Here’s Garrison Keillor’s humorous take on how the president could improve his approval rating:
“If Mr. Bush wanted to reverse his slide, he could do it with a phone call to his vice president. Tell him, ‘Hey, Gunner, I’m sending over your resignation. Sign it and leave the building immediately, and don’t take any floppies with you.’ Mr. Cheney would have a grand mal seizure right there, and be taken away to a sanitarium, and then Mr. Bush could get 1) Newt Gingrich, 2) John McCain, 3) Jeb Bush, 4) Rudolph Giuliani — take his pick. America needs a No. 2 who wouldn’t give Americans a coronary if he became No. 1. The top story on the news that night is ‘Gunner Dumped as Veep,’ and a fresh breeze blows through Washington, and the American people perk up and imagine that the Current Occupant is in charge and able to connect the dots.”
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
137 Comments
An interesting fantasy, but just a fantasy. The president has no authority to demand the resignation of the vice-president. He is constitutionally elected (though with no powers except to preside over the Senate – which also makes him the only official to serve in two branches of gov’t) and can be removed only through impeachment. Prior to the 12th amendment, electors simply voted for two persons for president, and the winner was president, 2nd place was VP. The rise of party politics made that plan unworkable, so the 12th amendment changed the process to allow for party tickets. The Pres. and VP are elected separately by the electors.
So . . . can’t happen, unless Cheney willingly agrees. A president can’t fire his VP. That’s why presidents generally don’t give VP’s serious responsibilities.
GM,When did the constitutionally imposed limits on the presidency stop the smirking chimp from doing exactly as he pleased???
Maybe the president could take him out hunting, or maybe he could be showing him the latest in metal detection equipment and “accidentally” turn the machine on.
Bot are not beyond the bumbling abilities of our POTUS.
Cute. Pointless, senseless, idiotic, and driven by personal hate, but cute.
“Cute. Pointless, senseless, idiotic, and driven by personal hate, but cute.”
oops, you forgot “and accurate, too.”
GMC–
Of course Bush won’t cut Cheney loose.
The man is perfectly consistent. He’s the only president in history who’s never changed his mind on anything. He never has second-thoughts, because he never has first-thoughts.
No, he’s chained himself to Cheney and he won’t let go even if that leaden weight pulls him straight to the bottom.
You are exactly right about that.
PL:
You miss the point (and Brain, too). The Pres CAN’T cut Cheney loose, constitutionally. I know that you have little regard for the document, but . . .
Brian: “accurate?” Hardly.
Oh a breeze is gonna blow through Washington ok.
And it’s gonna rain indictments.
Bush does not get to cut Cheney loose. Clyde didn’t get to cut Bonnie loose.
They both are gonna go and everybody else who isn’t running for the lifeboats now.
On the contrary, I agree that Bush doesn’t have the Constitutional right to demand Cheney’s resignation.
Not only that but I fully believe that the bill of rights guaranteeing “no search and seizure without a warrant” should be observed by this administration, and that Americans are not such cowards that we choose to give up rights for a questionable “security.”
Unlike Mr. Bush, I think the Constitution should be the underpinning of all law in the US, and not “just a godd***ed piece of paper” as Bush referred to it.
Cheney will not go, Bush is a face man. But Cheney is the highest ranking person the PNAC has. More then likely if push comes to shove, Bush will fall and Cheney will become POTUS.
Hee hee PL. The rulers of wingnuttia LOVE to pick and choose passeges of… the constitution (you know, that g.d. piece of paper).
Not to mention their picking and choosing of the passeges in other selected literary fiction.
Where is Barbara Jordan when we need her? You know her! “My faith in the constitution is whole. It is complete.”
She must be spinning in her grave these days.
IOKIYAAR. Being preznit means you never have to say you are sorry. Or wrong.
And of course, darth cheney isnt going to go quietly into that good night. Unless the preznit DOES turn on the microwave in his presense.
