What do you mean? Things are pretty bad in Afghanistan by most accounts. You mean compared to Iraq? Because it is going well compared to Iraq.

How many times you going to post that? I've read it...

I'll keep posting as many times as you ask the question, "why do the rich pay X% of the taxes?" It's because the rich make X% of the money.

Source: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00in11si.xls

Disagree completely.

Your not getting what I am trying to ask though. Is it the rich's fault that they make more money? Most of them are providing jobs, taking risks in delivering new products or services, and some are innovative in several fields that impact our daily lives. By reducing their taxes, they are investing it back into companies, stocks, ect., which will increase more jobs, ect. When was the last time you were paid by a poor person?

No really it is the truth. The Downing Street Memo isn't what most Bush administration critics think it is.

Dutch,
Those aren't US soldiers right? Cause I don't think the US has that many there now, unless they've raised levels post Iraq.

The Al Qaeda and Taliban groups are essentially omnipresent outside of the few major cities where the UN is present. They rule the countryside along with the opium poppy growing war lords. Afghanistan is far from a panacea.

I wish we had taken the time, and invested the troops on the ground there to really extend the democracy, especially the law and order aspects of a true democracy, to the people outside the capital.

You don't hear so much anymore about trickle down economics, because it wasn't much of a success when it was first talked about and implemented. If you are saying that lower taxes mean the rich have more money, then I would say you are right. If you are saying that more of the tax burden being on the poorer people helps them through trickle-down, then I think you are wrong.

yup, when all is said and done I wonder if Afghanistan will be looked at, in the grand scheme of things as a success story. IOW, will the removal of the Taliban in the end be smaller in stature than the failure to catch Bin Laden, failure to control the drug trade, etc. Dont take this as a "i was against the war" statement, cuz I wasnt...just being analytical.

hmmm, did a search and wasnt sure which thread to put this in considering titles sometimes can be vague purposely or inadvertantly so....here goes since it is appropriate for this one:

Ex-CIA official: WMD evidence ignored
'60 Minutes' report: White House disregarded good intelligence

Sunday, April 23, 2006; Posted: 8:46 p.m. EDT (00:46 GMT)


(CNN) -- A retired CIA official has accused the Bush administration of ignoring intelligence indicating that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no active nuclear program before the United States-led coalition invaded it, CBS News said Sunday.

Tyler Drumheller, the former highest-ranking CIA officer in Europe, told "60 Minutes" that the administration "chose to ignore" good intelligence, the network said in a posting on its Web site.

Drumheller said that, before the U.S.-led attack on Iraq in 2003, the White House "ignored crucial information" from Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, that indicated Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

Drumheller said that, when then-CIA Director George Tenet told President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other high-ranking officials that Sabri was providing information, his comments were met with excitement that proved short-lived.

"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," Drumheller is quoted as saying. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "

Drumheller said the administration officials wanted no more information from Sabri because: "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."

CBS said the White House declined to respond to the charge and that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said Sabri was just one source and therefore not reliable.

But Drumheller said it was not unusual for the administration to rely on single-source stories when those stories confirmed what the White House wanted to hear.

He cited a report the CIA received in late 2001 that alleged Iraq had bought 500 tons of uranium-containing compounds from Africa.

"They certainly took information that came from single sources on the yellowcake story and on several other stories with no corroboration at all," he said.

Bush included the reference, which was attributed to the British and turned out to be false, in his 2002 State of the Union Address.

"It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure," Drumheller told CBS' Ed Bradley. "This was a policy failure. I think, over time, people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time."

The White House earlier this month reacted angrily to a report that Bush had cited trailers suspected as biological weapons labs as proof of the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after intelligence officials knew that the trailers were not part of a WMD program. (Full story)

"I cannot count how many times the president has said the intelligence was wrong," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.

He added that the administration has implemented reforms to make sure that "the executive branch and the Congress have the best possible intelligence as they move forward to deal with the threats that face this country and face this world."

Flasch that's just the opinion of one man, not the smoking gun that Bush haters would want you to think it is.

Well lets see. This is a CIA official saying that specific evidence was ignored. The thing I'm curious about is the time frame involved. Not to mention what the CIA considered Sabri's credibility was. More facts are needed, but this is a hell of a lot more of a smoking gun than the Downing Street clap-trap.

No I think the reason you don't hear about it anymore is that it has become a catch phrase that people who don't know thing one about economics to attack. They can mock it and say it doesn't work. Yet when you hear the Republicans of today speak about keeping the tax burden low to protect business, they are preaching the same policies described in "Trickle Down" economics. It has just been all repackaged for the public's consumption.

it just seems like there are a lot of "Individuals" from different arenas saying the same type of things. At what point, numbers wise, does a couple of people become a gang, then a horde, then an army, etc. etc.?

