Department of Defense
I'm coming up on the 10th anniversary of when I started blogging, and it led me to chat the other day with a friend about what the political environment was like in February 2003. It was shortly before the U.S. invaded Iraq and I noted that, at the time, the discourse was dominated by two groups: those who leaned in favor of an invasion and those who leaned heavily in favor of an invasion.
There were skeptics, of which I was one, but their position was deemed "unserious." The merits of another war were considered obvious by the political establishment, and the public conversation reflected these assumptions -- to be considered "serious," one had to toe the party line on Iraq.
With this in mind, Paul Krugman had an item the other day that resonated with me.
Back during the early days of the Iraq debacle, I learned that the military has a term for how highly dubious ideas become not just accepted, but viewed as certainties. "Incestuous amplification" happen when a closed group of people repeat the same things to each other -- and when accepting the group's preconceptions itself becomes a necessary ticket to being in the in-group. [...]
We saw that in the run-up to Iraq, where perfectly obvious propositions -- the case for invading is very weak, the occupation may well be a nightmare -- weren't so much rejected as ruled out of discussion altogether; if you even considered those possibilities, you weren't a serious person, no matter what your credentials.
Which brings me to the fiscal debate....
It certainly does. The parallels are imprecise, but conspicuous -- for much of the political establishment, the notion that there's a fiscal "crisis" is no longer even questioned. Clearly the nation has to address its "crushing" national debt, we're told, and to deny the need for entitlement cuts to social insurance programs is to be, you guessed it, fundamentally "unserious."
In this new "incestuous amplification," we see another closed conversation -- on the Sunday shows, on Capitol Hill, etc. -- in which it's simply taken as a given that the deficit is out of control and getting worse, the debt poses an existential threat to our collective future, government spending is soaring at an irresponsible rate, and the only sensible course of action is to listen to wise fiscal hawks like Paul Ryan, whether his figures add up or not.
Greg Sargent calls it the Beltway Deficit Feedback Loop, and it seems to be getting worse.
The facts tell us that spending cuts are hurting economic growth considerably. The facts also tell us that the deficit is already shrinking quickly; there has been no surge in government spending; policymakers have already approved more than $2.4 trillion in debt reduction; and Paul Ryan's ability to do arithmetic is laughable.
And while we're at it, the facts also tell us there is no debt crisis -- interest rates are low, inflation is non-existent, and it's never been easier for the U.S. to borrow -- and those who insist otherwise tend to oppose new revenue that would improve the nation's finances.
The result is a dynamic that feels awfully similar to the one we saw 10 years ago this month: allegedly "serious" people whose certainty is belied by reality overpowering those who happen to be correct, albeit unpopular.
Neil Irwin had a great piece yesterday, which doesn't make the Iraq parallel, but frames the debate in a very constructive way:
On one side is the standard Washington wise man/centrist pundit view of the world, embodied by Scarborough and some of the people he cites, like former Joint Chiefs chair Mike Mullen and Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations. On the other are a wide variety of economists -- avowed liberals like Krugman, but also the not-particularly-ideological analysts at places like the Federal Reserve, major bank economics shops, and business forecasting firms, who generally see wisdom in reducing the deficit over time but also see big risks to the economy if the effort moves to fast, and not much reason to fear an imminent debt crisis.
These worlds seem to be talking past each other, and for one reason in particular. There is, in the Washington conversation, a generalized aversion to deficits. It's an aversion with an almost moral dimension. In fact, sometimes the moral dimension is explicit: Mitt Romney often called deficits a "moral crisis."
But to economists, deficits are simply the difference between revenues and outlays. A large deficit could be a good thing if it's going toward a productive investment. A small deficit can be a bad thing if the economy needs more support. So if you're worried about deficits, you need to say why.
The U.S. is not in danger of becoming Greece; the deficit is not more important than the economy; spending isn't out of control. There's no reason in the world policymakers can't focus on job creation and economic growth now, while taking reasonable steps to reduce long-term fiscal challenges.
