I don't have the time or inclination to dissect an 8 (!) page reply (yes, I pasted it into a word processor to check, thank you very much!), so I'm going to reply in generalities. If you are expecting me to tell you that you are wrong, then I am sorry to disappoint you. You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to disagree. Your thesis seems to be based on a fundamental assumption that our economy cannot continue to grow, and that much of the economic progress that we have made is somehow counterfeit and undeserved, as symbolized by this quote:
In addition to the more obvious risks to sovereignty by placing this debt in the world market, the assumption that we will keep growing is fallacious and will lead to a time where our tax collections will be unable to cover even the servicing of debt interest, which is a true sign of insolvency.
I don't see any basis for these assumptions, and I couldn't disagree with them more strongly than I do. Individual markets will correct, of course, and our economy will always be evolving, but there is no limit to how much it can grow. The key is to make sure we have the prerequisites in place to enable this growth. These are things like our fiscal policy, energy supply, infrastructure, and national defense. I will say this again- if you think that there is some reason why our economy cannot continue to grow, then the best course of action is to figure out what those reasons are, and fix them (just as we have done dozens of times in our nations history as our economy has evolved). There is nothing fundamentally different now from the previous challenges we have faced.
I guess it is only fair that I explain what I consider fiscal responsibility or fiscal conservatism to be. At its core, fiscal conservatism means to eliminate government waste by focusing it's resources and policies on the things that are needed to promote economic growth. Nothing in that definition precludes deficit spending. On the contrary, deficit spending is the most responsible way to finance the growing asset of our economy (this carries over to the corporate world as well, by the way. I only know of 1 company in the Fortune 500 that doesn't use debt instruments to finance future growth). Healthy deficits allow us to keep tax rates low, safely increase the money supply, pay for infrastructure and other things that promote growth, and increase the net worth of the private sector, and they are paid back in the future from a tax base that has already benefited from the investments. The two keys for this are:
"Healthy deficits", meaning that our sustained debt is not growing faster than our economy. Keep the total debt in a safe range (say, between 40%-80% of GDP), and tweak the deficits along the way to keep us in that range.
Spending the money on things that enable economic growth. We spend a lot of money on things that don't, which isn't bad by itself as long as we still spend the needed money on the stuff that does.
Umm... Let me know when I'm allowed even to be in the same room as a bond auction. Then maybe I'll agree with you on this.
All auctions are 100% open to everybody, both for competitive bids and noncompetitive.
actually, I read many news outlets and synthesize them. I even read Fox, but like CNN, I take what they say with a serious grain of salt. Personally I like reading foreign accounts of occurrences in America. Except Xinhua. They're just barmey.
And why would you assume that I do anything different?
Actually, I think the gentleman in your other argument refuted your statistic quite handily himself, so much so that I felt no need to rub salt in the wound.
Please- your killing me! What other gentleman? I scanned through my recent history, and I saw one guy that accused me of cherry picking statistics about who supported Saddam's military the most in the 1980's, but he did absolutely nothing to di
I'm not sure what you expect from this. Needless to say, I have disagreed with the GAO assessments (and statements by Mr Walker in particular) in the past, I disagree with this statement of his, and I think its likely I will disagree with him more in the future. He seems to consistently ignore half of the equation, focusing only on the growing debt and ignoring the even faster growing economy. I am not alone in this view, btw.
umm... thank God our political discourse isn't completely set by fiats like yours yet.
I was merely trying to explain why I skipped that in my previous response. I'm not averse to debating the topic (we are still talking now, aren't we?). I just didn't see how it fit in with our discussion about fiscal responsibility (you know, where I asked you a couple of simple questions about your sweeping statement about fiscal irresponsibility that as far as I can tell you still haven't answered).
So you're a gambling man. Well, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop gambling with my grandchildren's future.
It is hardly gambling given our 200 year track record of economic growth. If you are concerned that our economy is suddenly going to stop growing, then that is the issue you should be concentrating on, not just one of the many negative side effects of such a problem. You see, the funny thing is, in matters of microeconomics, trying to anticipate disaster can become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
"You don't think the market factors inflation into the interest rates that it demands on the money that it loans?"
Not for end consumers, especially in retirement accounts.
What? The "end consumers" are the market. I can assure you that the 10 year notes that I own are paying well over the inflation rate in interest, and my retirement account has handily beat inflation every year since I opened it the better part of a decade ago. The Treasury even sells some inflation protected securities for the pessimists.
Yes, I had the foresight based on our interaction to date to predict you would question the sources as invalid unless I provided some indication that ones you might trust (or be unwilling to repudiate.)
I'm glad that our interactions are that memorable to you, but I've got to say, I have no idea what you are talking about. Is this a reference to a previous discussion we had? I know you are not talking about our current discussion because, well, you haven't provided any sources (aside from that article from the Daily Telegraph about the $1.3 trillion total Chinese dollar holdings, which I accepted as true in my reply).
I do find your presumptions that you make about me, as well as the general hysteria about Fox News that comes from certain political circles, to be pretty funny, though.
You see, I've gone and read some of your other posts. You use a variety of tactics in your arguments, like cherrypicking statistics you know to be misleading and playing heartstrings without meaning it, as in your treatment of motivations for Iraq.
You sure do like to read a lot into what people type. Look- we are both rational adults. If you really feel like I am trying to intentionally mislead people (which is an absurd statement in itself), then step up and provide your evidence to support that. You think I am cherry picking statistics? Then show me your statistics that contradict the ones I have given. Don't just try to hand-waive away facts that don't jive with your world view by poisoning the well. That is just intellectually dishonest. People are allowed to disagree, you know.
(I married a state debate champion. Needless to say, you can take your Linclon-Douglass techniques out of the picture: they're unsuitable for meaningful discourse.)
Perhaps you should ask your debate champion wife what argumentum ad verecundiam means...
But you see, it is on the table. It might be a measure of later resort, but if it weren't on the table it wouldn't have come out of the state university think tank it came from.
Of course they could do it. I only take issue with your claim that it would harm us more than it would harm China. Its not like this threat is new or unique to China, nor are we defenseless against such actions.
Hmm... an argument to every point except the erosion of freedom in America... Well, I'll at least address your arguments as they stand.
