Bush: Economy is vibrant

[FMJeff]

Vibrant...like his favorite saturday morning cartoons. I for one will throw a party when this buffoon leaves office.

Hey moron, why don't you check the state of the housing industry in this country and the value of the US Dollar?

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0539521620071005?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

[Furtherman]

I for one will throw a party when this buffoon leaves office.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0539521620071005?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

I totally agree. In fact, I'm betting there will be many parties like that. And these parties won't be about who is coming into the White House next, they'll simply celebrate that Bush is GONE. That we no longer have to be embarrassed everytime he opens his mouth. Our country will still have its problems, but at least the rusty nail will be out of our skin and we can start healing.

And the whole report is shaky to begin with. 110,000 new jobs but unemployment is up from August? I know across the advertising industry, thousands of people lost their jobs this year. In my company alone it was close to 600 people. And of course more is expected in first quarter of '08.

Now I know nothing about employment reports and I could be wrong but although 110,000 new job is a good thing, I'd say, the year on a whole was ANYTHING but "vibrant".

[ChrisTheCop]

Vibrant...like his favorite saturday morning cartoons. I for one will throw a party when this buffoon leaves office.

See? With everyone throwing parties, theyre gonna have to buy party favors, and alcohol. This will stimulate the economy. These stores will have to hire personnel to man the influx of new customers; this creates job growth...

(I didnt mean it to, but if you read the above in your best GWB impression, it works).

[JPMNICK]

you can not blame the federal government for the housing situation. it was private lending that caused the mess. in turn, all of the debt that they sold lowered the dollar.

[LordJezo]

What's wrong with the housing market? Oh you mean the idiots who got sub-prime loans and are now being slapped in the face by the interest rates? I don't have much pity for them, they should have never been in houses to begin with.

The economy is doing pretty well, the stock market is reaching new records and people are making tons of money. Unemployment is not much of an issue, the workforce is growing faster than ever before with more jobs than ever, and things are looking pretty good. But no, lets blame Bush for everything, it's just a lot easier than thinking things are pretty decent out there.

Go USA.

[Furtherman]

If you said that to Justin, he'd cry even before you took the dress off. Tsk-Tsk.

[angrymissy]

What's wrong with the housing market? Oh you mean the idiots who got sub-prime loans and are now being slapped in the face by the interest rates? I don't have much pity for them, they should have never been in houses to begin with.

The economy is doing pretty well, the stock market is reaching new records and people are making tons of money. Unemployment is not much of an issue, the workforce is growing faster than ever before with more jobs than ever, and things are looking pretty good. But no, lets blame Bush for everything, it's just a lot easier than thinking things are pretty decent out there.

Go USA.

You are out of your mind. Do you watch or read any sort of news???

Here's a good article:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/18/fed.interest.rates.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

Hanging on by a thread... they cut interest rates to try and rally the economy back up, but thats just a temporary fix.

[epo]

What's wrong with the housing market? Oh you mean the idiots who got sub-prime loans and are now being slapped in the face by the interest rates? I don't have much pity for them, they should have never been in houses to begin with.

The economy is doing pretty well, the stock market is reaching new records and people are making tons of money. Unemployment is not much of an issue, the workforce is growing faster than ever before with more jobs than ever, and things are looking pretty good. But no, lets blame Bush for everything, it's just a lot easier than thinking things are pretty decent out there.

Go USA.

You have no data to back up either of those points.

Until you can prove either one of them, I will continue to blame Bush & the economic environment he fosters for all of our issues.

[Doctor Z]

.IS IT?

[DolaMight]

Vibrant...like his favorite saturday morning cartoons. I for one will throw a party when this buffoon leaves office.

Hey moron, why don't you check the state of the housing industry in this country and the value of the US Dollar?

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0539521620071005?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Well if you don't think the economy is healthy then as Bushanomics decrees:

"If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. Go shopping, shopping and more shopping, then borrow and shop some more. Keeping the economy vibrant is up to you, then shop some more."

[mikeyboy]

What's wrong with the housing market? Oh you mean the idiots who got sub-prime loans and are now being slapped in the face by the interest rates? I don't have much pity for them, they should have never been in houses to begin with.

