WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-01 21:26:47 +0000

Fair enough. I take issue with the idea that the mileage of the "Iraq as deception" argument is coming from the press. The factcheck.org site is clearly pointing out inaccuracies in a paid advertisement, not a news report. The only person in the administration labeled a liar by the press has been Libby. This accusation coming after a John Ashcroft appointed prosecutor indicted Libby for perjury. The instances in the ad might not be lies per se, however, they are clearly an indication of the administration's ineptness.

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-01 21:47:13 +0000

Point well taken, tgl. In my intital post. I think my first statement would've been better phrased as the idea of Iraq being a deceitful, conspiratory lie gets more mileage than it should, period. The 'press" is a broad indictment with no back up... I stand corrected. The fact that ashcroft gave the go-ahead / appointment of the special investigator is ironic / chortle inducing. Libby deserves the liar label. You are kind of going to have trouble being viewed as truthful when it is proven you have lied to a grand jury. _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-01 23:50:45 +0000

If it's the truth, why shouldn't it get press, and how could that be "too much mileage?" I don't get it. "If you answer questions and you have information being supplied to you by advisors, you tend to use it." Why didn't Bush use the intellegence that said there were no WMD's? Or the intel that proved Saddam had no ties to Sept. 11th? Seems like Bush used only selective intel to invade Iraq. The proof of deception and conspiracy is elsewhere. Remember this: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Posted by cdubrocker on 2005-11-02 14:18:43 +0000

A sizeable part of this is political strategy, definitely. Sort of like an "Oh, you think you're in power, Frist? I'll show you some power. Lock those doors, and break out the whips and chains!" And when it gets reported in the MSM, well, that's sort of embarrassing on a grand, public scale. Reid certainly knows his Senate rules. I wonder how many Senators were aware he could do this? Barbara Boxer said on the Daily Show last night that only 3 senators (Reid, Durbin, and ?) were even aware he was going to do this.

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-02 20:30:01 +0000

To prove my point further, Our favorite former peanut farmer weighs in. _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-02 20:35:29 +0000

Wait, so now you do think intel was manipulated?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-02 20:44:57 +0000

Also, rladew, be careful of everyone's favorite gay libertarian's buddy's AP listing. It's not what Andy puts in there; it's what he leaves out. Still it is all AP posts, so I can't really complain.

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-02 21:14:36 +0000

The title of the AP clearly denotes that it is reporting Carter's opinion. Not sure what the fuss is, or what you are trying to prove. Secondly, I think misled _is_ proper. Bush is the leader, correct? Where did he lead us?

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-02 21:14:47 +0000

no no no. I'm sure you knew what I meant, but in case you didn't: Judging strictly from the AP article, JC needs to backup his claims of conspiracy and deceit on behalf of the Bush administration more. If anyone has a "today" transcript, please post it. I googled with no success. Also, lets be honest here, JC's presidential legacy (I'm talking solely about the 8 yrs in office) is pretty underwhelming at best. JC might do well to think about the glass house he lives in before he throws stones and someone else's... _______________________________ p.s. So its bad for me to post from Drudge, but yr points are more valid from something like the moose report? I don't get it.

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-02 21:21:41 +0000

My beef isn't with the AP, nor for Jimmy Carter voicing his opinion in a free society. My beef is that people use "information" such as this to base their opinions on, but there isnt any actual information or backing points to start with. _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-02 21:29:59 +0000

Maybe Bush 43 will give Carter a run for his money in the "best ex-President" marathon.

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-02 21:33:43 +0000

With this sort of information they might do something drastic like... re-elect Bush?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-03 06:55:19 +0000