Ask Glen.

Normally if something works, it's popular. That's not 100% true, but it's a general trend. If it's popular, it doesn't need to be repackaged under a different name every few years.

Let's just take the Bush example: taxes cut for the upper incomes, and then slow job growth, an increase in poverty, low wage increases, and an increase in the wealth disparity.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree...

You may remember that two congressional investigations into pre-war intelligence gave the White House clean records, the Robb-Silbermann Commission and the Roberts Committee. Josh Marshall is reporting that he called the ex-CIA official and he says that he was interviewed as many as three times by each commission, told them everything that he told 60 Minutes, and none of it made it into any of the reports.

If true, it obviously destroys the credible of the reports, and makes me wonder what else was not included.

So is there enough evidence finally for everyone this side of Dutch to finally admit that Bush et al wanted to lead us to war at any cost? Worst president ever.

Several comments on very different issues, so I'll dolapost a bit to keep things separate.

I don't think the tax prep bubble burst would be that significant. Just think of the massive amount of investment money that was propping up unstable tech products in the late '90s. All you had to do was say "dot com" somewhere on your prospectus, and the venture capitalists were at your door. Most H&R Block workers are temporary.

You're right about the lobbying, though. It would be significant. You just have to be confident, as I am, that slashing a large number of government jobs, along with the associated budget savings, would spur the economy in more efficient ways. Good businesses know what to do when skilled labor suddenly floods the market.

I don't think we'll ever get that opportunity. The populists (I see populism as thinly veiled communism) are too successful with their class warfare rhetoric.

One simple point here. If a change of 7% among the very rich can move the entire Tax Freedom Day calculation two weeks, then the very rich are paying more than all of the taxes. Taxes went down for everyone, and it was very much welcome.

We need to cut the federal budget. We need to stop waging unnecessary wars. We need to admit that there's a difference between an entitlement culture and a safety net. We need to stop villifying businesses, because, aside from the government, they're the only ones who provide jobs in this country.

One thing to look at with the loan rate: the Fed believes that their actions only work months, if not years, in advance of a problem. It's very complex work. I don't understand it all, but I don't feel qualified to say whether creating short-term problems like a housing bubble bursting right before I want to sell mine are worth combatting long-term problems, like fighting inflation, which we all know was incredibly damaging in the '70s.

I think it's been said before, but if you support the welfare state, then you don't mind taxing the rich until the marginal rates are so high, it just doesn't bring in any revenue any more because incentive dies.

If you have a welfare state instead of a true safety net, then the under-educated or under-skilled have no incentive to work. They can't find a job that has any effect on their net compensation, so why not just sit around and whine all day?

We have to keep looking at welfare states elsewhere in the world (or at least moreso than ours). Are they successful? Do you see much new business coming from France or Germany these days? France's welfare state is so entrenched that about 2% of the entire country went out on daily protests of a law that would certainly have spurred businesses to provide jobs in a nation with 10% unemployment. But the jobs weren't good enough for them because France does not require healthy, able people to try and earn a living on their own.

I'll argue in favor of the Bush tax cuts and how Greenspan handled the Fed, because I believe they helped reduce what would have been an economic disaster in the tech bust. You can't blame Bush for the jobs losses caused by something that happened long before he was in office.

As for your comment above, no contest. Bush mangled things so badly that you have to wonder if he just plain wanted to invade Iraq, screw diplomacy.

There's plenty of analysis to indicate that more units on the ground, especially early on, would have resulted in a higher capture rate of Al-Qaeda targets. U.S. forces simply weren't able to project and sustain force as well as they would have liked.

As for going "relatively well"? Define "relatively well". The advantage the U.S. has with Afghanistan vs. Iraq is that an existing structure of power (i.e. warlords) was only happy to re-take power after the Taliban and had the means to do so. Still, there's plenty of fighting outside of the major cities, and ex-Taliban insurgents are using techniques used in Iraq against U.S. forces. These don't make the news as much because Iraq dominates U.S. coverage, but it's certainly happening.


All evidence points to an Al-Qaeda presence still existing on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, helped by the chaos there, and also helped by sympathetic local powers on the Pakistani side with which Musharraf still won't contend, despite our diplomatic leaning.

Anyway, OBL is apparently still in that area, so that's something at least. Plus, remember that Al-Qaeda doesn't particularly need Afghanistan for training purposes anymore, since they can use Iraq for that.

I think that's about right (he wanted to invade and, by God, he was going to do it).

