Obama Swats The GOP!

[FOTD]

Someone forgot about the fallout of the 2000 election and how the libs got up in arms over Bush before he was even sworn in.

FOTD did not forget....he had inside background info out of Austin. We were doomed!

BTW Gwee, don't recall bush ever having constructive dialog with the Dems. Can you imagine the results. Obama displays brains while all Shrub would expose was his string entanglement. Not even his puppet master would sit down to discuss issues unless it was about war. Not until the panic from Paulsen did the parties have to work together.

[guido911]

BTW Gwee, don't recall bush ever having constructive dialog with the Dems.

Yep, that whole "No Child Left Behind" thing was rammed through by Bush. The swimmer had nothing to do with it.

[we vs us]

Someone forgot about the fallout of the 2000 election and how the libs got up in arms over Bush before he was even sworn in.

You know, you're right.  I'll agree with you that there was a lot of bad blood from the election, though I think that especially during and after 9/11, most of the anti-bush voices fell into a bit of a lull, except for some of the fringy folks that Fox News tried to push forward as faces of the "liberal elites"  (pro tip:  Ward Churchill doesn't count as the face of mainstream liberalism at all, anywhere.)

Of course, the run up to war in Iraq erased all of that, but I'm sure you remember well enough.

[Conan71]

You know, you're right.  I'll agree with you that there was a lot of bad blood from the election, though I think that especially during and after 9/11, most of the anti-bush voices fell into a bit of a lull, except for some of the fringy folks that Fox News tried to push forward as faces of the "liberal elites"  (pro tip:  Ward Churchill doesn't count as the face of mainstream liberalism at all, anywhere.)

Of course, the run up to war in Iraq erased all of that, but I'm sure you remember well enough.

Yeah, and how fast the Dems who supported and talked-up the run up ran for cover when it became politically expedient.  The most damning of all which has been conveniently ignored was former President Bill Clinton saying in the days prior to the Iraq invasion that there was no doubt unaccounted for WMD in Iraq on the day he left office.  Wonder what ever happened to those WMD that President Clinton was so sure about?

[joiei]

I would venture a guess that Clinton was going on evidence offered by the Bush Whitehouse gang.   

[Conan71]

I would venture a guess that Clinton was going on evidence offered by the Bush Whitehouse gang.   

Uh, Joiei...he was convinced there were unaccounted for WMD on the day HE left office...

[Gaspar]

Uh, Joiei...he was convinced there were unaccounted for WMD on the day HE left office...

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop
weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom
line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want
to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here.
For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or
biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since
1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and
missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by
Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry,
and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made
a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.
Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and
may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine
delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to
develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to
the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United
Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering
them "  Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons
throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and
we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that
Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and
that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and
biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking
nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force
— if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly
arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to
our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to
develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five
years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress
Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to
do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam
Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his
missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort,
and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that
if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage
biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the
production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we
need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his
consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam
Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

[FOTD]

 The plan to overthrow Saddam was drawn up by the neo con crowd in the late '90s and finalized the day that the SCOTUS appointed GWB as president. The question becomes - how much longer can Obama ignore these war crimes, crimes against humanity and Treason? Some would say there is no treason, just gunboat diplomacy.


Plan to oust Saddam drawn up two years before the invasion
Secret document signalled support for Iraqi dissidents and promised aid, oiland trade deals in return for regime change

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/plan-to-oust-saddam-drawn-up-two-years-before-the-invasion-1885155.html

" Ed Davey, the Foreign Affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said the document called into question Mr Blair's evidence and should have been made public before his hearing on Friday. "A plan to back Iraqis seeking to oust Saddam may have been far less damaging and certainly more legal than what happened. Yet it shows that Blair's intent was always for regime change from an early stage and before 9/11," he said. "Yet again, it seems that critical documents have not been declassified, hampering the questioning of Blair and others."

* Tony Blair is to be recalled by the Chilcot Inquiry to give further evidence, according to The Guardian. It claims that Mr Blair will be questioned in both public and in private after the panel raised concerns that his evidence relating to the legality of the invasion conflicted with that given by the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith."