I thought I was clear that I considered the discussion of my sig to be a bit off topic, but if you are that interested, I'm always up for a good debate.
What you say is true only if the government is not also borrowing money from you to pay me the interest and will in turn have to borrow still more from me in order to pay you interest... ad nauseam.
How does that change anything? Interest paid is just another government outlay. A government's ability to service it's debt depends solely on the size of it's economy. There is nothing wrong with the government continuing to borrow to meet its financial obligations as long as the economy continues to grow.
Besides, if the government gives me my money back and it's worth half as much as it was when I put it in... I've lost money.
You don't think the market factors inflation into the interest rates that it demands on the money that it loans?
As to current valuation of the dollar, are all media outlets including (probably your favorite) FOX wrong when they report the dollar to have dropped "dangerously close to historic support value"?
I based my assertion off of the latest statement from the Federal Reserve. The broad index (which is a trade-weighted index vs the currencies of our 26 largest trading partners) is currently at 103.19 compared to the Jan 1997 baseline of 100. I readily admit that our currency has dropped significantly since the highs in 2003, but this is by no means universal (the dollar has appreciated by around 20% vs the Japanese Yen and the Mexican Peso in the past 3 years, for example), and my comment about our currency being worth more today than in 1997 still stands.
all media outlets including (probably your favorite) FOX
Oh, and did that comment add anything to this discussion?
And the figures are hidden because they are not discussed because both parties want to spend like it's going out of style.
What does that mean? You can look up exactly how much money we are spending and exactly how much debt we have (to the penny!) any time you want.
The Wall St. Journal and other media outlets seem to think your source underestimates the debt holdings. Their estimates run in the $1-1.3 Trillion range.
I think we are talking about two different things. The Chinese dollar holdings consist of US Treasury securities, private sector bonds, and cash, and the aggregate total of these holdings is likely in the range of $1-1.3 trillion. The only one of these that our monetary policy can reasonably control is the US Treasury securities, and those amount to a little over $350 billion. This is all moot, though, because China is not going to cripple themselves by deliberately harming their own assets.
You had me until you took your goal of providing these freedoms to Iraq past the point of diplomacy and trade relations. (very noble of you, now how about the Sudan?)
I hate to break this to you, but our motivation to invade Iraq was not to be nice and spread freedom or to control their oil. Our motivation to invade was to eliminate a clear and direct threat to our national security that over 12 years of diplomacy and trade relations was unable to get rid of. It just so happens that the best way to do this, according to our President (and I am in agreement on this), is to replace the brutal oppression of the region with an opportunity for self determination and freedom. There are two components to this, of course. We handily achieved the first part ("Mission Accomplished!", as the partisans like to fixate on), but for a variety of reasons the second part is still a work-i
short term deficits are not that big an issue. However, we've run a deficit for the vast majority of my lifetime. The magic thing is that deficits accumulate into debt. Add the extra magic of compounding interest and you're in for a real treat. The debt is my primary concern.
Well, first, I don't know where you got the idea that the interest on our debt is compounding. It is straight simple interest. Somebody buys a new security from the treasury, and the government pays him fixed interest payments every six months until maturity, at which time the principle is paid off. It never compounds.
Of course deficits add to the debt. The question is, as long as the economy is growing, why do we need to pay the debt off at all?
Secondarily, I am worried by the methods the government use to come up with the figures you mention without citations. I am more disturbed, however by the means the government use to hide deficit and debt, namely "borrowing" from the "separate, never to be touched" social security funds and highway trust. Both of those funds are dramatically underfunded for their obligations, and those underfundings are only going to be exacerbated with time. Where I'm from, we call it "robbing Peter to pay Paul."
Yes, Social Security will be underfunded starting in about 40 years, but that has absolutely nothing to do with intragovernmental debt. Just like any treasury security that you or I buy, the securities held by the Social Security trust fund are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government, and have the same 0% chance of being defaulted on. No, Social Security's problems are more systemic with it promising more benefits to more retirees, but fewer workers are paying into the system to fund the benefits.
Oh, and these intragovernmental debts are not at all hidden. The Treasury Dept includes them in their published numbers.
In addition to a legitimate fear of impending hyperinflation (get out from under your rock and look into the current state of the money markets)
I've happily poked my head out from under my rock, and I see that inflation is still low, the market-determined yields on US Treasury securities are still below historical averages (meaning the market still considers them very low risk), and although the value of the dollar is off from its peak, the dollar is still stronger today than it was 10 years ago (trade weighted currency index of 103 this month compared to the Jan 1998 baseline of 100). I also see that our currency has appreciated significantly over the past 3 years compared to 2 out of our 4 top trading partners. Again, where is your fear of impending hyperinflation coming from?
I am deeply concerned with the direct threat to our sovereignty it represents. Just look at the Chinese trial balloon with respect to shorting our debt. They *can* do it. It would hurt them. At this point in their development, it would hurt us worse.
The Chinese currently own about 4% of our debt (source). They aren't even the biggest foreign holder of US debt. They could probably do some damage to our currency if they liquidated all of their dollar holdings, but there is no way that would hurt us more than it would hurt them. In the meantime, lets be happy that they are helping to subsidize our low tax rates and helping our economy.
BTW: the unspoken part of your signature is "and we will throw out previous definitions of just war in order to satisfy our urge to spread "freedom" through tyranny."
This is pretty OT, so suffice it to say that I really don't understand how toppling one of the most brutal dictators that this century has seen, followed by helping the Iraqi people chose a constitutional committee, write a democratic constitution, ratify that constitution, and elect a democratic parliament- all by free national elections- would fall under anybody's definition of "tyranny".
Actually, I find fiscal irresponsibility, which is the hallmark of the current platforms of both major parties to be repugnant and unsustainable.
Please define "fiscal irresponsibility". Do you think that our current debt-to-GDP ratio of just under 65% (and shrinking) is irresponsible? How about our 2007 budget deficit of ~2.6% of GDP? Or do you think that any deficit is somehow repugnant?
I just hope we as a country wake up and realize it before our grandchildren aren'table to pay for our largesse.
Since there is literally a 0% chance that our Government won't be able to pay back it's debts, I will assume that you are referring to the prospect of market-driven hyperinflation as a result of us having a debt burden larger than our economy can support. Given that #1, our current debt burden is in line with historical averages, #2, our economy is growing faster than our debt burden, and #3, our debt burden is no where near as aggressive as that of many other industrialized nations, I wonder why you think that hyperinflation is looming. The market still sees long term US government securities as a low-risk investment, after all.