The economy is doing pretty well, the stock market is reaching new records and people are making tons of money. Unemployment is not much of an issue, the workforce is growing faster than ever before with more jobs than ever, and things are looking pretty good. But no, lets blame Bush for everything, it's just a lot easier than thinking things are pretty decent out there.

Go USA.

http://www.oscarcontrols.com/images/checkpoint.jpg

These aren't the droids you're looking for.

[angrymissy]

"The economy is doing GREAT! Media is lying!"
http://www.nigelhaversalliance.com/pics/infominister.jpeg

[DolaMight]

"The economy is doing GREAT! Media is lying!"
http://www.nigelhaversalliance.com/pics/infominister.jpeg

Whatever happened to that guy after the war? Didn't he get a NBC sitcom or something or was he just hanged? Can't remember, I'm sure I'll find out in the trivial pursuit 00's edition.

[ChrisTheCop]

I think he got a gig on Al Jazeera.

[FUNKMAN]

the guy is a fucking idiot...

it's a little bit of monday morning quarterbacking but

WHO THE FUCK VOTED FOR THIS ASSHOLE? TWICE??

see what you have done :nono:

[FUNKMAN]

oh yeah and

FUCKING OHIO!!!!!

[JPMNICK]

oh yeah and

FUCKING OHIO!!!!!

and FLA

and Fezzie

[LordJezo]

the guy is a fucking idiot...

it's a little bit of monday morning quarterbacking but

WHO THE FUCK VOTED FOR THIS ASSHOLE? TWICE??

see what you have done :nono:

Me, and I'd do it again too.

You are out of your mind. Do you watch or read any sort of news???

Here's a good article:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/18/fed.interest.rates.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

Hanging on by a thread... they cut interest rates to try and rally the economy back up, but thats just a temporary fix.

Reading that I see the same thing I see everywhere else, a bunch of mother fuckers went out and got in over their heads in debt, made idiotic housing purchases, and now are paying the price. Maybe next time they will think twice about getting a rip off loan from a blood sucking company.

That thing you linked to said the economy is growing. It's not growing very fast but it's still growing. Doesn't sound like a depression to me if things are getting bigger and better.

"conomic growth of around 2.5 percent in the current quarter,"

blah blah blah

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jsanM66tszKz1zFq0LOG4XvWS7zAD8S3AAOO0

110,000 new jobs.

Unemployment is higher because more people are looking for jobs and entering the workforce.

"The unemployment rate did tick up a notch to 4.7 percent as hundreds of thousands of people — perhaps feeling better about their job prospects — streamed back into the market looking for work."

Let's see, what else..

"Average hourly earnings rose to $17.57 in September, up 4.1 percent over the past 12 months. It was the highest annual gain since February. "

Oh no! Horrors! People are making more money. I guess we really do need to panic.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gInN4rrkMsN72C81nusrVA70dyqwD8S34B5O0

"The RBC Cash Index showed consumer confidence rose to 80.6 in early October" ... ""Consumers are cautiously more optimistic than a month ago," "

Yeah, I guess everyone out there is just running around screaming in panic.

[banditorico]

The sub-prime meltdown isn't the administrations fault. The private financial companies sold loans like it tomorrow would never come and when it did a lot of uninformed borrowers took a dump. However, the Fed chairman should have to lower the short term loan rate, it does nothing to help anyone who's now in trouble with their mortgages. Lowering the rate only sped up the rate of the decline of the US dollar's value. This will have long term effects on our economy.

What is the administration's fault is funding a protracted war on borrowed money. Money that was loaned to us by our greatest financial threat, China. At the same time selling the idea to American taxpayers that a tax refund would kick start the economy.

Finally explain to me how paying a private security firm to protect embassy staff at a cost of 3-5 times the rate a US soldier is paid is saving money? Now the State Department wants to assign government overseers to operations carried out by this firm. These govt employee s pay is many times less than the private firm's guards.

[FMJeff]

Even if he isn't responsible for any of this, I will say to not even acknowledge it and paint it with such a rosy adjective as "vibrant" speaks of a president sorely out of touch with his own country's economy.

[scottinnj]

What's wrong with the housing market? Oh you mean the idiots who got sub-prime loans and are now being slapped in the face by the interest rates? I don't have much pity for them, they should have never been in houses to begin with.