The establishment doesn't want to hear any of this, just as they didn't want to hear questions about the merits of invading Iraq, but it happens to be true.
Leave a Comment:
Imagine for a second if we did not have Occupy Wall Street. Those protests changed America because they took the microphone away from the right wing liars about the budget deficit.
Sure, but it was a one hit wonder. Where was the Occupy voice in 2012? I was expecting some mobilization, but there was only some minor activities from the working groups, such as that of Alexis Goldstein on the SEC (link).
Regarding "Incestuous Amplification": Very smart analysts on the left are not immune from such group think. In fact it was key to losses in 1980 and 2000. Look at how the fanboys were looking for a smackdown of Romney in the first debate and twitterred their disappointment and cat calls about their sports hero, generously giving their sage advice on his mishandling of the "plays". MSNBC analysts fed by the crescendo of disappointment participated in a collective peeing contest on the President's pantleg. It was something that stunned even Axelrod. It was the triumph of the superficial artifice of contrived appearances of dominance over the substance of fact based arguments.
So the left is also vulnerable to this perversion of thinking that sometimes passes as legitimate political analysis.
I agree. Both the presumed impact of OWS and the left's freak out over the first Obama/Romney debate were overblown.
OWS may have been a "one hit wonder," but the hit still resonates in how the debate is framed. Do the two posters above really believe we would be in the same place today if OWS and the visceral reaction to Obama's piss-poor performance had never happened? Do you think Obama would have gotten his act together if everybody had offered him nothing but encouraging and supportive advice following that dismal performance? I don't think so. The problem was that too many insiders were afraid to tell him that he wasn't ready.
Obama's "weakness" is also a source of his success. The man is cautious, and he sided with the Summers-Geithner theme of "doing no harm". This is why he passed on Romer's advice to increase the stimulus substantially. This is why he demurred when there was a golden opportunity to break up the too big to fail institutions, beginning with Citigroup. The failure of leadership was Obama's but realistically, a man capable of taking greater risks probably would not have been able to achieve the White House given the barriers in the political landscape of 2007 America.
There are echos of Occupy in what is happening today, but to date, let's face facts about the economic policies of this centrist democrat.
Not one Wall Street criminal has gone to jail despite a massive fraud involving trillions of dollars. In fact these firms have profited handsomely and are even more too big to fail. Meanwhile the only ones convicted over the torture war crimes were the whistleblowers. Meanwhile the Justice department steps all over activists like Aaron Swartz freeing information paid for by tax dollars, but hidden from the public behind paywalls like JSTOR.
So realistically, Occupy was a nice gesture, but it has so far achieved no concrete political objective.
Not one.
This is the 13th year of the Bush administration.
Many of us never thought the president performed poorly in the first debate. We thought Romney was just simply infuriating and shocking to everyone watching due to the multiple lies and condescending character. How can anyone debate with a liar and a timid moderator?
Just like now there are many who don't believe there is a debt crisis or that the economy is in danger from government spending...we believe another stimulus is necessary.
The Iraq debacle had a much stronger fear attributed to it from 9/11 and the fear mongering of the MSM. We were shown images of chemical war and nuclear threats...the results more fearful than any economic collapse. It was a much bigger lie being pushed with threats of death attributed to it...and a president pushing it who was also a liar.
This lie is more easily debunked although it may be just as wide spread. The last election though proved most are not buying into it. If only our elected leaders would believe us...there is no debt crisis...only representatives afraid to act.
Just like now there are many who don't believe there is a debt crisis or that the economy is in danger from government spending...we believe another stimulus is necessary.
There is no debt crisis and the economy is danger of WHAT spending?
Who says another stimulus is necessary right now?
The Iraq debacle had a much stronger fear attributed to it from 9/11 and the fear mongering of the MSM.