I'm just asking the questions that I would hope you have asked to yourself before you made those kinds of sweeping statements.
Because the mainstream has moved so far away from the ideals that this country was founded on, and so far away from the Constitution, and so far away from liberty, that to speak the words the Founding Fathers of the US once did, sounds a bit nuts these days.
Thats a cop-out. The "everybody changed but me" line sounds quite hollow and cliche'.
I am a conservative voter. I don't agree 100% with any candidate, and I have some serious fundamental disagreements with some of them (like Sen. Clinton), but I must say that Ron Paul is the only candidate that I am truly scared of. I am terrified of the effects that his policies would have on our country. It seems like he just has not thought them through all of the way, or if he has, it was under some alternate reality with a different set of rules than real life. Some examples:
He wants to return to the gold standard. Needless to say, there are reasons why every single country on the planet has abandoned the gold standard.
He wants to eliminate all deficit spending. The obvious follow-up question to this is, how does he plan to grow the money supply to accomodate a growing economy? The previous bullet indicates, like I said above, that he hasn't completely thought through this question. You see, the only way the economy can grow if the money supply doesn't grow is if the currency undergoes some serious deflation. That alone discourages continued investment and retards further economic growth. Healthy deficit spending is a way to safely increase the money supply while simultaneously increasing the net worth of the private sector. It is win-win. If you arbirarily take this off of the table, like Congressman Paul has proposed, that leaves only two options to increase the money supply: either just create a bunch of new money at the central bank and live with the inflation (which, again, given the first bullet above is not an option to Mr. Paul), or have the government continually buying up private sector resources (the inevitable result of which is socialism, which I assume is also not attractive to Mr. Paul). Once again- not fully thought through.
Ron Paul wants to pick up and leave Iraq immediately. Regardless of whether you supported the start of a war or not, it is always harder to end a war than to start it. It took the better part of a year to build up our military equipment and personel in the region. Withdrawing will take at least that long, leaving the remaining troops there more and more vulnerable as other resources leave the country. If you think that the ~60 casualties per month now are bad, wait until the opposition is moving around unchecked with one third of the coalition resources to combat it. The only way to safely remove yourself from a war is to win it. Again, this has nothing to do with whether you supported the invasion or not. It's the reality of the situation we are in.
If I have misstated his positions, by all means correct me. But as it stands right now, I feel relief that Congressman Paul is the longshot candidate that he is.
If a bum on the street told me the moon is made of cheese, I would most definitely be skeptical of any and everything that bum said afterward, including whether or not the day is 24 hours long. That is my point - if Yoo wrote one bullshit opinion, then the rest of his opinions are suspect as well.
Just because the day is 24 hours long doesn't mean I'm not going to call everything that bum says into question.
Skepticism is good. I am skeptical of everything. But that is only half the process. The next step is to evaluate the claim based on it's merits. Anything less than that is pure intellectual laziness. In other words, being skeptical of something alone does not disprove it.
No, the wiretapping program is clearly illegal, due solely to the 4th amendment, no FISA necessary.
I agree with workindev that this is far from "clear". The 4th Amendment prohibits searches that are "unreasonable". The courts have generally decided that this means you need a warrant, but they have also found that there are several exceptions to this where warrants are not required (like if things are in plain view, or if there are exigent circumstances). Do such exceptions apply in the case of the warrantless wiretapping program, as the DOJ whitepaper argues? It is a fair question, and the answer has absolutely nothing to do with what John Yoo thinks the definition of torture is.
In our society, the courts are tasked with the interpretation of the law in disputes like this, and they have not ruled one way or another on this yet.
The legal opinions are only unrelated on their face. Anyone who proposes that torture is legal is fucked in the head, and anything they write is suspect
Again, Yoo did not argue that torture was legal. The memo specifically reaffirmed the relevant code prohibiting torture.
Here's a question. Can an act of Congress supersede the Constitution?
Of course not. Courts can (and do) rule that laws that Congress has passed are unconstitutional, and throw them out. Similarly, courts are responsible to rule on if those carrying out the law are interpreting it correctly or not. Neither of these have happened with the AUMF or with warrantless wiretapping program.
You will find that the number of absolutes in the constitution is actually quite limited. There are often qualifiers, such as "unreasonable". These kinds of words are inherently subjective, so it falls on the legislature to codify the exact requirements of something to be "reasonable", and it falls on the judiciary to interpret that law.
The line doesn't need to be drawn...just don't torture people. Is it really that hard?
The USC statute defines torture as an act "committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon another person in his custody or physical control."
Now say that somebody who was interrogated claims that he endured severe physical suffering because he had to skip lunch for the interrogation and he was very hungry, and further, the interrogators were rude and didn't say "please" and "thanks", and this caused him severe mental suffering, and therefore he was tortured.
Do you think this is torture? No? BAM. You just drew a line, weasel.
Of course, the line does not get controversial until much further down the road, but that doesn't change the fact that the line does need to be drawn.
No, my claim is that Yoo has written bullshit legal opinions before.
Like the GP said, no matter how much you want this to be relevant to your argument, it isn't. You need to evaluate a claim based on the merits of the claim. Anything else is fallacious and logically meaningless. Think if it this way: if a bum on the street approached you and told you that the moon is made of cheese and that a day is 24 hours long, you cannot claim that the second claim is false just because the first claim is (and, hey, the source is a bum anyway).
Your argument seems to boil down to this. You think that the wiretapping program was "clearly illegal" because: #1- You think it violated FISA and the 4th Amendment #2- One of the bigger legal papers out there that argues that the program doesn't violate FISA and the 4th Amendment was (probably) written by somebody who has made unrelated claims that you disagreed with.
In order to claim that it is "clearly illegal", you would need to argue against the merits of #2, and you haven't even attempted to do that.
Really, torture being legal?
It is pretty clear that you never read the August 1, 2002 memo that you are referring to. The illegality of torture in the United States is clearly codified in 18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A, and the memo makes no attempt to dispute that (on the contrary, it reaffirms that this is the governing law in the United States relating to torture). What the memo does attempt to do is define is what actions rise to the level of torture as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A. By its nature, this is going to be a controversial line to draw, but it is a line that needs to be drawn.