[Red Arrow]

The difference?  Bush actually had several years of f***-up-ery before libs truly got up in arms.  Obama's had one solid year. 

Wow! I guess Obama is "better" than George II.  Obama screwed things up in only one year while it took George II several years.

[we vs us]

Wow! I guess Obama is "better" than George II.  Obama screwed things up in only one year while it took George II several years.

He's different, not better.  And he didn't "screw things up in only one year."  And you want to know why?  You're gonna love this: 

It's still not entirely his recession yet.

Why?  The things that he's done to attack it have neither had enough time to work through the system nor crash it (which would, I assume, be your view).  By most accounts the stimulus is peaking now (positive Q4 GDP growth of %5.7 is proof positive, IMO) and the downside of this peak -- which would be a double dip recession as the stimulus money elapses or expires or is spent -- will come in mid to late 2010 (Q2-4). 

Likewise he's just now rolling out new (and IMO weak) banking regulations to be taken up by Congress; I would bet there wouldn't be significant pluses or minuses from that legislation till at least 2011 or so. 

Tangentially, the TARP was a Bush II project and it's just now being wound down, and I'd argue that's another signpost for how long some of these stratagems take to work through the system.  BTW, I didn't like but understood the need for TARP when it happened.  I am pleasantly surprised to see that most of it has been paid back and that in some cases the USA has made a profit on the loans we made.

So yes, he's going to "own" this recession in the end, just like now he supposedly completely and utterly "owns" Afghanistan.  But not quite yet. 

[Red Arrow]

He's different, not better. 

What?  I thought you were among the "Bush was the worst president ever" bunch. This would automatically make Obama better than Bush. Maybe I have you confused with someone else.

It's still not entirely his recession yet.

I reluctantly have to agree with "entirely" and "yet".  If the economy turns and continues to recover reasonably quickly he will be a hero. Otherwise, another Hoover.

Likewise he's just now rolling out new (and IMO weak) banking regulations to be taken up by Congress; I would bet there wouldn't be significant pluses or minuses from that legislation till at least 2011 or so. 

Nice to know that "you" recognize the lag in these situations. Funny how no one recognized that at the end of Bill Clinton's administration.  The industry I worked in at the time was on its way down well before the 2000 election.  I almost voted for Algore just to give them the proper credit for the declining economy.

So yes, he's going to "own" this recession in the end, just like now he supposedly completely and utterly "owns" Afghanistan.  But not quite yet. 

We'll see. 

[Conan71]

He's different, not better.  And he didn't "screw things up in only one year."  And you want to know why?  You're gonna love this: 

It's still not entirely his recession yet.

Why?  The things that he's done to attack it have neither had enough time to work through the system nor crash it (which would, I assume, be your view).  By most accounts the stimulus is peaking now (positive Q4 GDP growth of %5.7 is proof positive, IMO) and the downside of this peak -- which would be a double dip recession as the stimulus money elapses or expires or is spent -- will come in mid to late 2010 (Q2-4). 

Likewise he's just now rolling out new (and IMO weak) banking regulations to be taken up by Congress; I would bet there wouldn't be significant pluses or minuses from that legislation till at least 2011 or so. 

Tangentially, the TARP was a Bush II project and it's just now being wound down, and I'd argue that's another signpost for how long some of these stratagems take to work through the system.  BTW, I didn't like but understood the need for TARP when it happened.  I am pleasantly surprised to see that most of it has been paid back and that in some cases the USA has made a profit on the loans we made.

So yes, he's going to "own" this recession in the end, just like now he supposedly completely and utterly "owns" Afghanistan.  But not quite yet. 

Not to entirely crush the groove but a sudden growth of 5.7% is a suspect number, comparing data from prior quarters.    Especially when there's been no job creation and much of this growth has arguably been via government expenditures, not necessarily business-to-business nor business-to-consumer which would be a better sign of overall health.  At best, it signals we might have finally hit a plateau, let's hope.  It's taken over a year after the rest of the country has felt it, but for certain the recession has finally landed at my company's doorstep.

