Even if that were true, it wouldn't have stopped a decent pres from doing something to speak of.

GHWB was not re-elected mostly because of ross perot. period. clinton was not a landlside winner. But as far as taxes, if I remember correctly, he said "read my lips: no new taxes" when running in 1988, and then agreed to a tax hike congress put before him late in his term. Pluss he had to fight both perot AND clinton after being in the white house for 12 years already as either veep or prez. not easy to do that.

claydon is right in what he said. we need the benefit of time to judge bush appropriately

Claydon

11-08-2008, 06:10 PM

GHWB was not re-elected mostly because of ross perot. period. clinton was not a landlside winner. But as far as taxes, if I remember correctly, he said "read my lips: no new taxes" when running in 1988, and then agreed to a tax hike congress put before him late in his term. Pluss he had to fight both perot AND clinton after being in the white house for 12 years already as either veep or prez. not easy to do that.

claydon is right in what he said. we need the benefit of time to judge bush appropriately

Bush had ballooning deficits fo 200 billion and 200 billion to deal with the S&L crisis and did what he had to do. However he did not try to squeeze the nuts of small business, at least if memory serves.

HAWK

11-08-2008, 06:12 PM

Well I own a small business and W's tax plan has quadrupled my taxes in the past eight years. And my nuts are feeling it.

Claydon

11-08-2008, 06:15 PM

Well I own a small business and W's tax plan has quadrupled my taxes in the past eight years. And my nuts are feeling it.

Barney Frank and his crowd are already calling for taxes to be raised on people making less than 250k, word has been passed around of the number being 100k or even less. That will really squeeze small business which is the true economic engine of this country.

kid_vidrio

11-08-2008, 07:22 PM

Insomniac

11-08-2008, 07:27 PM

GHWB was not re-elected mostly because of ross perot. period. clinton was not a landlside winner. But as far as taxes, if I remember correctly, he said "read my lips: no new taxes" when running in 1988, and then agreed to a tax hike congress put before him late in his term. Pluss he had to fight both perot AND clinton after being in the white house for 12 years already as either veep or prez. not easy to do that.

claydon is right in what he said. we need the benefit of time to judge bush appropriately

Bush wanted Perot in the mix because it was the only thing that got him close to beating Clinton.

It's high time people drop the myth that Perot stole the election from H.W.

freegood

11-08-2008, 07:45 PM

GHWB was not re-elected mostly because of ross perot. period. clinton was not a landlside winner. But as far as taxes, if I remember correctly, he said "read my lips: no new taxes" when running in 1988, and then agreed to a tax hike congress put before him late in his term. Pluss he had to fight both perot AND clinton after being in the white house for 12 years already as either veep or prez. not easy to do that.

I agree, Perot split the republican vote enough for Clinton to win, Ralph Nader style.

kid_vidrio

11-08-2008, 07:53 PM

that's like saying 'such and such team should have hit the field goal.'

Claydon

11-08-2008, 08:28 PM

Taxes are not the real problem. Not fed income anyway.
Workers comp and general insurance et al have always been a much bigger concern to me.
The whole tax thing is and always has been (see Boston Tea Party) a red herring.

I disagree on the red herring point, however you are 100% correct about the workman's comp. Ours is on the order of $150,000/yr.

Claydon

11-08-2008, 08:31 PM

Bush wanted Perot in the mix because it was the only thing that got him close to beating Clinton.

It's high time people drop the myth that Perot stole the election from H.W.

That will happen about the same time people stop saying that Bush Jr. stole the election from Gore.

heelsguy

11-08-2008, 10:35 PM

Bush wanted Perot in the mix because it was the only thing that got him close to beating Clinton.

It's high time people drop the myth that Perot stole the election from H.W.

you're wrong. the last thing Bush wanted was another guy from texas running for prez. you are forgetting the scandals and the bad press he got (60 minutes interview) regarding clinton's affairs. he was looked at as slick willy, not obama the first. perot might have won if he had not selected a crazy man for VP.

vasili denisov

11-08-2008, 11:01 PM

Emanuel's War Plan for Democrats

The Book of Rahm
The article imples that Rahm Emanuel has divided loyalties because his parents are Israeli, and that he advocates american foreign policy not because of the benefits for US, but solely those of Israel. It does this not through genuine evidence, but through a selection of "suspicious" points (Emanuel's parents are Israeli, Emanuel is for a sometimes hawkish foreign policy), an emphasis on the idea that Emanuel's character and political positions are veiled (he is a "mysterious" character); the visible A (among them, connections to Israel) implies somewhere in the invisible murk B will be found (support for an on-going presence in Iraq for the benefit of Israel); obvious, easily obtainable evidence that would cast the tenuous implication in doubt is avoided.

To the salient point that Emanuel supports a prolonged war with Iraq. No evidence is cited of this in the piece, except what is "implied" in a book he co-wrote and the fact that he disagreed with the Jack Murtha's desire for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

In this piece (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/8091986/the_enforcer/4), however, it's clearly mentioned that he supports a graduated withdrawal with sufficient training of native troops; that he is not in favour of an immediate withdrawal is not the same as being in favour of a perpetual military presence. The piece also cites the DCCC's partnership with the fiercely anti-war Moveon.org in their aggressive campaign to elect Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran who argued that the price of the Iraq war was not worth it, that an exit strategy needed to be developed. This should refute the claim that Emanuel at DCCC had a litmus test for candidates to be pro-war.

Ironically, this article from a left-wing journal employs the suspicion of the unknown through the ominous qualities of a stereotype indictment technique that was used, unsuccessfully, against Emanuel's fellow semite Rashid Khalidi (Khalidi is a Palestinian, the content of a videotape featuring him is unknown, therefore it must contain something indictable).

Insomniac

11-08-2008, 11:36 PM

you're wrong. the last thing Bush wanted was another guy from texas running for prez. you are forgetting the scandals and the bad press he got (60 minutes interview) regarding clinton's affairs. he was looked at as slick willy, not obama the first. perot might have won if he had not selected a crazy man for VP.

I think dropping out hurt Perot more than his VP.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE2D71030F933A0575AC0A9649582 60

Clinton was kicking Bush's ass, and Perot was seen by Bush people as a way to change that trend.

Retrospect blames Perot, but if Perot was going to hurt Bush anywhere, it would be Texas, and that didn't happen. Actually, when people don't like the way things are going, the more options available for change is going to split their support without taking away from anyone who wants to keep the status quo.

HAWK

11-09-2008, 02:00 AM

Barney Frank and his crowd are already calling for taxes to be raised on people making less than 250k, word has been passed around of the number being 100k or even less. That will really squeeze small business which is the true economic engine of this country.

Links? I'd like to read more about this.

Claydon

11-09-2008, 02:12 AM

Links? I'd like to read more about this.

yah, im trying to find a link, i heard it on the radio in the car. Course I grant you, this could just be barney frank being his typical dick head, cocksucking self as per the usual.

HAWK

11-09-2008, 02:54 AM

He is that.