First off, Carter was (sadly) only in Presidential office 4 years '77 -'81. Please read the Wikipedia link you posted, rladew. (I will agree with a sub-par domestic career, but Carter's achievements internationally were overwhelming, and perhaps the 20th century benchmark for future President's foreign policy. Let's be honest here, who comes close to Carter: JFK? Ike? Wilson?) The claims Carter makes are so valid that the Bushies don't know what to do. Wilkerson, Bush 41, Clark, and scores of other Republicans have come out against the administration. Please read about the British intelligence report The Downing Street memo I posted earlier. British intel has proven to be much more reliable than the US's, and it clearly states there was deception and intel fixing led by Bush before the invasion of Iraq. Even though the press had hardly mentioned it earlier, it gets ink now that America recognizes the "cabal" (words by our Republican State Dept. Chief of staff '00-'04) between Cheney and Rumsfeld. Big news, front page stuff. It makes Watergate look like the tiny 3rd rate burglary it was. It is bullshit our country (and my brother-in-law in Iraq) doesn't have to put up with. Bullmoose is a critic, not news source, nor does he claim to be. Points are "more valid" only when based on more credible facts. Lastly, I love Drudge, and of course it isn't "bad" to post from him. It makes me happy to see such a weirdo do so well, as he is constantly accurate. Andrew Breitbart was Drudge's workmate and one of his best friends. What Andy posts is AP news, and it is all well and good, but he will often leave out news items (such as the Senate closed session) and lead with a anti-liberal story (such as Delay blasting the judge in his indictment). It isn't just the regular AP listings. So Breitbart is factual, yes, but has the classic story lead bias. I guess what I'm suggesting here is it's fine to read from it, but don't make it your homepage. (Also does Andy need to post the "Drudgereport" link next to "Associated Press", like they are equals or something? I know they love each other but sheesh...) What glass house does JC live in?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-03 06:56:38 +0000

There are thousands of backing points...

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-03 13:49:23 +0000

Oversight on my part re: 4 vs. 8 years. I apologize. [joking]as far as excellent foreign policy, are you talking about the Iran hostage crisis, or arming Osama bin Laden and his ilk to fight the Soviets?[/joking] Mr. Carter did great things to advance human rights, but that dosent make for a great president (nor is GWB a great president - dont get me wrong) staggering inflation, unemployment, creating an economic monitoring system (Misery Index) that told a pretty grim tale about his economic leadership were the other things I was thinking about. _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-03 16:47:46 +0000

DJIA lost 18 points (1.8%) during Carter's presidency. The Dow is off over 200 points (1.9%) since Bush took office. Sayin'.

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-03 17:03:44 +0000

Do you think the economy overall was better back then? I was like 6 in 1979 so I cant say firsthand. (My unproven hypothesis is that economically we are much better off now than we were back then) It would be interesting to study a hypothetical # of what 10K invested in something like an S&P for 10 years in 1979 would be worth and then look at what 10 K invested in same index in 2005. _______________________________

Posted by cdubrocker on 2005-11-03 17:06:45 +0000

Sort of like how Bush, his cabinet, and the media used "information" to come to conclusions about the military capabilities of Iraq? Reporters are criticized for single-sourcing their information - the adminstration single-sourced their intel from a dubious source with an agenda. I think the bar for deciding to go to war should be higher than that for deciding to print a news story. Did Bush realize that all of his official intel was not only on shaky ground, but coming from one person? I have no idea. But it's not a good idea to surround yourself with people who would not inform you of that.

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-03 18:15:38 +0000

I agree its not a good idea to surround yrself w/ people who provide you with bad info. definitely a big time blunder of Bush's. why is this proof of deceit, though? I have yet to see any proof, including the downing street memo (which it says right on Dawn's wiki link was typewritten and not photocopied - inadmissable in court) Also, in addition to his NYT July 6 2003 op-ed piece proclaiming to the world that America was "lied" to on why we were going to war, Joseph Wilson IV contributed $$$ to GWB's 2000 campaign, made suggestions, as seen in the 2004 senate Intelligence committe foundings as well as the BritishButler Report (p.136 of the .pdf file) to the CIA that while Iraq hadn't succesfully bought yellowcake from Niger, Iraq had attempted to do so without success. Wilson seems to be another guy who probably shouldn't be throwing stones at glass houses if he is lying himself and then calls other people liars. I am dismayed that our intelligence was as bad as it was, but there (so far) has not been any hard proof of intentional lying or deceit. If there is proof found, I'll be the first one to deride Bush, but otherwise, how can you outright call mistaken information a lie? _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-03 18:56:30 +0000

yes.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-03 19:11:47 +0000

Rladew wrote: "I have yet to see any proof, including the downing street memo (which it says right on Dawn's wiki link was typewritten and not photocopied - inadmissable in court)" Pretty blunt stuff, and "No official sources have questioned its accuracy or disputed its authenticity." On what basis do you discredit the Downing Street memo? What's your source? Or did you come up with it on your own?

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-03 19:12:54 +0000

Unemployment was ~8% under Carter and roughly 5% (on average, I think it's under now...) under Bush. The middle class was larger in the '70s. Don't know if that is because we've had an influx of poorer people since then, or the middle class has shrunk. I hope we never see inflations rates above 10% (%14 in 1980!), but we're on the way. It's all relative. The economy right now sucks compared to the late 80s and most of the '90s. It looks pretty nice compared to the '70s and the '30s.