As for the tax cuts issue, they may have been alright if our military budget didn't jump so high because of the Iraq War. Just staying in Afghanistan may have stopped the deficit from climbing so high.

Though frankly, I don't care that the rich were paying 40% in federal taxes. I don't think it was such a crisis that they had to get a tax break to 35%. A good tax policy to jumpstart the economy would be to take that money which would be lost by reducing taxes on the top percent and use that to reduce the middle and lower class taxes even further. Since middle class and lower class people have a higher marginal propensity to consume than the upper class, it would also stimulate more consumption. That being said, I may also take some of the almost 5% cut in the top marginal rate and give tax cuts to businesses.

http://www.cfc-a.centcom.mil/Informa...fghanistan.htm

Coalition forces in Afghanistan: More than 21,000
- United States: more than 17,900
- Allies: more than 3,100
Allied nations: 21

Provincial reconstruction teams: 13 Coalition, 9 NATO

(International Security Assistance Force) Combined Forces Command – Afghanistan

CFC-A is the strategic headquarters in Afghanistan and is commanded by Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry.

Our mission:

Combined Forces Command Afghanistan conducts full spectrum operations throughout the combined joint operations area to defeat Al Qaeda and asscociated movements, establish an enduring Afghan security structure and reshape its posture for the Long War in order to set the conditions for long-term stability in Afghanistan.

Combined Joint Task Force-76

Is a subordinate unit of CFC-A. It is the operational headquarters in Afghanistan and is commanded by Maj. Gen. Jason Kamiya of the Southern European Task Force at Bagram Airfield. CJTF-76 is broken down into six major task forces:

Combined Task Force Bayonet

Covers the south and southeast of Afghanistan and is responsible for provincial reconstruction teams in Kandahar, Lashkar Gah, Qalat and Tarin Kowt.

Combined Task Force Devil

Covers the central and eastern region of the country and is responsible for provincial reconstruction teams in Asadabad, Bamian, Gardez, Ghazni, Jalalabad, Khowst, Parwan, Mehtar Lam, and Sharona.

Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force

Covers special operations missions across the country.

Task Force Griffin

Responsible for aviation coverage of the entire country including close air support, reconnaissance and logistics.

Combined Task Force Sword

Oversees engineer operations, including coalition engineers from South Korea, Poland and Slovakia, at Bagram Airfield, Kandahar Airfield, the provincial reconstruction teams and forward operating bases throughout the country.

Each provincial reconstruction team is a civil-military project intended to help Afghans build and repair damaged infrastructure such as roads, wells and schools. The PRTs also help establish broad security by extending the reach of the Afghan government through the country.

The Office of Security Cooperation – Afghanistan (OSC-A)

Is another subordinate unit of CFC-A. OSC-A works with the government of Afghanistan and the international community to reconstruct the Afghan security and defense sectors.

OSC-A is reconstructing the Afghan National Army, and the Afghan defense sector by recruiting soldiers to training the recruiters; organizing the Ministry of Defense and mentoring its senior leaders and the General Staff; acquiring weapons, uniforms and equipment; as well as developing the policies and processes needed by a modern army to establish viable acquisition, personnel and other systems required to establish a working military infrastructure.

OSC-A's recent assumption of the U.S. Government's role in reforming the Afghan National Police provides a historic opportunity to help provide stable rule of law in Afghanistan. OSC-A works with Germany, the lead nation in Afghan Police reform, and other members of the international community to collectively deliver a proffessional polic force that will enhance the security of the Afghan people.

Under OSC-A’s operational control is Task Force Phoenix, which is responsible for training the Afghan National Army.

Current as of Jan. 21, 2006

Dutch (since your one of the military people here, and to other military people still reading this), what resources (websites, books, etc) are there that really go into detail about this sort of stuff? Like what exactly is a "Task Force", "Combined Task Force", "Special Ops Task Force", what kind of personel are they made up of, their command structure, equipment, etc. etc. (I'd love to learn more about modern military stuff)

Task Forces are just temporary units brought in to do a mission. I'm not an expert on all of this. Some of our folks who have deployed recently would be of more assistance.

As for Afghanistan and Iraq, the biggest source of news is the US Central Command. http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/default.aspx

Indeed.

You read the New York Times, so fuck you. :)

Seriously, where does the New York Times get their info if not from this source? This site provides a majority of the information the AP gets. Plus the other stuff the AP can't sell. Great info here.