No, you colossal boob, not everyone thought there were WMD's.
Okay- name one country that didn't agree that Saddam was in violation of Resolution 687. You are probably right that not "everybody" believed it, but you will find that the list of countries that did not is pretty short.
First, don't lump chemical and biological with nuclear. Yes, I know analysts do it but I think it unfairly magnifies the threat level of the BC in NBC.
You think its unfair? Saddam wasn't allowed to have any of these weapons, and it was the UN that decided that. It was decided by unanimous UN Security Council mandate with an explicit authorization to use force to get Saddam to disarm, and that was reconfirmed over a dozen times in the following 12 years.
The specific charge Bush used to get our panties in a wad was nuclear weapons.
President Bush's case for war against Iraq was that they posed a threat to our national security. Their blatent (and 100% confirmed) violation of their cease-fire disarmament mandate was a big part of that, along with their longstanding support of international terrorism and their repeated attempts to use terrorism against the United States.
Yellow cake uranium, lie.
This is another myth perpetuated by the Bush-hating anti-war crowd. The Bush Administration claimed that Iraq had been sending out feelers for for uranium deals in Africa. This was based mostly on information shared from British intelligence (that they still stand by, btw), and strengthened when Joe Wilson went to Niger where they confirmed that Iraqi representatives had been there to form a "business relationship", which Niger understood to be about uranium sales. This is also 100% uninteresting to the debate about the war because these uranium deals were insignificant to the CIA's key assessment about Iraq's nuclear capability (because Iraq already had over 500 tons of yellowcake that we knew about).
Aluminum tubes, lie.
How was this a lie? Iraq did in fact purchase restricted-use aluminum tubes without declaring them to UNMOVIC, which itself is a gross violation of their cease-fire mandate, and many intelligence agencies thought they were heading for uranium enrichment. Where's the "lie"?
The CIA was giving Bush solid intel but he and his team refused to accept it. Cheney and his cronies cherry-picked raw intel for the most sensationalistic shit they could find, regardless of whether it was true or not.
There is no evidence outside of the wet dreams of the rabid Bush-haters that this is based on any truth. On the contrary, there have been a few official reviews that concluded the exact opposite- that the Bush Administration did NOT manipulate pre-war intelligence.
When you say "most people assumed Saddam had WMD" you really mean "Most people assumed he had some leftover chemical or biological shit", not that he had nukes ready to strike the west in 45 minutes. The consensus before 9-11, a consensus backed by Powell, was that the US policy of Iraqi containment was working.
Wow. Did you read any of the ISG report on Iraq's WMD programs? Hell- did you even read the key findings? After the invasion, the ISG found over a dozen hidden, active, and illegal weapons programs in Iraq that the UN had no idea existed. Yes, they didn't find the decades-old decaying WMD stockpiles that they thought would be there. Instead they found hidden and illegal infrastructure, procurement systems, and research in place to build brand new weapons. If you take a deep breath, you might realize that this is actually worse! Containment? I think not.
I'm sick of lies and lying liars. I'm sick of people who rewrite the facts to justify doing something and then rewrite history to protect themselves from that fuckup.
As I have said, If you believe, You should be there helping as a mercenary or US soldier. Good luck!
That is some weak, twisted logic that proves nothing. Do you value fire fighters? Then why aren't you a fireman! Do you think that law enforcement is important? Then why haven't you joined the police force! Do you believe that border security is important? Then why don't you apply to be a customs agent! Do you not want to live in your own garbage? Become a garbage collector!
I could go on, but I hope you can see the absurdity of your post.
Go there! Be part of the 'solution'!
Let me ask you this- do you think that you are part of the solution? What do you think is motivating the people that oppose our goals in Iraq to do the horrible things that they are doing? They know that they cannot beat us militarily, so why are they still trying?
I submit to you that they are motivated because the defeatist rhetoric coming from people like yourself and other blind opponents of the war is showing them that their tactics are working. If they keep doing what they are doing, or better yet, ratchet up the violence and get even more spectacular bloodshed into the news here, we will give up and go home. Unfortunately, it looks like they are right! In a similar vein, this defeatist rhetoric is deterring many Iraqi people and neighboring governments from supporting the fledgling Iraqi government, because as it stands right now it will probably fail as soon as we leave. And now is the time that the Iraqi government needs this support the most!
If you want to be part of the solution, then maybe think about the message that you are sending out. You of course have the absolute right to say whatever you want to, but don't kid yourself that this rhetoric has no effect on the outcome.
There is no doubt that the US gave Saddam chemical and biological weapons to begin with, encouraged, and helped direct the use of, their use and is responsible for Iraq having chemical and biological weapons to begin with.
Here is a report that concludes through a chemical analysis of the CW that Iraq used against Iran that they could not have come from the US or the UK, and that they most likely came from the USSR. To quote:
"The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides.... The sources of supply might as well be indigenous as external to Iraq, given the technology implied. Involvement of the last three categories would, in some circles, implicate the USSR as supplier."
So that is some strong evidence that we didn't give Saddam chemical weapons. Where is your evidence that we did?
BTW - Saying that 'everyone thought Iraq had WMD' is simply silly. You do, however, have republican talking points well embedded in your beliefs.
I didn't say that everyone "thought" that Iraq had WMD. I said that he did have WMD, and we know that because we saw him use them, so it is stupid to deny it. I also find it sad that apparently the only way that you can accept that somebody disagrees with you is if you assume that they are indoctrinated with some talking points from a worthless political party.
Like Viet Nam, the US will eventually have to leave. The sacrifices and efforts the US has already made are already a total waste, but thousands more will die as the US (pResident Bush) will blindly try to 'fight on' as terrorists increase in number and effectiveness.
Of course we will eventually leave Iraq. Believe me- nobody wants to stay there any longer than necessary.
Our efforts there have not been a waste, and it is offensive for you to claim otherwise. Our military achieved an astounding victory, and that was followed by the drafting of a new constitution, wildly successful popular elections, and the formation of a new government-- all within the planned timeframe and on schedule. It is possible for us to win in Iraq (or more appropriately, maintain our victory there), and more importantly, we can't afford not to!