Satan wear a bracelet that says “what would cheney do?”
Bush may as well try to fire cheney to bring up the poll numbers. He’s tried everything else, and it hasnt worked yet.
I love this comparison between Bush’s private and public comments BEFORE the start of the Iraq war.
“Public statement:
Bush: “I’ve not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.” [3/6/03]
“Private statement
“The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March,” Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. “This was when the bombing would begin.” [Bush/Blair meeting, 1/31/03]
“Public statement:
Bush: “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq.” [3/8/03]
“Private statement:
“The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours,” the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. “If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.” [Bush/Blair meeting, 1/31/03]
“Public statement:
Bush: “Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it.” [3/17/03]
“Private statement:
“But [Bush] had to say that if we ultimately failed [to get a second U.N. resolution], military action would follow anyway.” [Bush/Blair meeting, 1/31/03]”
The whole story here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/27/mcclellan-on-the-defensive-bushs-public-and-private-iraq-statements-were-fully-consistent/
ATTENTION Wingnuts -This is your cue to chime in that Bush never lies. And to say that he is a vessel of pure truth and virtue. He, He, He – too much!
High five DD. Yer on a roll too!
Keep at it DD! You were the first to break this one here.
Those transcripts belong on the front page of every paper in the country.
FOX “news” seems to have completely missed this one. They were busy with the one year anniversary of the Schiavo story.
Fox: We distort. Facts collide.
Dear DD,
The irrational hatred that you have for GWB is clouding your ability to see the difference between leadership and lying.
Why don’t you try posting something, anything, without a pre-emptive defamation of anyone that might have a valid viewpoint different from your own?
I am perfectly willing to debate any of these ’so called’ inconsistancies with anyone on this BLOG in a sane and rational way.
I see leadership, not inconsistancy. He was trying to sell a neccessary war to a country that has been mislead by the anti-war democrats and media for over 10 years.
Hank
HanK?
Hello in there hank.
Tell us. What color is the sky in your world?
Why was this war necessary?
Leadership through lies?
GMC,
What in heaven’s name are you talking about? “accurate”??? I never even used the term. Time to see the oiptometrist about those continuously varying bifocals, I think.
I think you need to go to work for the Brownback campaign hank. Help ‘em with their strategy.
I can see it now.
“You can trust me to lie to you when I think I need to”
“Dear DD,
“The irrational hatred that you have for GWB is clouding your ability to see the difference between leadership and lying.
“Why don’t you try posting something, anything, without a pre-emptive defamation of anyone that might have a valid viewpoint different from your own?
“I am perfectly willing to debate any of these ’so called’ inconsistancies with anyone on this BLOG in a sane and rational way.
“I see leadership, not inconsistancy. He was trying to sell a neccessary war to a country that has been mislead by the anti-war democrats and media for over 10 years.
“Hank”
Hank,As I often politely say to people with Alzheimer’s disease – “You are correct, I don’t share your reality.”
I confess to the crime of “hating this president”. I disagree that my loathing of this man clouds my judgement about him.
It dismays me that someone as smart you appeared to be, would be defending a president who has done as much as this one has to harm the country that you and I both love.
I wish I knew how to help you, but I don’t guess I do.
None of this was said in sarcasm.
Brian:”GMC,
“What in heaven’s name are you talking about? “accurate”??? I never even used the term. Time to see the oiptometrist about those continuously varying bifocals, I think.”
He merely misattributed my comment to you. He doesn’t know that you would have probably said it much better.
And GMC,
Call it what you will..hate-filled, un-Christian, liberal..whatever you like. I prefer to call it humor. Further, the fact that your personal, subjective feelings are offended doesn’t necessarily make a statement any the less true.
Hitler hated “Jew science”, but it was, unfortunately for him, true.
Look for a Nixon/Agnew re-run: Cheney resigns and is replaced by “plain-vanilla” Hastert. Bush pardons Cheney.