MSM lies of course, the same lies that are right now calling the perps of any nasty event "Islamist" when there is not such thing as an Islamist. Some 70% of the American public believed Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack. Why did they believe that? Did they make it up or were they lied to? Now we are being lied to about imaginary "Islamists".
There was no such thing as a communist either despite decades of Cold War and Vietnam horrors. What there was, was a media conspiracy calling the Cubans "communist", the North Koreans "communist", the Red Chinese "communist", the Soviets "communist", the Vietnamese "communist" ad infinitum in order to boost the lie the America is under attack by international communists just like today America is under attack by global Islamist terrorists. You need a shovel to dig this @!$%# away.
Occupy is still here. Don't confuse the encampments (an attention-getting device) with the movement.
Show me the Occupy political candidates that primer Democrats like Tea Party primers Republicans. Show me Occupy politicians making speeches about wealth inequality and bankster graft and tax inequity. Occupy candidates along the lines of Bernie Sanders.
Tea Party got itself elected in 2010 landslide then gerrymandered their seats so they kept power even after losing the popular vote in 2012. Would that the left had the guts to pull off a stunt like that.
Especially because job creation and economic growth now are the BEST ways to solve the long-term fiscal challenges.
Jobs Jobs Jobs! For decent wages!
International capitalists benefit from the force of law guaranteed by international treaties negotiated by the same international capitalists. Yet there is no "international labor" and anyone advocating international labor is suddenly a communist that hates American and belongs in jail.
Funny how that happens.
Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine comes to mine when trying to make sense of the Beltway power players as perhaps a perpetual crisis is the way to increase profits and keep needed governmental regulations of the backs of shock doctrine capitalists! -Kevo
The GOP is purposely driving this particular narrative to distract the the Democrats.
We should be talking about America's problem-JOBS!
So it's the Republicans keeping Democrats from talking about jobs? Have they installed shock collars to keep them quiet? Sorry, but there are too many Dems who have bought into the deficit reduction scam, including PBO, who feels he must talk about a "balanced recovery," WTF that is. Right now, deficit reduction does NOTHING to improve the economy, and won't for the foreseeable future.
We need OWS candidates who purposely drive this particular narrative to move the Democrats back to the left.
We should be talking about America's problem-JOBS!
To increase jobs we need higher taxes and more spending. We see the opposite from Republicans. We need leftist candidates pressuring Democrats leftward just like Tea Party pressures Republicans rightward.
Personally, there must be something psychologically wrong with McCain, since he keeps wanting to create some war somewhere. Is it because McCain was in a concentration camp and now he keeps psychologically thinking he has to kill his captors? McCain’s mentality is just too warped and destructive when it comes to really governing anything. McCain’s thought of wanting a constant war somewhere just doesn’t fit any form of sanity. There is just something wrong with McCain and it is just not healthy at all.
McCain wants war but you're wrong about the reasons. At least partly wrong.
McCain wants war because it's a way to justify massive Government spending. All McCain knows is war is good for the economy.
War got the U.S. out of the depression, and the U.S. economy did well during Vietnam, so in McCains mind war is whats needed to get us out of this economy.
We remember McCains "The state of the economy is sound" (more or less a quote) while the economy was crashing down around us, and had been for more than a day. So McCain really doesn't understand economics.
McCain doesn't understand that spending on roads and bridges, infrastructure and education, have longer more sustained returns because these returns aren't immediately apparent.
At least thats a Freakanomics (tm) type explanation of McCain wanting War, any war will do.
I too am sure there are less than rational explanations for McCanes war mongering.
.
Does McCain have ties to defense contractors? Perhaps there is a money trail here.
No there has to be something psychologically more than just thinking having wars helps an economy, because this has to go much deeper. McCain surely must realize that war only causes more hatred and consists of total butchery and murder. So no there has got to be something much more to this than just to be so blatantly wanting such horrific things to happen all the time is just not rational.
Of course also, you can thank God that McCain never became President. We would of been in another and another war with irrational McCain and hugely more in debt by not paying for those wars. Plus our troops would be even more in despair and PTSD than they are now. And a far further increase in military suicides. McCain does not have the emotions even to take that into consideration.