Huh? I don't disagree with your claim that the United States openly supported Iraq in their war against Iran, or even that the US supplied weapons to them. I just think it is stupid to single the US out for this given the fact that several other countries supported Iraq much more extensively than we did. Seriously- what point were you trying to make?
Poppycock. What have you been smoking? That was during the 1980's when the US government (then president / 'actor' Ronald "Ray Gun" Reagan) was supplying Iraq with the WMD to use against Iran. US supplies weapons, Iraq uses them as directed by the US, then 10+ years the US complains...
I don't know where you got your facts from, but you are dead wrong. The United States did not arm Saddam's Iraq. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the US only accounted for less than 1% of the total arms imports to Iraq between 1970 and 1991. The vast majority of Iraq's arms came from the USSR, France, and China. Even Austria imported more weapons to Iraq than the United States did. The SIPRI also concluded through a chemical analysis that the chemical weapons that Iraq used against Iran did not come from the United States. And the United States was the first to reveal evidence that Iraq had used chemical weapons against Iran, and they swiftly condemned Iraq for this violation of the Geneva Protocols (including passing several resolutions in the Security Council).
If you think that these facts supports your assertions in any way, than I think it might be you that is smoking something.
Not to mention --> After the Gulf War they were destroyed which is why none were found during or after the 'latest' invasion.
You are correct. It turns out that Saddam did unilaterally destroy most of his old decaying stockpiles after the first Gulf War. The problem is, he was required to do this under international supervision, and he was required to take some simple, clearly defined steps to show that he was not continuing with his WMD development. He never did this, in blatent violation of the disarmament mandate that was unanimously placed on him as a condition of the cease-fire.
In the absense of this information that Iraq was required to provide, the ONLY reasonable conclusion was that they had not disarmed (which, btw, was confirmed by the ISG following the invasion).
Right now the US is paying over 12 Billion US$ a month just for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and for what
We are paying the money to help promote the politcal stability that is necessary to maintain the military victory that we already achieved. If we leave now, then in all likelyhood the situation will collapse to even worse than it was before. Now that would make the sacrifices and efforts we have already made a waste.
Just because conspiracy theories are "main stream" dosn't make them anything other than theories. When looked at rationally such theories stand or fall based on actual evidence, there dosn't appear to be much of this.
The data that the ISG uncovered is beyond theory. They found and documented over a dozen hidden and proscribed weapons programs that UNMOVIC had no idea existed prior to the invasion as well as a clandestine procurement regime in place where they could get anything they wanted outside of the sights of the UN inspectors. True, they did not find the old decaying stockpiles that we were expecting them to find, but the violations that they did find were just as troubling and probably more dangerous.
This is all detailed in the 1400 page ISG report. I suggest you read some of it. Even the high level summary makes it clear that Iraq was not in compliance with thier disarmament mandate.
Of course we supported Iraq in their war against Iran- it was a very logical and reasonable thing to do given what Iran had just done to the United States after the Iranian revolution. By the mid 1980's when it became clear that Iraq was not playing by the rules, the United States was the first to publicly condemn Iraq for their use of terrorism and violations of the Geneva protocols (which Iraq promptly denounced as "CIA lies").
I think you also have a misconception about exactly how much support we gave to Iraq during this timeframe. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the United States accounted for less than 1% of Iraq's arms imports from 1970-1991. The vast majority of Iraq's arms came from the USSR (almost 50%), with France coming in at a close second. In fact, the only "arms" imports from the United States to Iraq during the 1980s were 4 different orders for lightweight helicopters (totalling about 120 helicopters) that were originally ordered for civilian use, but later taken over by the Iraqi Air Force. Thats hardly a damning amount of support.
On top of that, analysis of the chemical weapons that Saddam used in the 1980's proves that they did not come from the United States. To quote:
The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides.... the sources of supply might as well be indigenous as external to Iraq, given the technology implied. Involvement of the last three categories would, in some circles, implicate the USSR as supplierSo if you are really looking to blame the actual supporters of Saddam's regime, it certainly isn't the United States.
We didn't claim to invade for weapons he had in the 1980s
I am going to say this as nicely as possible: you are ignorant about the justification for the US invasion in 2003. The illegal weapons that Iraq had (and used) in the 1980s were very relevant to the 2003 invasion. Why? Because Iraq was required by a unanimous UN Security Council mandate to show the world that they had disarmed those illegal weapons and to stop using and supporting terrorism, and Iraq never complied. Not even close. To quote the chief UNMOVIC inspector Hans Blix in January 2003, "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
The UN Security Council was serious about this disarmament mandate. They explicitely authorized the use of military force to achieve compliance, and reaffirmed that in over a dozen subsequent unanimous resolutions over the next 12 years.
Please, stop trying to move the goalposts to make yourself feel better about wasting a trillion dollars and thousands of lives.
The goalposts didn't move from April 3, 1991 when the UN Security Council passed Resolution 687. Nobody feels good about the war in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't necessary.
The world witnessed Saddam use his WMD against the Iranians and Kurds on multiple occasions. This takes the notion that he had WMD out of the "belief" realm and plants it solidly in the "proven fact" category.
Excellent point, except you left off the biggest supplier of oil to the US- the United States! We produce about 40% of our oil needs domestically. The next biggest supplier, as you point out, is Canada, which accounts for a little less than 10% of our oil needs (or around 17% of our oil imports).
So counting our domestic oil production, over 70% our oil comes from "non-Arab" sources.
There's the old saw that leaving your windows rolled down creates an aerodynamic drag on your car, cutting down on fuel efficiency. And there's the notion that the fastest way to drain your gas tank is by running your air conditioning.
Don't believe either one.
In two separate studies conducted in 2005, the automotive Web site Edmunds.com and Consumer Reports compared the fuel economy of both a sedan and an SUV at highway speeds with and without air conditioning and how open windows affected gas usage.
What they found was no significant difference in fuel economy in either sedan or SUV under either condition.
Please explain again why being responsive to the will of the people is a bad quality in a leader? You say it like it's a bad thing. I guess you're not a big fan of democracy, huh?
Good leadership is not doing what everybody else wants- it is convincing others that your way is best! You cannot lead by polls- that is called following.