The economy is doing pretty well, the stock market is reaching new records and people are making tons of money. Unemployment is not much of an issue, the workforce is growing faster than ever before with more jobs than ever, and things are looking pretty good. But no, lets blame Bush for everything, it's just a lot easier than thinking things are pretty decent out there.

Go USA.


Agreed.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

What's wrong with the housing market? Oh you mean the idiots who got sub-prime loans and are now being slapped in the face by the interest rates? I don't have much pity for them, they should have never been in houses to begin with.

The economy is doing pretty well, the stock market is reaching new records and people are making tons of money. Unemployment is not much of an issue, the workforce is growing faster than ever before with more jobs than ever, and things are looking pretty good. But no, lets blame Bush for everything, it's just a lot easier than thinking things are pretty decent out there.

Go USA.

Also Speculators who bought condos hoping to flip them, Saw prices tank. There is NO GUARANTEE that home prices will continue to rise. As far as the whole subprime mess I agree, someone making 50gs a year buying a house way out of his price range is a fucking moron and I have no pity for them. They took the risk of an ARM Mortgage.

[JPMNICK]

Also Speculators who bought condos hoping to flip them, Saw prices tank. There is NO GUARANTEE that home prices will continue to rise. As far as the whole subprime mess I agree, someone making 50gs a year buying a house way out of his price range is a fucking moron and I have no pity for them. They took the risk of an ARM Mortgage.

i know of 2 people, married, making 26,500 per year each as teachers aid just got a 100% loan on a 545,000 dollar house.

[JPMNICK]

Even if he isn't responsible for any of this, I will say to not even acknowledge it and paint it with such a rosy adjective as "vibrant" speaks of a president sorely out of touch with his own country's economy.

this is one point I will agree on you with.

to not say anything to the corporations who let this happen, or to try and guide the american people out of the mess they got themselves into, is crazy

BUT, if he did go at this, he would be KILLED by both sides because in the end, the mortgage market, i.e. the housing market, is MASSIVE. it supports from wall street down to illegal immigrant workers and everyone inbwteen. any president has to walk a fine line to not throw the whole spinning plates act to the ground

[spoon]

You are out of your mind. Do you watch or read any sort of news???

Here's a good article:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/18/fed.interest.rates.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

Hanging on by a thread... they cut interest rates to try and rally the economy back up, but thats just a temporary fix.

And that has a lot to do with an artificially inflated stock market and the whole housing crisis. But hey, let's protect the banks for the upcoming fall with the bankruptcy bill passed during this amazing Bush presidency. If you seriously think things are well, I have no problem calling you an ass, idiot and probably hayseed.

[spoon]

i know of 2 people, married, making 26,500 per year each as teachers aid just got a 100% loan on a 545,000 dollar house.

I'll ask this though, what other choice does a family have in NJ/NY? The predatory loan companies also shouldn't have existed this long and allowed to exploit people. The government is supposed to keep up on this shit as it used to. You act as though people buy homes every day and should know the system inside and out. Sure many went in too deep, but they weren't exactly advised correctly by the lenders. In fact they would usually convince/lie to get them into homes just to make more money themselves.

[TeeBone]

Our company is about to announce 3rd Quarter earnings. Whereas we did not measure up to our potential in our net subscriber gains over previous quarters, we did manage to have an incredible quarter with our earnings through a strong, sustained customer base; meaning the bulk of our customers stayed with us and we did not ad as many new customers as we wanted to. That is both good and bad on many levels but market analysis's (people I generally do not agree with due to mishandling of our business model and how it is applied in the industry I work in) attribute most of our shortcomings to the bottoming out of the sub-prime market. True, you can make the argument that pity for these people should be that last thing on your mind. I guess that's true if you are crazy and just don't care about the condition of man. Whereas I do not think it is the job of a government official to help home buyers understand money - I do think if you buy a home, you damn well better have all your questions answered before you sign the 100 pages of closing documents. You may also wan to try refinancing to a fixed loan. It's frightening to think that this has effected our economy so drastically, but it has and investors with holdings in companies that thrive on a bustling economy will feel it too. Trickle-Up economics, I guess. That being said, I have answered all of my questions about money and finance, so I'm fine. It's up to each individual to do the same thing.