Then Bush resigns and Hastert becomes President. Hastert pardons Bush.
“Worked for Nixon!”
Dear DD,
I think that the key to this discussion would be to determine how long you have actually ‘loathed’ this president. Because, if you truly do loath him it has to cloud your judgement. There is no way you can hate someone and enter into a debate about his policies in a rational manner.
I assume that you are perfectly willing to stay with the websites that feed your hatred and have no desire to debate someone with an apposing opinion of the war.
I also appreciate that you believe comparing me with someone that has Alheimer’s is not sarcastic or defaming. Even when you try to be serious, your hate shows through.
You, my friend, may be the one that needs the help.
Love ya,
Hank
Tell us why the war was necessary Hank.
Hank, could we then logically assume that your hatred of clinton clouds your judgement of what a fine president he was?
Leadership through lies. I wonder why we didnt think of that in the clinton administration.
Of course, bill lied about an affair.
Bushco family has a seventy year affair going with the spoils of war. Problem is…
When the bush family lies about their affair…people die.
When bill lied about his affair? Monica just made money on a book. Hillary just became senator. Last I checked, no one died because bill lied about monica.
Proportion hank, proportion.
When IS a lie leadership and when IS a lie an impeachable offense?
Must depend on the meaning of the word IS.
Where is nathan when we need him? We obviously cant go on here without defining the meaning of the word IS!
Hank re:bush “He was trying to sell a necessary war….”
Why was the war necessary hank?
heheh.
I offered to debate hank on social security, sans insults.
He still hasnt taken me up on that either.
“He was trying to sell a neccessary war”
Why could he not sell is based on TRUTH?
Uh ben..because he thinks “we cant handle the truth.”
Only neocons can handle the truth.
The rest of us must be led with lies.
Damn ben, did you lose your manual?
Am I the only one who thinks that it is an extreme possiblity that GW’s war was necessary because “family honor”. Daddy couldn’t get it done so Jr goes in and tries?Do I need to go put my tinfoil hat on now? :)
I still have no idea what “lie” it is you “I irrationally hate Bush” people are talking about?
Wow KFG,
Here you are in this thread talking about Clinton and in the other you are making fun of those bringing him up.
Are you still upset that I showed how you were wrong on “thou shalt not kill?”
Get over it already. You were wrong. You couldn’t back up your statement.
The war in the Mideast was necessary for the free flosw of oil. Our economy and therefore our national security depend on oil. For what ever historical reasons that we got ourselves into this predicament, the war against Iraq was necessary. For Saddam to ignore the UN resolutions with impunity would eventually cause us even more severe problems in the future.
Brian:Is that what that was? Humor? Gosh, I always thought that humor should be funny . . .
And please don’t start the BS about comparing politicians to Hitler, Stalin, fascists, Soviet communism, etc. NO ONE anywhere near the mainstream of american politics fits those labels, on either side. That is not debate; on the contrary, it is intended to end debate.
I guess what I cannot understand is how so many here are so unable to express disagreement without personal invective. I don’t believe I have used same here – I haven’t tossed around labels, directed obscenitites at anyone, etc.
Reasonable people can disagree without being disagreeable.
Dear ksfarmgrrl,
I don’t think I hate anyone. I never hated Clinton. I was ashamed that he was our president, disapointed both times he got elected, but my feelings never were anything near hatred.
In the long run I think he was the worst thing that happened to the democrats. To bad he brought down the country with them.
Hank
PS I missed the SS debate, sorry. Probably had something more important to do, like pick up dog crap out of the front yard.
Hank – then why not come out and say we are going to invade countries to steal their resources?
If you are done picking up dog crap Hank, I am still glad to debate social security.
Hank:”Dear DD,
“I think that the key to this discussion would be to determine how long you have actually ‘loathed’ this president. Because, if you truly do loath him it has to cloud your judgement. There is no way you can hate someone and enter into a debate about his policies in a rational manner.