Assignment: Read the history of John McCain Sr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._McCain,_Sr.
From the same tree.
It doesn't say anything there, except when you do a search than you realize McCain is kill kill crazy. There is just something mentally wrong with McCain.
Steve
Your blog should be required reading in our schools....You explain thing in a way that even the most twisted, brainwashed Fox News fan could understand. Keep up the good work!!
There's another similarity to the Iraq War and the Debt Debate: The people who are advocating the "tough" stance are Chicken Hawks. In the case of the Iraq Debacle, it was people who had never been in combat, or commanded people in combat. In the Debt Debacle, it's people who have never had to draw off Social Security or Medicare (or think they haven't in Paul Ryan's case) or have not empathy for people who have to.
Given that, I think we should rename Shooter, Chicken Shooter. He is definitely in the echo chamber and has no empathy for anyone who needs Social Security or Medicare.
Excellent observation and voted up.
The War Chicken Hawks are the ones who don't have to worry about them and theirs getting shot at or IED'ed, no body bags in their future.
The Economic Chicken Hawks are those who will do just fine no matter what, doubtful they would even feel a decline, and if they did it's certain they wouldn't end up in the gutter eating from dumpsters and dieing from want of a shot of antibiotic.
///
I think "this" is the reason Politicians and Money are so terrified at the thought of a rogue country or Iran getting their own Nuke. Money (The City) and Politicians (D.C.) would be the target. Nukes don't discriminate, there is little way to dodge the Nuke "Bullet" or to have someone else take the bullet for them.
Since I live in Podunkville Ohio I'm not a target which allows me to think rationally about this.
.
WOW...the craziness just flows like water...What is it about Iran threatening to wipe Israel off the map on a daily basis or Iran supplying terrorists with the Rockets to kill Israeli citizens escapes you? Do they have actual NEWSPAPERS in Podunk? And Europe and Greece somehow is not proof enough of where these failed Social Programs lead? It's amazing how flexible Liberals can be to get their head so far up their.........
There are Newspapers in Podunk! The Europe and Greece crisis isn't about social programs failing, their economic issues 1st come from the J.P. Morgan Chase packaged boggus loans and the housing mortgage crisis. Greece invested huge amounts of money and lost it because of the American banks. Watch Frontline - about the Wall Street crash. 2nd, their governments chose austerity, which is what Paul Ryan and the Repubs want to do. Paul Ryan, bye the way, is NOT an economist. Economist - Not Liberals say to invest in America's infrastructure, provide all of the veterans returning from the war some jobs. 3rd. I believe people were discussing the lead up to the Iraq war and not the most current situation with Syria, Turkey, Iran, Israel and Lebanon. Try to keep up!
Has any practical military matter changed the consequences to 80 million Iranians?
Iran has given the U.S. the Reagan, etal, the neocons and the debts to sink a country.
The U.S. has given Iran strength by waging war in Iraq, and the debts.
The U.S. has given Iran strength by waging war in Afghanistan, and the debts.
The U.S. has enraged the area, expanded the costs and is defending the oil supplies for the world, and the debts.
Let's figure this out; the world's economy runs on energy, the economy's profits go to pay military expenses, the military expenses go to defend the oil, and the economy booms to the benefit of who owns the oil. This won't work without Iran to keep threatening making military essential.
This is a most perfect system that is only threatened if we ever decide that we can make jobs building alternate energy equipment, building and installing better infrastructure, and keeping the profits. All that is needed there is for global businesses to advertise that making energy will help run the world's economy better (since … world's economy runs on energy, the economy's profits go to …).
What it is about Iran threatening to wipe Israel off the map on a daily basis is driving up oil prices and profits. Otherwise Iran could not care less about Israel. Iran and Israel have high-level contacts. Israel is playing the same game for US taxpayer dollars. The whole Iran thing is a hoax being played on you for your money.