Especially with the current president as a testament to the problem with sticking to "personal convictions" in the face of conflicting evidence and epic failure. I mean, what are Bush's approval ratings at these days? 35% or something?
I do take issue with your characterization of an "epic failure", but that is besides the point. The real point is that the public has the luxury of changing their minds in the face of adversity, but the President does not. It really doesn't matter if you agree with the decisions that have already been made because they have already been made. Discussion whether or not we should be in Iraq, for example, is pointless because we already are in Iraq, and no decision we make today is going to undo the 2003 invasion. The only relevant debate should be about the future.
I guess what I am trying to say is that so much of the public discourse seems to be focused on the past rather than finding solutions for the future. The President's personal convictions about Iraq may be unpopular, but they are based on a reality that many people recognize that an artificial timetable for withdrawing our troops will make the situation worse, not better.
Like I was saying above, personal convictions are only part of leadership. The rest is the ability to convince others to follow you, and in this regard President Bush is a horrible leader.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see any basis for these assumptions, and I couldn't disagree with them more strongly than I do. Individual markets will correct, of course, and our economy will always be evolving, but there is no limit to how much it can grow. The key is to make sure we have the prerequisites in place to enable this growth. These are things like our fiscal policy, energy supply, infrastructure, and national defense. I will say this again- if you think that there is some reason why our economy cannot continue to grow, then the best course of action is to figure out what those reasons are, and fix them (just as we have done dozens of times in our nations history as our economy has evolved). There is nothing fundamentally different now from the previous challenges we have faced.
I guess it is only fair that I explain what I consider fiscal responsibility or fiscal conservatism to be. At its core, fiscal conservatism means to eliminate government waste by focusing it's resources and policies on the things that are needed to promote economic growth. Nothing in that definition precludes deficit spending. On the contrary, deficit spending is the most responsible way to finance the growing asset of our economy (this carries over to the corporate world as well, by the way. I only know of 1 company in the Fortune 500 that doesn't use debt instruments to finance future growth). Healthy deficits allow us to keep tax rates low, safely increase the money supply, pay for infrastructure and other things that promote growth, and increase the net worth of the private sector, and they are paid back in the future from a tax base that has already benefited from the investments. The two keys for this are:
All auctions are 100% open to everybody, both for competitive bids and noncompetitive.
And why would you assume that I do anything different?
Please- your killing me! What other gentleman? I scanned through my recent history, and I saw one guy that accused me of cherry picking statistics about who supported Saddam's military the most in the 1980's, but he did absolutely nothing to di
I'm not sure what you expect from this. Needless to say, I have disagreed with the GAO assessments (and statements by Mr Walker in particular) in the past, I disagree with this statement of his, and I think its likely I will disagree with him more in the future. He seems to consistently ignore half of the equation, focusing only on the growing debt and ignoring the even faster growing economy. I am not alone in this view, btw.
I was merely trying to explain why I skipped that in my previous response. I'm not averse to debating the topic (we are still talking now, aren't we?). I just didn't see how it fit in with our discussion about fiscal responsibility (you know, where I asked you a couple of simple questions about your sweeping statement about fiscal irresponsibility that as far as I can tell you still haven't answered).
It is hardly gambling given our 200 year track record of economic growth. If you are concerned that our economy is suddenly going to stop growing, then that is the issue you should be concentrating on, not just one of the many negative side effects of such a problem. You see, the funny thing is, in matters of microeconomics, trying to anticipate disaster can become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
What? The "end consumers" are the market. I can assure you that the 10 year notes that I own are paying well over the inflation rate in interest, and my retirement account has handily beat inflation every year since I opened it the better part of a decade ago. The Treasury even sells some inflation protected securities for the pessimists.
I'm glad that our interactions are that memorable to you, but I've got to say, I have no idea what you are talking about. Is this a reference to a previous discussion we had? I know you are not talking about our current discussion because, well, you haven't provided any sources (aside from that article from the Daily Telegraph about the $1.3 trillion total Chinese dollar holdings, which I accepted as true in my reply).
I do find your presumptions that you make about me, as well as the general hysteria about Fox News that comes from certain political circles, to be pretty funny, though.
You sure do like to read a lot into what people type. Look- we are both rational adults. If you really feel like I am trying to intentionally mislead people (which is an absurd statement in itself), then step up and provide your evidence to support that. You think I am cherry picking statistics? Then show me your statistics that contradict the ones I have given. Don't just try to hand-waive away facts that don't jive with your world view by poisoning the well. That is just intellectually dishonest. People are allowed to disagree, you know.
Perhaps you should ask your debate champion wife what argumentum ad verecundiam means...
Of course they could do it. I only take issue with your claim that it would harm us more than it would harm China. Its not like this threat is new or unique to China, nor are we defenseless against such actions.
I thought I was clear that I considered the discussion of my sig to be a bit off topic, but if you are that interested, I'm always up for a good debate.
How does that change anything? Interest paid is just another government outlay. A government's ability to service it's debt depends solely on the size of it's economy. There is nothing wrong with the government continuing to borrow to meet its financial obligations as long as the economy continues to grow.
You don't think the market factors inflation into the interest rates that it demands on the money that it loans?
I based my assertion off of the latest statement from the Federal Reserve. The broad index (which is a trade-weighted index vs the currencies of our 26 largest trading partners) is currently at 103.19 compared to the Jan 1997 baseline of 100. I readily admit that our currency has dropped significantly since the highs in 2003, but this is by no means universal (the dollar has appreciated by around 20% vs the Japanese Yen and the Mexican Peso in the past 3 years, for example), and my comment about our currency being worth more today than in 1997 still stands.
Oh, and did that comment add anything to this discussion?
What does that mean? You can look up exactly how much money we are spending and exactly how much debt we have (to the penny!) any time you want.
I think we are talking about two different things. The Chinese dollar holdings consist of US Treasury securities, private sector bonds, and cash, and the aggregate total of these holdings is likely in the range of $1-1.3 trillion. The only one of these that our monetary policy can reasonably control is the US Treasury securities, and those amount to a little over $350 billion. This is all moot, though, because China is not going to cripple themselves by deliberately harming their own assets.