“I assume that you are perfectly willing to stay with the websites that feed your hatred and have no desire to debate someone with an apposing opinion of the war.
“I also appreciate that you believe comparing me with someone that has Alheimer’s is not sarcastic or defaming. Even when you try to be serious, your hate shows through.
“You, my friend, may be the one that needs the help.
“Love ya,
“Hank”
Dearest Hank,
I want to go on record here. While I do believe that people could accuse you of being many things; being stupid, crazy, or a victim of Alzheimer’s disease could not legitimately be among those accusations.
Where we simply do not share reality is on the foreign policies of this presidency. I am content to think that we never will. That is okay with me.
I don’t care to debate on the above, because Frankly Scarlet, I don’t see the point. But, thanks for the invitation.
Hannity is always trying to get people to admit they “hate” Bush. It is his attempt to discredit them. Hating a man who has done incredible damage to this country is not a crime in my view. And again, I completely disagree with you that it limits my ability to see him for the high crimes and misdemeanors president he so woefully is. Sorry, another reality we don’t share.
Excuse me all. I have to go do some work. It was fun.
Hank
Thank you. That answer says alot.
I would say that our dependence on oil is our problem and that there are ways painful they may be to correct that problem. If that affects your lifestyle and mine and everbody elses it is the price we pay for a problem that Jimmy Carter cited 30 years ago……and everybody ignored.
Your solution seems to be “We need the oil. Therefore we are justified by any means in securing it”
That will not solve the problem. That in fact puts off a solution to the problem. It also has the added expense in revenue and lives that any military solution to a problem always has.
Maybe you want America to be an empire Hank. I don’t. History shows that empires don’t fare too well.
Hey, Andy Card quit today. Is that the first of many? One can hope.
Scroll up nathan. I am not the one who brought clinton into this thread.
And as for the severe humiliation and ass kicking you got yesterday, how about we cut short the repeat.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/03/if_gay_marriage.html#comments
Anyone who is interested in your mindless wordplay can see what a whoopin’ I put on you yesterday.
Damn, you just never get enough do you?
Please tell us again how the bible is infallible but it takes OTHER peoples’ interpretation of the original greek and hebrew to get to that truth.
And that after all that human translation, it is still infallible. Tell us again why your bible says kill, mine says kill, but the LITERAL interpretation of english is wrong.
And the original interpretation, where someone ELSE told you what the greek and hebrew says, is correct.
Please nathan, illustrate the point that conversation with you is futile because every debate is quickly turned to “god” as YOU know him.
Please prove CF correct. Please.
Do tell us again nathan, what is the meaning of is?
Well, Ben, because that is not really what we are doing over there. We are trying to establish a stable government in Iraq. Insuring that there is the free flow of oil is not the same thing as ’stealing resources’.
There is a history of failed foriegn policy in the Mideast that led to this war. The Bush administration has foriegn policy with long term goals that already are paying off.
When we elect Condoleeza Rice our policy will be continued.
Hank
Julie, I don’t think your idea is extreme at all. How about this? Maybe he went to war to out do his father. One-upsmanship?
Oops, wrong link.
Here is the correct link
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/03/thank_goodness_.html
Hank – it is their oil, not ours. To equate “free flow of oil” to “feeding out Hummers” is stealing their oil.
By the way, I think Saudi Arabia has more oil than Iraq – why not just steal theirs?
Well Ben, think about it. They dont call the saudi prince “bandar bush” for nothing.
And ossama was from saudi as were the bulk of the 9/11 guys.
So you see, it makes no sense to go after SAUDI oil.
Besides, we havent disarmed the saudis yet. They MIGHT fight back.
Good points KFG … maybe the REAL idea was to so ingratiate ourselves with Bandar Bush and his alQ friends by attacking their enemy they would leave us alone.
Dear ksfarmgrrl,
I’m in the process of housebreaking and finding homes for three more puppy mill beardies. Picking up crap and mopping up pee is a major part of my day!