Iran supplying terrorists with the Rockets to kill Israeli citizens? Prove it.
US supplying Israelis with the F16s to kill Arab citizens escapes you?And why is that conservatives object so strenuously to making sure our own citizens have adequate food, housing, clothing and basic health care but have no qualms at handing out boatloads of cash to Israel or BP or Archer Daniels Midland?
Have no qualms at handing out boatloads of cash to Israel while crying their eyes out at "foreign aid".
Hey, speaking of ten years ago and seriousness, TRMS should do a segment or three about the massive protests that happened during the lead-up to Iraq and how the "serious" media pretty much ignored them.
Besides showing the protesters back then and interviewing them now, be sure to ask your NBC brethren the thinking behind their coverage decisions.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
The deficit is only a problem when Republicans don't have the White House.
Amused,
YOU ARE CORRECT. i've said here many times that the only time repubs care about the deficit is when dems have the white house. we never heard anything about the outrageous spending under the bush administration from the repubs, because they loved and agreed with every dime he spent. they put EVERYTHING, including the two wars and Medicare D on the credit card, and now President Obama gets the blame for it.
W. bush and his cohorts COOKED THE BOOKS on the spending and debt, and now Obama gets the blame.
I remember all the names I was called because I was against the Iraq invasion. And yes, I gloat now when those same name-calling people admit they were wrong.
Unfortunately, the name-calling still exists when you disagree with any policy for any reason coming from the teapubs that want to keep their friends in the military business in the money. The talking negotiations have almost come to a stop and the bomb first has become the answer to everything.
Dragging people that have served in war through the mud is the norm now for the teapubs and I don't think anything happened to McCain in Viet Nam to make him a war monger. He was warped before he even went there.
You were called names for not wanting to topple a dictator that gassed his own people and then defied peace treaties with the US, as well as those the UN brought forward? Amazing really. So, as Iraq was a Success..how has Hussein done with his "surge" in Afghanistan and now, his open admitting of defeat and the hasty retreat under duress he now has planned? And hey...Bombs are not always the answer...Ask Neville Chamberlain, or for that matter Hussein Obama about how appeasement works. Iran is definitely getting rid of their Nukes...and that whole Syria thing has been handled BRILLIANTLY by this administration.. You so funny....
I was called names because they, like you, used a lame excuse for toppling a dictator. We would be in constant war with many countries if we used that lame excuse to invade. Iraq was cooperating with the UN at the time and he "gassed his own people" with the crap we had provided him with and if it was such a big reason to invade, why didn't Daddy Bush? He was the president then and we were already in Iraq.
I'm so funny....you so ignorant.
Topple a dictator that gassed his own people? Too bad for them, that is not OUR problem.
Defied peace treaties with the US, as well as those the UN brought forward?
Prove it.
Amazing really.
The dangers of a feedback loop is that when an argument is able to point to support from those who (are/should be) clearly outside the loop, such as The Economist, arguing over the impact of the feedback loop itself becomes a distraction.
Isolating oneself from contra positions has a long history in american political corridors. And in today's meeting climate, where previous contra positions can be dredged up, it's even more firepower to toe the line.
A good analogy is when coaches play it safe with game decisions. Going for it on fourth down and losing gets much more airtime than punting on 4th down and losing. Or in regards to the Hegel confirmation hearing, someone like McCain can call up Hegel's position on troop surges and, whether correct or not, say that this contra position is indicative of future poor judgments.
So having quite a bit of time to defend these controversial positions...and then stammering like a babbling idiot REALLY does not scream to any sane person that THIS guy is the competent individual to gut the American Military when the world is as dangerous as it has been in many years.
Takes one to know one.
There's lots of possible names for this, but psychologists have been calling this phenomenon "groupthink" for quite a while now.
Steve, your articles are a treasure. You are so damned unafraid of putting the facts out there. What I don't understand is why so many inside the beltway crowd are afraid.