I hate to break this to you, but our motivation to invade Iraq was not to be nice and spread freedom or to control their oil. Our motivation to invade was to eliminate a clear and direct threat to our national security that over 12 years of diplomacy and trade relations was unable to get rid of. It just so happens that the best way to do this, according to our President (and I am in agreement on this), is to replace the brutal oppression of the region with an opportunity for self determination and freedom. There are two components to this, of course. We handily achieved the first part ("Mission Accomplished!", as the partisans like to fixate on), but for a variety of reasons the second part is still a work-i
Of course deficits add to the debt. The question is, as long as the economy is growing, why do we need to pay the debt off at all?Yes, Social Security will be underfunded starting in about 40 years, but that has absolutely nothing to do with intragovernmental debt. Just like any treasury security that you or I buy, the securities held by the Social Security trust fund are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government, and have the same 0% chance of being defaulted on. No, Social Security's problems are more systemic with it promising more benefits to more retirees, but fewer workers are paying into the system to fund the benefits.
Oh, and these intragovernmental debts are not at all hidden. The Treasury Dept includes them in their published numbers.I've happily poked my head out from under my rock, and I see that inflation is still low, the market-determined yields on US Treasury securities are still below historical averages (meaning the market still considers them very low risk), and although the value of the dollar is off from its peak, the dollar is still stronger today than it was 10 years ago (trade weighted currency index of 103 this month compared to the Jan 1998 baseline of 100). I also see that our currency has appreciated significantly over the past 3 years compared to 2 out of our 4 top trading partners. Again, where is your fear of impending hyperinflation coming from?The Chinese currently own about 4% of our debt (source). They aren't even the biggest foreign holder of US debt. They could probably do some damage to our currency if they liquidated all of their dollar holdings, but there is no way that would hurt us more than it would hurt them. In the meantime, lets be happy that they are helping to subsidize our low tax rates and helping our economy.This is pretty OT, so suffice it to say that I really don't understand how toppling one of the most brutal dictators that this century has seen, followed by helping the Iraqi people chose a constitutional committee, write a democratic constitution, ratify that constitution, and elect a democratic parliament- all by free national elections- would fall under anybody's definition of "tyranny".
Thanks for the link. I actually looked for something like this when I sat down to respond to you.
I'm just asking the questions that I would hope you have asked to yourself before you made those kinds of sweeping statements.
I am a conservative voter. I don't agree 100% with any candidate, and I have some serious fundamental disagreements with some of them (like Sen. Clinton), but I must say that Ron Paul is the only candidate that I am truly scared of. I am terrified of the effects that his policies would have on our country. It seems like he just has not thought them through all of the way, or if he has, it was under some alternate reality with a different set of rules than real life. Some examples:
- He wants to return to the gold standard. Needless to say, there are reasons why every single country on the planet has abandoned the gold standard.
- He wants to eliminate all deficit spending. The obvious follow-up question to this is, how does he plan to grow the money supply to accomodate a growing economy? The previous bullet indicates, like I said above, that he hasn't completely thought through this question. You see, the only way the economy can grow if the money supply doesn't grow is if the currency undergoes some serious deflation. That alone discourages continued investment and retards further economic growth. Healthy deficit spending is a way to safely increase the money supply while simultaneously increasing the net worth of the private sector. It is win-win. If you arbirarily take this off of the table, like Congressman Paul has proposed, that leaves only two options to increase the money supply: either just create a bunch of new money at the central bank and live with the inflation (which, again, given the first bullet above is not an option to Mr. Paul), or have the government continually buying up private sector resources (the inevitable result of which is socialism, which I assume is also not attractive to Mr. Paul). Once again- not fully thought through.
- Ron Paul wants to pick up and leave Iraq immediately. Regardless of whether you supported the start of a war or not, it is always harder to end a war than to start it. It took the better part of a year to build up our military equipment and personel in the region. Withdrawing will take at least that long, leaving the remaining troops there more and more vulnerable as other resources leave the country. If you think that the ~60 casualties per month now are bad, wait until the opposition is moving around unchecked with one third of the coalition resources to combat it. The only way to safely remove yourself from a war is to win it. Again, this has nothing to do with whether you supported the invasion or not. It's the reality of the situation we are in.
If I have misstated his positions, by all means correct me. But as it stands right now, I feel relief that Congressman Paul is the longshot candidate that he is.Why do all Ron Paul supporters (you know, the ones that crapflood any discussion board they can find) always come across as being completely nuts?
That was a rhetorical question.
I agree with workindev that this is far from "clear". The 4th Amendment prohibits searches that are "unreasonable". The courts have generally decided that this means you need a warrant, but they have also found that there are several exceptions to this where warrants are not required (like if things are in plain view, or if there are exigent circumstances). Do such exceptions apply in the case of the warrantless wiretapping program, as the DOJ whitepaper argues? It is a fair question, and the answer has absolutely nothing to do with what John Yoo thinks the definition of torture is.
In our society, the courts are tasked with the interpretation of the law in disputes like this, and they have not ruled one way or another on this yet.Again, Yoo did not argue that torture was legal. The memo specifically reaffirmed the relevant code prohibiting torture.Of course not. Courts can (and do) rule that laws that Congress has passed are unconstitutional, and throw them out. Similarly, courts are responsible to rule on if those carrying out the law are interpreting it correctly or not. Neither of these have happened with the AUMF or with warrantless wiretapping program.
You will find that the number of absolutes in the constitution is actually quite limited. There are often qualifiers, such as "unreasonable". These kinds of words are inherently subjective, so it falls on the legislature to codify the exact requirements of something to be "reasonable", and it falls on the judiciary to interpret that law.The USC statute defines torture as an act "committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon another person in his custody or physical control."
Now say that somebody who was interrogated claims that he endured severe physical suffering because he had to skip lunch for the interrogation and he was very hungry, and further, the interrogators were rude and didn't say "please" and "thanks", and this caused him severe mental suffering, and therefore he was tortured.
Do you think this is torture? No? BAM. You just drew a line, weasel.
Of course, the line does not get controversial until much further down the road, but that doesn't change the fact that the line does need to be drawn.
Your argument seems to boil down to this. You think that the wiretapping program was "clearly illegal" because:
#1- You think it violated FISA and the 4th Amendment
#2- One of the bigger legal papers out there that argues that the program doesn't violate FISA and the 4th Amendment was (probably) written by somebody who has made unrelated claims that you disagreed with.