However, privatizing SS is rapidly becoming our only option for saving it.
Hank
“beardies”? What kind of dog is that?
Bearded Collie, Scottish Sheepdog
http://beardie.net/bcca/
Totally wrong again, Hank.
Social security is the only component of our gov’t right now that ISN’T RUNNING A DEFICIT.
Everything else is, thanks to President Cuckoo-Bananas. He’s almost doubled the national debt, from 5.7 trillion to 9 trillion.
And you want us to trust this man? To put our retirement into his hands? To believe anything he says.
Sorry, a liar is never believed, even when he tells the truth. And Bush isn’t telling the truth this time either.
PL, hank said “a liar will never believe you and a thief will never trust you”.
I love that comment and think it is true.
Dearest ProudLib,
Thank you so much for your comforting words. Help me. Where is the SS surplus currently located? When will the SS system cease collecting more than it pays out? What is the mechanism for applying this surplus to the SS deficit when this happens?
If you sincerely believe in the solvency of the SS system then comfort me further with the answer to these questions.
I think the saying goes:
“A liar will never believe you, a thief will never trust you.”
Hank
Too much fur for my tastes – but keep up the good work. I’m beginning to think about getting another dog – a shorter-haired work breed of one sort or another. Husky, shepard, lab …
“The war in the Mideast was necessary for the free flosw of oil. Our economy and therefore our national security depend on oil. For what ever historical reasons that we got ourselves into this predicament, the war against Iraq was necessary. For Saddam to ignore the UN resolutions with impunity would eventually cause us even more severe problems in the future.”
So…we need the oil, truth be damned, international law be damned, soldier’s lives be damned, we want the oil so we’re justified in lying and conniving to get it?Funny, that’s what our side was saying in March 2003. Guess we had it right all along.Why don’t I feel at all happy about that?
GMC, please,
You must be one of those people with no sense of humor at all..I suspected as much… I assume you find Bill Maher on the one end of the spectrum to Garrison Keillor in the middle, to Dennis Miller on the other end just totally devoid of anything to satisfy your “cerebral” considerations. Says a lot about you I guess.
If you don’t find it funny, don’t laugh. If you don’t have the ability to divorce yourself from your personal biases, then that’s your loss. I find myself laughing heartily at comments from all sides of the spectrum; you know what, they make me think about the topics being discussed in new ways too.
With regard to the Hitler comment, I’d say you fit the mold pretty well. You don’t ever seem to post anything that even evokes a smile. I suspect you have the personality of a small soap dish. I don’t often feel as though there is a God looking out for me but I heartily thank Him for not knowing you except as a poster here.
As Douglas Adams wrote, “You live and learn..well, at least you live”. I’d classify you in that latter group.
In fact, privatizing ss isnt the only option. And before we launch in here, it is important to note that ss covers disability and survivor benefits as well as retirement.
We could restrict or eliminate survivor benefits.
We could buy PRIVATE disability and life insurance to cover minor survivors and disability claims.
I did a paper on this back in 1978. It was true then and true now that using ss money to pay the premiums on private life and disability insurance would give better returns to the taxpayer.
I would be in favor of privatizing survivor and disability benefits, except who really thinks people would use the extra $ in their paychecks to buy insurance?
There could be more phased in retirement age increases.
There could also be an end to capping the contributions made on the upper end of some salaries. Make EVERYONE pay the same percentage of their ENTIRE salary.
Did you workers know your boss likely has a cap on how much he/she pays in to social security?
There could be a means test so that those who dont need ss retirement money dont drain the system. Why does Warren Buffet (my actual hero) need a ss check? I know he paid in. So did I, and if I die before I retire, I lose all I paid in. Pay in does not always equal pay out.
I know this is drastic, but possible IF the system were really bankrupt.
We could eliminate the income tax on social security. This would make the checks stretch farther without an increase in the amounts charged younger workers. It would only increase the deficit, something r’s seem to have no problem with these days.