[Snacks]

Me, and I'd do it again too.



Reading that I see the same thing I see everywhere else, a bunch of mother fuckers went out and got in over their heads in debt, made idiotic housing purchases, and now are paying the price. Maybe next time they will think twice about getting a rip off loan from a blood sucking company.

That thing you linked to said the economy is growing. It's not growing very fast but it's still growing. Doesn't sound like a depression to me if things are getting bigger and better.

"conomic growth of around 2.5 percent in the current quarter,"

blah blah blah

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jsanM66tszKz1zFq0LOG4XvWS7zAD8S3AAOO0

110,000 new jobs.

Unemployment is higher because more people are looking for jobs and entering the workforce.

"The unemployment rate did tick up a notch to 4.7 percent as hundreds of thousands of people — perhaps feeling better about their job prospects — streamed back into the market looking for work."

Let's see, what else..

"Average hourly earnings rose to $17.57 in September, up 4.1 percent over the past 12 months. It was the highest annual gain since February. "

Oh no! Horrors! People are making more money. I guess we really do need to panic.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gInN4rrkMsN72C81nusrVA70dyqwD8S34B5O0

"The RBC Cash Index showed consumer confidence rose to 80.6 in early October" ... ""Consumers are cautiously more optimistic than a month ago," "

Yeah, I guess everyone out there is just running around screaming in panic.

Agreed.

So you dont feel bad for people who are lied to, told they can afford it by the professionals who "sell" mortgages for a living? Sorry the whole sub prime was a big scam by corp America and all the big business Bushies. They sold a false American dream to people, letting them think they could afford a home. When you see and hear people buying homes making no money and they are told they can do the same, they think "wow why rent when I can buy". The mortgage brokers, agents, sales crew lie on applications and do whatever they can to get the loan approved. Not caring about the borrower but only about their commission.

The wealthy loves these things. Big business corp america makes money off the influx in the housing market and stock market. They sell high making profits and then buy all the foreclosed homes and the cycle continues. Who gets fucked? The poor, lower middle class and the middle class.

Most people would love to own a home and when they think they can afford it because they are sold a bunch of lies they do it. Think of this. Its LEGAL to do loans called no Doc. These types of loans do stated income with no documentation or proof of how much you make. This is a scam so that more people can afford homes that their income wouldnt allow. The regular folks didnt create this. Mortgage companies and banks did and the govt allows this. Why? So that the small fuckers get fucked when they eventually cant afford their homes.

Shouldnt it be illegal for 2 reasons? 1) If you really do make $100K a year but can only prove $50K that means you are illegally hiding income to not pay tax or 2) you cant really afford a home but the loan officer lies to get the deal done. In both cases its wrong and continues to help the Rich people and take advantage of the poor.

Dont tell me, " well it helps them buy a home when they would never qualify so it creates more home owners" Yeah your right but it also is the reason for what is happening now. Eventually they cant keep up based on what they really earn and they have to sell losing a fortune or they get foreclosed.

No matter what the banks and mortgage companies never lose out. They make 2 1/2 times what you borrow on a regular 30 year fixed loan. And if you dont pay they foreclose and sell your home and always start the price at what is owed on the mortgage, anything higher and its even more profit. (although the laws have changed in NJ if there is profit above and beyond what is owned its suppose to go to the foreclosed owner of the home, but they never get it because they wind up getting killed with penalties, fines and other fees. Once again the rich get their money and the poor gets screwed)

[JPMNICK]

I'll ask this though, what other choice does a family have in NJ/NY? The predatory loan companies also shouldn't have existed this long and allowed to exploit people. The government is supposed to keep up on this shit as it used to. You act as though people buy homes every day and should know the system inside and out. Sure many went in too deep, but they weren't exactly advised correctly by the lenders. In fact they would usually convince/lie to get them into homes just to make more money themselves.