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-03 19:15:29 +0000

read yr own wiki link more carefully: "A typed replica of the memo was printed in The Sunday Times on 1 May 2005. To protect the source who provided him with the classified memorandum, the Sunday Times journalist who acquired it retyped its contents (using an old-fashioned typewriter rather than a computer) and returned his copy of the original to his source. The retyping process certainly opens up the possibility of errors or mischief. Hence, it will be impossible to authenticate the contents of the copy by physical means. Because of this, the retyped copy would not be admissible in any court. If it is not a forgery, another original copy may surface." _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-03 19:17:52 +0000

AGAIN, what is your source that discredits it?

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-03 19:21:30 +0000

we are both at a catch 22 here. you cant prove its true and I cant prove its false. _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-03 19:27:34 +0000

Ah, so there is proof which you cannot prove false. Thank you. "A former senior U.S. official called it (the DS Memo) 'an absolutely accurate description of what transpired' during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity."

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-03 19:36:52 +0000

The truth will out.

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-03 19:38:52 +0000

nice of the "anonymous source / former US Senior official" to stand up and prove it without any doubt - they may as well of said a little bird in Washington told them it was true. here's more from wiki: Jim Cox, USA Today’s senior assignment editor for foreign news commented: "We could not obtain the memo or a copy of it from a reliable source, There was no explicit confirmation of its authenticity from (Blair's office). And it was disclosed four days before the British elections, raising concerns about the timing." We know where we differ on this. I think we can agree that the intelligence is bad and that Iraq has turned into a mess. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to Clarence Thomas's house. He hasn't had oreos thrown at him in awhile. _______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-19 21:31:53 +0000

Dow and the S & P doing pretty well right now. And oil is at its lowest since June.... Also, in response to the sentiment that the economy sucks tight now, take a look at how well index funds, energy funds, and the like are doing. My rate of return in my 401k this year is more than 9%. 4 Years ago, Jackie and I were afraid to even open the statements... _______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-30 19:25:40 +0000

More fuel for the Fire... The economy is doing quite well at the present... _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-30 19:39:07 +0000

I'm not sure where you're going with this: The economy is doing well, so that means we weren't misled into war? Or are you just arguing that GWB is better than Jimmy Carter on domestic economics?

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-30 19:46:17 +0000

read TGL's post in this thread from 11/3, the one with the paragraph that ends as follows: "It's all relative. The economy right now sucks compared to the late 80s and most of the '90s. It looks pretty nice compared to the '70s and the '30s." Aside from that comment, I would have started a new thread on this subject. Iraq doesn't eneter in to my post from today, or the one with the recent S&P figures I made. _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-30 19:47:12 +0000

We haven't regained the ground we lost since June of 2001. I'm not claiming the economy sucks right now, just that the so-called recovery hasn't been as gangbusters as some would like us to believe. Meanwhile, you're going to needed better ROI to overcome the ever increasing inflation rate.

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-30 19:49:30 +0000

"the economy sucks right now compared too" Oh, maybe I _did_ make that claim. Well, I made a claim comparing one set of years to another. I'd still take the late '90s over the "booming" economy we have right now.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-30 19:50:16 +0000

Got it.

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-30 20:14:21 +0000

3 percent now vs. 16% inflation then (1980) _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-30 21:49:46 +0000

Sept. & Oct.'s inflation rates were over 4%. The first time since 1991. It's been a decent quarter, don't get me wrong. I've realized gains in my portfolio for the first time in many quarters. I'm still down overall, though. I haven't been made whole by this recovery.

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-30 21:52:15 +0000

This chart I've linked to before gives an average of ~13.5% for 1980.