In order to claim that it is "clearly illegal", you would need to argue against the merits of #2, and you haven't even attempted to do that.It is pretty clear that you never read the August 1, 2002 memo that you are referring to. The illegality of torture in the United States is clearly codified in 18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A, and the memo makes no attempt to dispute that (on the contrary, it reaffirms that this is the governing law in the United States relating to torture). What the memo does attempt to do is define is what actions rise to the level of torture as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A. By its nature, this is going to be a controversial line to draw, but it is a line that needs to be drawn.
I could go on, but I hope you can see the absurdity of your post.Let me ask you this- do you think that you are part of the solution? What do you think is motivating the people that oppose our goals in Iraq to do the horrible things that they are doing? They know that they cannot beat us militarily, so why are they still trying?
I submit to you that they are motivated because the defeatist rhetoric coming from people like yourself and other blind opponents of the war is showing them that their tactics are working. If they keep doing what they are doing, or better yet, ratchet up the violence and get even more spectacular bloodshed into the news here, we will give up and go home. Unfortunately, it looks like they are right! In a similar vein, this defeatist rhetoric is deterring many Iraqi people and neighboring governments from supporting the fledgling Iraqi government, because as it stands right now it will probably fail as soon as we leave. And now is the time that the Iraqi government needs this support the most!
If you want to be part of the solution, then maybe think about the message that you are sending out. You of course have the absolute right to say whatever you want to, but don't kid yourself that this rhetoric has no effect on the outcome.
"The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides.
The sources of supply might as well be indigenous as external to Iraq, given the technology implied. Involvement of the last three categories would, in some circles, implicate the USSR as supplier."
So that is some strong evidence that we didn't give Saddam chemical weapons. Where is your evidence that we did?I didn't say that everyone "thought" that Iraq had WMD. I said that he did have WMD, and we know that because we saw him use them, so it is stupid to deny it. I also find it sad that apparently the only way that you can accept that somebody disagrees with you is if you assume that they are indoctrinated with some talking points from a worthless political party.Of course we will eventually leave Iraq. Believe me- nobody wants to stay there any longer than necessary.
Our efforts there have not been a waste, and it is offensive for you to claim otherwise. Our military achieved an astounding victory, and that was followed by the drafting of a new constitution, wildly successful popular elections, and the formation of a new government-- all within the planned timeframe and on schedule. It is possible for us to win in Iraq (or more appropriately, maintain our victory there), and more importantly, we can't afford not to!
Huh? I don't disagree with your claim that the United States openly supported Iraq in their war against Iran, or even that the US supplied weapons to them. I just think it is stupid to single the US out for this given the fact that several other countries supported Iraq much more extensively than we did. Seriously- what point were you trying to make?
We invaded Iraq because they posed an unacceptable threat to our national security. It is as simple as that.
If you think that these facts supports your assertions in any way, than I think it might be you that is smoking something.You are correct. It turns out that Saddam did unilaterally destroy most of his old decaying stockpiles after the first Gulf War. The problem is, he was required to do this under international supervision, and he was required to take some simple, clearly defined steps to show that he was not continuing with his WMD development. He never did this, in blatent violation of the disarmament mandate that was unanimously placed on him as a condition of the cease-fire.
In the absense of this information that Iraq was required to provide, the ONLY reasonable conclusion was that they had not disarmed (which, btw, was confirmed by the ISG following the invasion).We are paying the money to help promote the politcal stability that is necessary to maintain the military victory that we already achieved. If we leave now, then in all likelyhood the situation will collapse to even worse than it was before. Now that would make the sacrifices and efforts we have already made a waste.
This is all detailed in the 1400 page ISG report. I suggest you read some of it. Even the high level summary makes it clear that Iraq was not in compliance with thier disarmament mandate.
I think you also have a misconception about exactly how much support we gave to Iraq during this timeframe. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the United States accounted for less than 1% of Iraq's arms imports from 1970-1991. The vast majority of Iraq's arms came from the USSR (almost 50%), with France coming in at a close second. In fact, the only "arms" imports from the United States to Iraq during the 1980s were 4 different orders for lightweight helicopters (totalling about 120 helicopters) that were originally ordered for civilian use, but later taken over by the Iraqi Air Force. Thats hardly a damning amount of support.
On top of that, analysis of the chemical weapons that Saddam used in the 1980's proves that they did not come from the United States. To quote: The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides.
the sources of supply might as well be indigenous as external to Iraq, given the technology implied. Involvement of the last three categories would, in some circles, implicate the USSR as supplierSo if you are really looking to blame the actual supporters of Saddam's regime, it certainly isn't the United States.
The UN Security Council was serious about this disarmament mandate. They explicitely authorized the use of military force to achieve compliance, and reaffirmed that in over a dozen subsequent unanimous resolutions over the next 12 years.The goalposts didn't move from April 3, 1991 when the UN Security Council passed Resolution 687. Nobody feels good about the war in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't necessary.
The world witnessed Saddam use his WMD against the Iranians and Kurds on multiple occasions. This takes the notion that he had WMD out of the "belief" realm and plants it solidly in the "proven fact" category.
Excellent point, except you left off the biggest supplier of oil to the US- the United States! We produce about 40% of our oil needs domestically. The next biggest supplier, as you point out, is Canada, which accounts for a little less than 10% of our oil needs (or around 17% of our oil imports).
So counting our domestic oil production, over 70% our oil comes from "non-Arab" sources.
There's the old saw that leaving your windows rolled down creates an aerodynamic drag on your car, cutting down on fuel efficiency. And there's the notion that the fastest way to drain your gas tank is by running your air conditioning.
Don't believe either one.
In two separate studies conducted in 2005, the automotive Web site Edmunds.com and Consumer Reports compared the fuel economy of both a sedan and an SUV at highway speeds with and without air conditioning and how open windows affected gas usage.
What they found was no significant difference in fuel economy in either sedan or SUV under either condition.
I guess what I am trying to say is that so much of the public discourse seems to be focused on the past rather than finding solutions for the future. The President's personal convictions about Iraq may be unpopular, but they are based on a reality that many people recognize that an artificial timetable for withdrawing our troops will make the situation worse, not better.
Like I was saying above, personal convictions are only part of leadership. The rest is the ability to convince others to follow you, and in this regard President Bush is a horrible leader.