Who are they afraid of ticking off? Their bosses? The establishment GOP in DC? The advertisers?
It's criminal that they should be considered journalists. They're lazy, they're sell outs and they're liars.
With big paychecks.
Why are they afraid? Do you know what's like to not be invited to spend time with the "kewl kids"?
Oh, the humanity....
I know the gun thing and immigration are the hot-button topics, but it is time for the president to again explain arithmetic and how jobs are the answer to the recession. The gop love to have emotionally charged distractions from their surreptitious economic scheming. It also distracts from their radical anti-women state agendas.
This mania was hatched by Newtie's GOP wave, and brought to full crazy hood in the right's witch hunt of President Clinton. No one believed he had committed anything like an impeachable offense, but that was no reason Dems and Repubs didn't line up and agree that Clinton was a Very Culpable and Morally Repugnant Man, the only question being just how serious a censure was warranted.
As much as anything else, the "Lewinsky Matter" started it all (and was when I began to think and write about GOP madness...)
It's NOT the Credit downgrades or the 6 trillion in debt this Economic failure has accumulated in 4 years...or even the record Welfare and food stamps being handed out or even the push to give 11 Million Illegals amnesty so the American taxpayer will be on the hook for the health care for these illegals that would now be free to compete with Citizens for the few jobs out there which would in turn depress wages and send the pricetag for the Government Bennies through the Roof. Those darn Republicans are ALWAYS making that stuff up. *Hoo-Boy*
I don't know, Jim. My problem with Bill over the Lewinsky Lunacy was his unwavering lie. Makes you wonder if he's lying about one thing, what else is there? But to set the record straight, he blew my socks off at the '12 Dem Convention. Great speech, and his campaigning for the Democratic ticket has more than made up for his transgressions in my mind. I'm back to being a fan. But I don't think the "witch hunt" was altogether unwarranted is all I'm saying. I really hate cover-ups, when it's mainly your own reputation that's on the line--not national security, for instance.
However, I think the groundwork for this political white noise was laid before Newt came to prominence in the '90s. Did you know that David Koch ran for Vice President in 1980 on the Libertarian Party ticket? Along with Ed Clark, their platform called for abolishing Social Security, the Federal Reserve Board, welfare, minimum wage laws, corporate taxes, all price supports and subsidies for agriculture and business, and Federal agencies including SEC, EPA, ICC, FTC, OSHA, FBI, CIA and DOE. I lifted all this from Wikipedia.
I think David and his brother figured it was easier to use their money (since they have so much of it) to implement their agenda through scare-tactics and manipulation than to go to all the bother of debating and trying to gain the intellectual support of American voters. Just my opinion.
Making government cheap enough for a buyout, is no way to run a government but a fine way to run profitable business.
Government SHOULD be starved when they become bloated and inefficient.
Bloated and inefficient?
Prove it.
Right, Covah. That's what those Tea Party mouthpieces are shouting, stirring up their base. Just go around stating it as fact, and some people will believe anything. Then, when they're scared enough, they chatter endlessly to anyone who'll listen and you've created a movement. Brilliant!
Tea Party mouthpieces are shouting, stirring up their base with opposite things at the same time. They support military spending, all of it bloat and waste, while attacking bloat and waste that they make up. Some opposite things:
More babies and despise babies.
Support military spending on defense contractors but despise military spending on soldiers.
Promote national defense while undermining national defense.
Boast of supporting civil rights while attacking civil rights.
Pay lip service to the Constitution while openly despising it.
Denying racism while losing women's, black, Hispanic gay, youth, and elderly votes.
We would not be re-litigating the Iraq War if Dems had full blown public hearings during which various people in the Bush administration were subpoenaed to testify so that the public understood the import of how we got into the war. McCain would not have a soapbox to spew his venom at anyone who opposed the war and the surge. Dems have no one to blame but themselves because they gave a pass on the issue.
Sew and heal the superficial wounds, the deeper ones to fester and rot?