I think just like any purchase, you should be as informed as possible with the decision you are making, especially when it is the biggest purchase of your life. there are plenty of websites to help you do research, and message boards discussing this type of thing.

i see what you are saying about predatory lending, and you might have a point about the gvt. needing to step in and take care of that.

the lenders are dirtbags, which goes back to my original point that this is their fault, not really the government. that was my point about the 2 teachers aids. they should have never gotten that loan, but favors were done and it was pushed through

[spoon]

I bought my first home a few years back and did in fact read a ton on it and was a really informed consumer. Still, plenty of companies tried to tack on fees, push me toward bullshit loans and thankfully I was smart enough/made enough time to make a good informed choice. However, I can see how the average person, especially those with a family already and even less time then me or understanding of finances could be taken advantage of by fine print and experts in taking advantage of people. It's one of the most important markets/industries in our country, and it needs to be regulated like any other. If not, we run into this bullshit. There were plenty of people that went over their means, others that just weren't savy, plenty that were deceived and many other situations. Overall, it was set to Wild Wild West Mode and the government had plenty to do with it as it kept lowering rates to offset oil prices and the economy overall. Why is the stock market going up again? Good news you say? No, it's bc they realize the fed is going to lower rates once again as the overall value of the dollar falls into the basement and oil goes up. That's why.

[scottinnj]

WHO THE FUCK VOTED FOR THIS ASSHOLE? TWICE??




Me.

Given the choice of Bush over Gore-no brainer. I'd take Bush over the snake oil salesman anyday.

Given the choice of Bush over Kerry, another easy choice. Kerry is the type of guy who'll form a commission to decide what the choices are in a decision he has to make.


I'm still looking at the Dems, don't get me wrong. Just give me a candidate that'll make me cross party lines to vote for. So far I'm hoping Obama or Richardson win the nomination.

If it's Hillary vs. Rudy, I may sit it out based on Rudy's campaign. Unless he fires me up about something, or if Hillary brings out the "right wing conspiracy" crap again.

[TooLowBrow]

Given the choice of Bush over Kerry, another easy choice. Kerry is the type of guy who'll form a commission to decide what the choices are in a decision he has to make.


fine. at least there would've been discussions rather than just 'staying the course'.

[scottinnj]

No because Kerry's answer was "give the UN a chance to fix Iraq"

sweet, knowing how well they handled the oil for food program. And it still would have been US soldiers blowing up, they just would have died wearing blue helmets.

[Yerdaddy]

No because Kerry's answer was "give the UN a chance to fix Iraq"

sweet, knowing how well they handled the oil for food program. And it still would have been US soldiers blowing up, they just would have died wearing blue helmets.

Kerry's position on Iraq was to get UN inspectors back into Iraq - not a UN invasion. Authorizing the use of force was necessary to make that happen and in fact it did happen. At the time the US invasion was launched UN inspectors were destroying Iraqi missiles that were only in violation of maximum range limitations if they had no warheads attatched. So it was only by a technicality that those missiles were in violation of UN resolutions but Saddam permitted the UN to destroy them without argument. Inspections were working.

And, if you read the US Iraq Survey Group Reports it was in fact the UNSCOM inspections that pursuaded Saddam to destroy his WMD. (He was unwilling to allow that to be verified at the time because he didn't want Iran, Saudi Arabia or Turkey to know he was more or less disarmed and he knew from his history of dealing with us that we were fickle; one day we considered him an enemy and the next day an ally.) So Kerry's stated position was to let the inspectors finish their work and verify what Scott Ritter, chief UNSCOM inspector on the ground for seven years, was saying before the war - that the UN had already disarmed Saddam's regime.

So based on his actions and stated positions I think it's fair to say that had Kerry run and won in 2000 we would not occupy Iraq right now but it would be contained and we would at least be much closer to knowing that Saddam was not a threat and an invasion was unnecessary to protecet us from him giving WMD to terrorists; resources would not have been diverted from Afghanistan and finding Bin Laden; and the populations of the Muslim world would not be as angry at us for destroying Iraq making it much less difficult for governments like Pakistan's to allow us to go after Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders in their countries.

It's also prohibited by US law for American soldiers to fight under foreign command. So when we do peacekeeping it's entirely US-run operations like the Balkans and Somalia, and I'm pretty sure we've never worn blue helmets.