Dutch,

I didn't think the US had 17,000 troops there, I thought we had been hovering around the 10,000 mark. In any case, I haven't seen any reports indicating that we had been able to squash the rebounded opium trade. I can't really think we are successful there when the Taliban was able to shut down the opium harvest better than we can. That plus some of the reports about the Taliban reclaiming territory. Even if those are overblown, the fact that they essentially have war lords governing sections of the country, tell me that there is lots of work left to be done.

I'll take this one. See, Dutch, there are these people called 'reporters'. You may remember them as the people you call traitors for reporting on the evil deeds of President. What they do is, they either go out into the field and find the info for themselves, or rely on sources inside the government to tell them what is going on. What they don't do (at least always) is rely on propaganda from the government and reprint everything the government says. Not doing so is not a sign of liberal bias, but rather part of their function as a check on the powr of government.

Now - these "reporters" as you call them...have they ever been shown to have any bias or, I don't know, fabricate a story in the past? I can imagine maybe some small-time reporters probably have, but it's good to know that such a thing would never occur at the NY Times.

...and these so called reporters, if they even exist, would never go on a News Network and serve one side of the political aisle over another OR god forbid, use that new technology called Radio to espouse lies, would they? I have my doubts if these so called journalists even exist as opposed to just being vacationers who pick bad locales to relax. Especiallyy Ben Wiedeman and Christiane Amanpour.

LOL, complaining about reporters when this Administration has spent money to place propaganda pieces in media outlets, quietly hired commentators to shill for them, and set up propaganda outlets masquerading as objective news sources in Iraq. You guys crack me up.

CENTCOM's website, as Dutch points out, is good. I also recommend globalsecurity.org. Someone may want to take issue with their articles, but their factual stuff is usually quite helpful, especially for questions like "What is an X", and suchlike.

Good ole Bush at it again.... "Want lower gas prices? Well then, we need to ease regulation!"

I hope the American public isnt so completely stupid that they fall for this shit.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060425/...ergy_plan_dc_1

more on the story...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060425/..._pr_wh/bush_15

As of now, environmental restrictions on gas refineries are LIFTED. what a fucking farse.

Well, at least the article wasn't all bad news...

true, but i think the halting of epa refinery regulations might more than offset that. Also, i think those tax breaks were supposed to go towards r&d? wasnt that how it was touted back then? but either way, they dont deserve a single red cent from the government, good move by Bush - even if this is the most obvious move. no industry deserves federal funds amidst record profits.

worked for Cable companies right?

Just wow. More people disapprove of Bush than had disapproved of Nixon at any time except right before he resigned. And this is without any congressional investigations.

Doesn't mean much since he will not resign nor should he.

Usual Biggle ignorant tripe. Little does he know that the standard for the presidential was much higher pre-Watergate, where being president was something noble and the ultimate occupation. If you think the Bush are bad, just wait till the next president, and the one after that, etc. It's a different time and multi-generational stats don't make good comparisons.

duckman, damn you for quoting that piece of turd.

Dutch has good kung fu.

Buc, this is the dumbest response I have ever had the mispleasure of reading from you. If I am not mistaken, it is your contention that Bush's record high disapproval ratings are not due to his incompetance as a leader, but rather as a general trend where each president will be judged to be worse and worse. This trend, according to you, has somehow missed Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. Furthermore, you contend that Bush's disapproval is because, pre-Nixon, standards were higher. How higher standards makes someone less likely to be critically judged is left unexplained. And you call a post consisting entirely of facts without commentary 'ignorant tripe'. This might be the ultimate in wankery. Good show Buc.

Seriously, if you want to participate with the adults, please add something that is above a first grade level. And if you are incapable, don't make yourself look worse by being juvenile in your name calling.

Yes Dutch, another reason why Bush's disapproval may be up: 0% growth rate over the past 6 years in the stock market.

Ugh.. I have to agree with Biggie here... sorry Bucc. But the 'wait until the next President' stuff was dumb.

Yeah, I know, I couldn't help it. But I also think that the partisan bullshit will not get any better. It seems that we've been in a cycle of the next administration/congress/whatever will try their damndest to wipe out any trace of the previous adminstration/etc., overcompensating if you will. We saw that with Carter after Nixon, Reagan after Carter, Clinton after Reagon/Bush and Bush after Clinton.

Hey, Bucc.

Go Wings. ;)

It doesn't make sense to blame this on generic partisanship. It wasn't like that at the start. I can't think of any President who was given more bipartisan support than George W. Bush. He had an approval rating near 90% in 2001, and got most of his major campaign programs passed on a bipartisan basis even before the attack. Partisanship has gotten particularly bad in recent years, but things happened to cause that, and Bush was hardly blameless in that process... He has governed with all the subtleness of a sledgehammer.