President Obama has little choice in terms of any new banking regs being very strong at this point.  Credit is still very tight, banks that have money are sitting on it or investing in bonds, they don't want your deposits either, based on savings and CD rates.  Just wait until the commercial real estate crisis hits the fan and see how much chaos happens in the credit markets.  I hope like hell all the indications are wrong, but it's not sounding that way.  I suggest Congress and the Executive Branch keep as much a hands-off approach as possible right now other than encouraging smart lending and ensuring as much as possible legit credit needs are served while keeping the tax payer from being on the hook for more disasters as much as possible. 

What happened with the sub-prime fiasco was innocent enough in it's genesis: make sure credit is more accessible for everyone so everyone can share in the American dream.  The problem is, there were sign posts way, way before this collapse ever happened and Democrats and Republicans alike have that blood on their hands.  When lenders started advertising: "We will loan up to 110% equity, no credit check, blah blah blah" that's when the feds should have paid attention.  That was going on a full 10 to 15 years before this collapse.  Another bad signal is when real estate markets are growing at 5 to 10% a year, it's time to take a look at what kind of greed is spurring that.

I'm not suggesting that the government kill free markets either, but this gradual, un-checked permissiveness which cause huge bubbles and sudden bursts to be followed by costly reactive measures is the wrong approach.  I think The FED may have to alter some philosophy in adjusting rates perhaps accepting that there can be a slower rate of GDP growth and a slightly higher rate of unemployment might have to become an acceptible standard over the long-haul.  Obviously, we've seen the damage caused by ridiculous profit cycles followed by utter busts.

I simply don't think politicians have a clue how best to deal with regulating industries and they are not in an objective position if they accept campaign contributions and perks from those they are charged with regulating.  For them it all becomes about creating more revenue via punitive taxation or asserting more control for the simple sake of power or pleasing yet another special interest who will feed their coffers in an attempt to stay in control.  Or worse yet, simply passing window dressing when they have not a clue about the true consequences of their legislation.

Problem is, all these politicians were feeding from the same trough that was making billionaires out of traditional lenders and investment banks.  What true over-sight can any of us expect when members of Congressional oversight committees were participating in the orgy by accepting generous contributions from the industry they are charged with overseeing and partaking in unusually low interest rates not available to anyone other than a very, very select few on their homes?

[rwarn17588]

I almost voted for Algore just to give them the proper credit for the declining economy.

Christ on a crutch, what warped and horrible reasoning to even consider voting for anyone.

[Red Arrow]

Christ on a crutch, what warped and horrible reasoning to even consider voting for anyone.

I considered it but in the end I couldn't do it.

Given the same choices, I would still vote the same.

[rwarn17588]

What happened with the sub-prime fiasco was innocent enough in it's genesis: make sure credit is more accessible for everyone so everyone can share in the American dream.  The problem is, there were sign posts way, way before this collapse ever happened and Democrats and Republicans alike have that blood on their hands.  When lenders started advertising: "We will loan up to 110% equity, no credit check, blah blah blah" that's when the feds should have paid attention.  That was going on a full 10 to 15 years before this collapse.  Another bad signal is when real estate markets are growing at 5 to 10% a year, it's time to take a look at what kind of greed is spurring that.

I'm disputing that. The real-estate bubble is well-documented to have inflated big-time during the aughts. It began in earnest shortly after the precipitous decline in the economy after the 9/11 attacks. The big cheeses in Washington thought loosening credit would boost the economy, without ever considering what would happen if property prices fell.

And I saw the loosening of financial regulatory strings myself when my wife and I saw an astounding rise in our mortgage credit limit from 2001 to 2004 that was way, way above our modest income increases at the time. We both knew that something was horribly amiss.

And the recovery is definitely happening. The company I work for saw a healthy increase in the second half of '09, and our sales were up 15% in January from the previous January. A chunk of that 5.7% GNP increase in the last quarter was due to inventory being filled. But a portion of that is from the recovery, too.

It's just too bad that unemployment is the last thing to turn around in a recovery. Reagan felt that kind of pain in the '80s. There was no meaningful drop in the jobless rate until mid-1983. It took 3 1/2 years for Reagan to see the jobless rate fall below the level from when he first took office.