EDITT: I got caught up in my rant and missed the point that you were talking about the post-invasion 2004 election, which is more difficult to asses because the Bush administration had already fucked things up so badly in Iraq that it's hard to say what could have been done by anyone to fix things at that point. So I'll just say that, given that Kerry showed infinitely more intelligence in proposing solutions in the lead-up and early stages of the war than Bush did in that same period it's only fair to assume he would have done the same since 2005.

And the Oil-For-Food Programme has been shown to have been less costly and corrupt than the American administration of the war. That and the worst offenders of the UN scandal have proven to be American companies. That scandal has turned out to have been a really poor straw man which is why you don't see Republicans still tossing it around.

[scottinnj]

Plain and simple.

If you mortgage your primary residence with a Adjustable Interest Rate, sub-prime or not, you are stupid.

All this talk about "preying" on the poor, well, poor homeowners aren't stupid. If you come in and tell them they can have a 500,000 dollar home for 1200 dollars a month, they will say "what's the catch" as fast as the next guy.
And for those who got a sub-prime loan that they could just afford in their budget, as a consumer, the first question out of their mouth should have been "What will my payment be if the interest rate goes up a point" and then make sure they can afford that.

And believe it or not, the "sub-prime" crisis isn't as bad as your leaders in the media are telling you.

It's not a crisis, and I stand by what I say.

[A.J.]

the Oil-For-Food Programme

Spell like an American, dammit!

[Snoogans]

What's wrong with the housing market? Oh you mean the idiots who got sub-prime loans and are now being slapped in the face by the interest rates? I don't have much pity for them, they should have never been in houses to begin with.

The economy is doing pretty well, the stock market is reaching new records and people are making tons of money. Unemployment is not much of an issue, the workforce is growing faster than ever before with more jobs than ever, and things are looking pretty good. But no, lets blame Bush for everything, it's just a lot easier than thinking things are pretty decent out there.

Go USA.
umm, that might be all true, until you realize that Bush SPENT EVERY DOLLAR WE HAVE, and hasnt stopped spending

[TooLowBrow]

umm, that might be all true, until you realize that Bush SPENT EVERY DOLLAR WE HAVE, and hasnt stopped spending

he saved 35 million $ that wouldve gone towards health care for children... nice:smoke:

[scottinnj]

And the Oil-For-Food Programme has been shown to have been less costly and corrupt than the American administration of the war. That and the worst offenders of the UN scandal have proven to be American companies. That scandal has turned out to have been a really poor straw man which is why you don't see Republicans still tossing it around.


Do NOT let your hatred of Bush blind you Yerdaddy. You are better then that. You can talk about misspent money and of course the administration blew away more dollars on the war then Saddam got in the Oil for Food Program
But let's be honest. The main reason Saddam was able to hold onto his power during the 90s even when a Democrat President publicly stated he should be removed from power was because of the Oil for Food scandal.
So if we are going to be pointed fingers at Bush, let's point a few at the U.N. as well. If they had ran the program correctly in the first place, Saddam wouldn't have been in power. But it showed how corrupt the UN is-to have the world's most famous dictator have the UN wrapped around his finger.

[epo]

he saved 35 million $ that wouldve gone towards health care for children... nice:smoke:

He's got a helluva track record of vetoes. All 4 of them in 7 years.


Two against Stem-Cell Research bills
One for funding Children's Health Care
One setting a timeline for fixing Iraq.


That's quite a leader we have....quite a leader.

[Zorro]

...weren't you able to get married, by a house, get a new car, dog and talk about having kids. Seems like this economy has treated you guys pretty well.

[Yerdaddy]

Do NOT let your hatred of Bush blind you Yerdaddy. You are better then that. You can talk about misspent money and of course the administration blew away more dollars on the war then Saddam got in the Oil for Food Program
But let's be honest. The main reason Saddam was able to hold onto his power during the 90s even when a Democrat President publicly stated he should be removed from power was because of the Oil for Food scandal.
So if we are going to be pointed fingers at Bush, let's point a few at the U.N. as well. If they had ran the program correctly in the first place, Saddam wouldn't have been in power. But it showed how corrupt the UN is-to have the world's most famous dictator have the UN wrapped around his finger.

Don’t confuse me with an apologist for the UN or let the “Bush-basher” label ignore my arguments. The Oil-For-Food Program, (happy AJ?), was no more responsible for keeping Saddam in power than the Cigars-For-Food Programme, (couldn’t resist), was responsible for keeping Castro in power for, what, fifty years of American presidents not only stating he should be removed but actually trying to assassinate him on several occasions.