But the Dog likes being waged...
The Beltway media, combined with Fox and the lack of true journalistic reporting will destroy this country before any terrorist will. When one really thinks, it is obvious that the divisions in this country is perpetuated by class warfare and the few, the wealthy and powerful, are winning. The few have convinced folk with commonality fighting amongst each other while they continue to sap our collective wealth, divide and conquer! It is the few that own the media and drive the conversations for their short term benefit without regard to what is best longterm. This constant deficit focus distracts from what should be discussed, job growth, investments in our future, interest rates that are virtually zero.....if investments are not made, ie, infrastructure, paid for with zero percent interest rates, what is going to happen when the infrastructure collapse and interest rates increase? Imagine if those in similar situations, with mortgages, car payments, etc. could reduce their interest rates to zero for just five years, how much better off would they be and how much better would the economy be?
Just what do advertisers pay for? Surely not every gun incident, at 15 minutes on the hour. Their sales would fall sharply. Bad news is just the gateway to advertisement.
As I recall, there were those who favored invading Poland, and those who heavily favored invading Poland, and then there were those who favored harassing and harming those who didn't favor invading Poland (remember the Dixie Chicks?). As one who was harassed by the morons, I take great delight in watching the idiots try to explain why they were idiots. Of course, there are fools like senile old John McCain and pissants like Max Boot who still think Saddam just hid his WMDs to make us look bad.
I take great delight in watching the idiots try to explain why they were idiots.
I would too if they were smart enough to understand they were idiots. They change their tune and pretend there was no other, the Orwellian memory hole. They call the Iraq War a "just cause" because it sounds good even when they do not know what the words mean.
Millions of people all over the world rose up against it. There was no news of this nor film at eleven.
There were demonstrations in the streets all over the US. The corporate media was not interested in sharing that information.
Are millions to arise against a mere 100 in a self-empowered legislative body called the Senate? Know them as flawed, subject to lacking honor, to being devoid of trust, but in war won't their treachery be used to save all and themselves was well?
Powerful and responsible don't fit in the same travel bag.
The whole Iraq War was a giant rip-off that illustrated to the world that the United States government is corrupt, illegitimate, and a menace to world peace and needs to be destroyed. That is why international capitalists fund dumbass Republican candidates and spineless incompetent Democrats. These idiots are incapable of protecting public funds from theft and the nation will go bankrupt in a few years.
The recent banking crisis caused entirely by theft, and the theft continues right now, is more of the same evidence that the US government is illegitimate and should be broken up.
Know them as flawed, subject to lacking honor, to being devoid of trust, but in war won't their treachery be used to save all and themselves was well?
No war, economics will win in the end. 5% interest on $20T debt is a trillion a year handed to the rich as interest on the Treasuries they bought with their tax cut money. The nation gets $1.5T in revenue, leaving half a trillion for everyone else, not even counting the $1.5T yearly military expense. How can it go on? 5% interest is the historical norm. 20-20-20 In the year 2020 debt will reach 20T and the nation will collapse, maybe sooner.
What's ironic is I remember reading right after our troops withdrew from Iraq after Desert Storm, that they decided not go to Baghdad, because, as we found out in 2003, the country was ungovernable as a religious and ethnic powder keg. It's too bad GHW Bush never counseled his son.
We don't blame many for the sins of their fathers, but then ...
This much is plain to any day care center, if one infant in a group begins to cry then soon enough you have a baby led Greek chorus singing opera in concert, with no need for amplification.
This effect could be worse if the inbreeding is too close.
There were plenty of us out in the streets before the invasion of Iraq. While many tried to write us off as "unserious," pretty much everything we warned of has subsequently happened, and all the "evidence" put forth by the Bush administration that we knew was smoke and mirrors was proven to be just that. Please don't join the historical revisionists by saying the two camps were "in favor" and "strongly in favor." Our numbers were significant.
Probably shouldn't say this, but after ten years of blogging the very best part was quitting.