Posted by rladew on 2005-12-02 19:53:18 +0000

From Today's WSJ: Pouting Pundits of Pessimism Every bit of good economic news gives them reason for despair. BY BRIAN S. WESBURY Friday, December 2, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST During a quarter century of analyzing and forecasting the economy, I have never seen anything like this. No matter what happens, no matter what data are released, no matter which way markets move, a pall of pessimism hangs over the economy. It is amazing. Everything is negative. When bond yields rise, it is considered bad for the housing market and the consumer. But if bond yields fall and the yield curve narrows toward inversion, that is bad too, because an inverted yield curve could signal a recession. If housing data weaken, as they did on Monday when existing home sales fell, well that is a sign of a bursting housing bubble. If housing data strengthen, as they did on Tuesday when new home sales rose, that is negative because the Fed may raise rates further. If foreigners buy our bonds, we are not saving for ourselves. If foreigners do not buy our bonds, interest rates could rise. If wages go up, inflation is coming. If wages go down, the economy is in trouble. This onslaught of negative thinking is clearly having an impact. During the 2004 presidential campaign, when attacks on the economy were in full force, 36% of Americans thought we were in recession. One year later, even though unemployment has fallen from 5.5% to 5%, and real GDP has expanded by 3.7%, the number who think a recession is underway has climbed to 43%. This is a real conundrum. It is true, bad things have happened. Katrina wiped out a major city and many people are still displaced. GM has announced massive layoffs. Underfunded pension plans are being handed off to the government. Oil, gasoline and natural gas prices have soared. Despite it all, the U.S. economy continues to flourish. One would think that this would give pouting pundits reason to question their pessimism. After all, politicians who bounce back from scandal get monikers such as "the comeback kid." Athletes who overcome personal tragedy or sickness to achieve greatness are called "heroes." This is a quintessential American tradition, and the economy is following the script perfectly. The more hardship it faces, the more resilient it appears. The list of pessimistic forecasts that have been proved wrong grows by the day. The trade deficit was supposed to cause a collapse in the dollar; but the dollar is up 10% versus the euro in the past eight months. The budget deficit was supposed to push up interest rates; yet the 10-year Treasury yield, at 4.5%, is well below its 2000 average yield of 6% when the U.S. faced surpluses as far as the eye could see. Sharp declines in consumer confidence and rising oil prices were supposed to hurt retail sales; but holiday shopping is strong. Many fear that China is stealing our jobs, but new reports suggest that U.S. manufacturers are so strong that a shortage of skilled production workers has developed. And since the Fed started hiking interest rates 16 months ago, 3.5 million new jobs and $750 billion in additional personal income have been created. Stocks are also up, which according to pundits was unlikely as long as the Fed was hiking rates. So, where is all of the pessimism coming from? Some say that the anxiety is warranted. The theory goes like this: Globalization and technology are a massive force that levels the playing field. Because capital and ideas can move freely around the world, foreign wages will move up, while U.S. wages fall, until some sort of equilibrium is found. It's a compelling story. After all, real average hourly earnings in the U.S. fell 1.6% during the 12 months ending in October. However, there are numerous reasons to believe that this statistic is not giving an accurate picture of the economy's health. First, history shows that when oil prices rise sharply, real earnings take a temporary hit. As a result, a snapshot of inflation-adjusted earnings data in the wake of Katrina is misleading. Moreover, for the past 30 years, real average hourly earnings have declined by an annual average of 0.1%. But this can't possibly reflect reality. In the past 30 years, cell phones and computers have become ubiquitous. Home and auto ownership have climbed. More people dine out; travel; attend sporting events, movies and rock concerts; and join health clubs. Over those same 30 years, real per capita consumption has increased at an average annual rate of 2.3%. Hourly earnings data do not include tips, bonuses, commissions or benefits, and therefore will always lag actual increases in living standards. Some observers of the current economy, such as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and former Clinton economic adviser Gene Sperling, argue correctly that globalization is inevitable and, in fact, good. Nonetheless, they focus on those who are hurt by the transitional impact and suggest that government intervene to offset any damage from plant closures or job losses. But this has never worked. The history of economic progress is one of innovation and change. This "creative destruction" can never be a pain-free experience for every individual involved. The new must replace the old. Attempting to alter this fact of life, and create a utopia where no one experiences pain, has always led to more unhappiness than before. Germany's near 11% unemployment rate and the recent riots in France are the latest evidence of government's inability to successfully fight market forces. One key reason the U.S. economy has outperformed other industrialized nations, and exceeded its long-run average growth rate during the past two years, is the tax cut of 2003. By reducing taxes on investment, the U.S. boosted growth, which in turn created new jobs that replace those that are lost as the old economy dies. Ireland is also a beautiful example of the power of tax cuts to boost growth and lift living standards. Economic growth is the only true shock absorber for an economy in transition. To minimize the pain of technological globalization and address the anxiety that these forces are creating, free-market policies must be followed. While tremendous pressures are building to increase government involvement in the economy, it is important that the U.S. stay the course that brought it out of recession. To meet the challenges that lie ahead, a vibrant, flexible and expanding economy is absolutely necessary. While it is tempting to think that government programs are necessary to address anxiety, in reality only the free market can successfully navigate today's rough waters. In the end, it will be the private sector, not the public sector, that quells all this anxiety and creates the opportunities so many desire. Mr. Wesbury is chief investment strategist with Claymore Advisors LLC _______________________________