The Oil-For-Food program was never intended to remove Saddam from power – it was intended to mitigate the effects of the sanctions on the Iraqi people. In that regards it was at least partially successful as its distribution system and fundamental structure was continued by the US occupation for years and is in many ways still in place. Prior to the invasion, one of the biggest independent development NGOs, I think Oxfam, called the Iraqi-run distribution network the most efficient of its kind in the world. The amount of money that Saddam was able to siphon off was miniscule compared to the amount of money Saddam would have needed to rebuild his military – and that was the point of the sanctions in the first place: to contain Saddam, not overthrow him. Reports by the military after the initial US invasion stated that Saddam’s military was in far worse shape than they had predicted before the war. The sanctions worked. Saddam spent the money stolen from OFFP to build palaces and monuments to maintain the perception within Iraq of his continued power. But the fact is the Iraqi populous was broken down by the sanctions as well as the regime. Millions of middle class Iraqis fled the country, of those who stayed, doctors were driving cabs because they made more money. The economy was in such shambles that money wasn’t being counted in grocery stores – it was being weighed. The theory that devastating the livelihoods of a public will make them so mad they’ll overthrow their evil dictator has been disproved in so many places like Burma and half of Latin America that it was never seriously expected by the three administrations that maintained the Iraq sanctions regime.

On top of that, aside from the fact that Americans were as guilty as anyone in the OFF scandal, if the US were so serious about strangling Saddam of funds why did most of the oil Saddam smuggled out go through Kurdistan, where the US maintained a No-Fly Zone and special forces were grooming the Kurdish forces into a professional military, and through the Persian Gulf where the US maintained the Naval arm of the Southern No-Fly Zone? The fact is that the US turned a blind eye to what money Saddam was able to get from OFF and smuggling. Why? Because it didn’t worry us. We knew he wasn’t reconstituting his military or posing a threat to us or his neighbors and so we didn’t care about either problem until Republicans picked it up as an anti-UN argument in the US invasion debate.

Working overseas as a journalist has made me see corruption in the UN as a major problem in the world today. I hope in the future to expose some of it as a journalist. But the significance of OFF as an aid to Saddam and a symbol of UN corruption is vastly overstated and is itself politicized by its manipulation by Congressional Republicans. It would be much more useful to look into the Cambodian UNDP mission’s overlooking corruption in the Khmer Rouge trials, (which the Wall Street Journal and other editorial boards have been publicizing of late), than to hold up a politicized issue like OFF. It’s like trying to use the Kennedy assassination to debate the danger of grassy knolls to the next President.

[TooLowBrow]

was saddam a dictator? or was he elected? i thought he was elected over there

[JPMNICK]

was saddam a dictator? or was he elected? i thought he was elected over there

yes i think he won the last election with 98% of the popular vote. it would have been 96% but they managed to kill that 2% of the population before their vote was counted

[TooLowBrow]

yes i think he won the last election with 98% of the popular vote. it would have been 96% but they managed to kill that 2% of the population before their vote was counted

the population of iraq is over 26 million. 2% of that is over 520,000. saddam killed over half a million of his own people right before an election?

[JPMNICK]

the population of iraq is over 26 million. 2% of that is over 520,000. saddam killed over half a million of his own people right before an election?

that was more of a joke talking about their "democratic" style of elections they had there. technically they did have elections, so he was not a dictator

[high fly]

No because Kerry's answer was "give the UN a chance to fix Iraq"

sweet, knowing how well they handled the oil for food program. And it still would have been US soldiers blowing up, they just would have died wearing blue helmets.

No one was blowed up by the oil for food program.

Looking back, we can see that when it came to getting rid of Saddam's WMD programs, the UN combined with the Clinton administration sho-nuff got the job done far beyond their wildest expectations!

At the same time, we had a continuation of America's national interest accomplished through maintaining the balance of power in the Gulf, with Iraq a solid counterweight to Iran.

To do so cost us $12 billion and no Americans repeat no Americans were killed by the Iraqis while the extraordinarilly successful Clinton administration policy bore fruit.


Compared to the price of the "cakewalk" so far, it is clear who did the right thing.


HISTORY SHOWS THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION GOT IRAQ RIGHT!



And it's high time the right-wingers gave them credit for it.

[Zorro]

No one was blowed up by the oil for food program.

Looking back, we can see that when it came to getting rid of Saddam's WMD programs, the UN combined with the Clinton administration sho-nuff got the job done far beyond their wildest expectations!

At the same time, we had a continuation of America's national interest accomplished through maintaining the balance of power in the Gulf, with Iraq a solid counterweight to Iran.

To do so cost us $12 billion and no Americans repeat no Americans were killed by the Iraqis while the extraordinarilly successful Clinton administration policy bore fruit.


Compared to the price of the "cakewalk" so far, it is clear who did the right thing.


HISTORY SHOWS THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION GOT IRAQ RIGHT!



And it's high time the right-wingers gave them credit for it.

It's not a Zero-Sum game where because one side got it wrong the other side got it right. Clinton's policy toward Iraq sucked. It may have sucked less the GW's, but his lack of will on Iraq open the door for the neo-con invasion.

[high fly]

How could Clinton's policy have sucked when you look at the results it got!

Saddam's WMD was eliminated PLUS Iran was counterbalanced by the secular regime of Saddam.


Time to give credit where credit is due.

Clinton came into office and Saddam had a WMD program and when Clinton left, that program was eliminated, the last vestiges destroyed during the 4-day Operation Desert Fox surprise bombing campaign.


All accomplished at a minimal cost and no quagmire.




HISTORY SHOWS THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION GOT IRAQ RIGHT!




.

[buzzard]

sure he didn't mean
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z82/a1958wil/vibrate.jpg

[spoon]

It's not a Zero-Sum game where because one side got it wrong the other side got it right. Clinton's policy toward Iraq sucked. It may have sucked less the GW's, but his lack of will on Iraq open the door for the neo-con invasion.

By lack of will do you mean the "wag the dog" bullshit the repubs pulled on him? So who ultimately handcuffed him? Not that I think he'd be so stupid to destroy a needed secular/religious balance in that area.

[Zorro]

By lack of will do you mean the "wag the dog" bullshit the repubs pulled on him? So who ultimately handcuffed him? Not that I think he'd be so stupid to destroy a needed secular/religious balance in that area.

Clinton was a cat man...

[high fly]

history Shows The Clinton Administration Got Iraq Right!

[Zorro]

history Shows The Clinton Administration Got Iraq Right!

No history shows Clinton left the middle east a mess. The fact that Bush made it worse doesn't change that.

[A.J.]

No history shows the British left the middle east a mess.

Fixed that for you.

[Midkiff]

Buck Fush

[Zorro]

Fixed that for you.


Great point. The western world has never seen the Arabs as anything but godless heathens, corrupt to the core and least of all politically adept. Turns out they have the savviest leaders in politics and the money to back it up. They perform classic misdirection by focusing there people on external powers instead of their own problems... and of course we make it so easy for them.

[high fly]

Originally Posted by high fly
history Shows The Clinton Administration Got Iraq Right!

No history shows Clinton left the middle east a mess. The fact that Bush made it worse doesn't change that.


Iraq.
The quote was about Iraq.
Don't know how you missed it, it was right there in properly spelled English for you and in bold type.


For about $10 billion the Clinton administration eliminated Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, kept Saddam from being a threat to our interests, yet maintained Iraq as a counterweight to Iran.
Our strategic national interest - the balance of power in the Gulf was maintained.
Further, Clinton is the only U.S. administration I am aware of that took concrete action against Iran, which put a stop to Iranian-sponsored operations against Americans after Clinton pretty much wiped out their foreign intelligence gathering around the globe...

Some mess.

[A.J.]

Further, Clinton is the only U.S. administration I am aware of that took concrete action against Iran, which put a stop to Iranian-sponsored operations against Americans after Clinton pretty much wiped out their foreign intelligence gathering around the globe...

Some mess.

More importantly, I have to give Clinton credit for at least attempting to normalize relations with Iran. This policy of isolating states is pointless and counterproductive. We have seen that with Cuba for almost 50 years now.