This is the short list. I could go on. I know there are problems with some of these ideas, but privatizing isnt the ONLY answer.
My real fear about privatizing? People will not be responsible in terms of saving or investing for retirement. Some people are not irresponsible, they just dont have the money.
In any event, what will we do with the ones who couldnt or didnt fund their own retirement? Let them starve, freeze, or go without medicine?
I think I’ll leave those judgements to someone else. In the mean time, I cant let people go without food or water or shelter or medicine, no matter how stupid or poor or low functioning they may be.
Privatizing may lower the eventual ss payments, but it will only increase the welfare payments later on.
Or we could eliminate all social spending. That would REALLY make the neocons happy and leave more money in the budget for the military industrial complex.
To paraphrase an old joke, wouldnt it be great if the senior citizens got all the money and the army had to have a bake sale?
Ben try a weimaranier…they are wonderful dogs and we have a rescue here in wichita for them.. if you need more info let me know
Brian, I love your posts in case I havent said it before now.
“I suspect you have the personality of a small soap dish.”
OMG, I am ROLLING on the floor at that comment. Do you think it is a “soft soap” dish?
humor is as humor does
Dear Ben,
Go to the AKC website, specifically:
http://www.akc.org/future_dog_owner/about_buying_a_dog.cfm
The Wichita dog show is happening April 7, 8 and 9th. A pretty good place to see a breed you might be interested in and get some queations answered.
Hank
Ben, FYI, huskies and shepards both shed tons because of the undercoat. My dog has been gone over three months and I am STILL vacuming husky hair.
Weims dont shed too much, but they need LOTS of face time with their owners and hate to be left alone. Same with Vislas. But they are both beautiful and good, if high strung, dogs.
Hank,
The Democracy for America group wrote a letter to the Eagle a few months ago that answers all your questions.
Published on September 6, 2005, Page 7A, Wichita Eagle, The (KS)
Unfortunately, The Eagle archives won’t let you access it without an user id. Cheapskates.
Anyway, bottom line is that Bush is as right about Social Security “going broke” as he is about Saddam’s “tons and tons” of WMD’s, his catching Osama “dead or alive,” and his being a “new sheriff in town that demands fiscal responsiblity” (he almost doubled the national debt).
So, don’t worry about it, Hank. We democrats will make sure that your second pension from the federal government (in addition to your military pension) will remain fully funded, even though you keep voting for the idiots who want to raid it and destroy it . . .
thats why you get two weims they take great care of each other and most weims are not high strung…very loyal dogs and very very smart, our puppy (now 100lbs) can unlock the back door to let himself out…sometimes to smart
Brian:
This is not a contest to be funniest, and you’ve made my point for me. I rest my case.
You and your self-congratulatory friends can have this blog. There’s nothing of intelligence here.
Dear ProudLib,
Thanks again for promising to keep me borderline poor by keeping SS funded. Your words continue to reassure me.
Just one other thing: Where is the SS surplus currently located? When will the SS system cease collecting more than it pays out? What is the mechanism for applying this surplus to the SS deficit when this happens?
I’m starting to feel like a prom date, You’re making promises, but I’m not sure you’ll still love me in the morning.
Hank
Ben,I used to have a husky and he LOVED to run. Ran away several times. Last time he did it he was picked up by animal control over 20 miles away. They never bothered calling us (yes he was wearing tags) and I called 30 minutes too late. I’ve got a Chihuahua now, and he’s the puppylove of my life. (that’s a reason why we have to shoot at the varmints that come around our house – he’s so small that he’s dinner to a lot of things).
GMC,
I notice you didn’t exclude yourself from the “nothing of intelligence statement”. Freudian slip???
I can’t help but feeling I’m playing Winston Churchill to your Lady Astor. As I’m sure you know, she said to him at a dinner party, “Mr. Churchill, if you were my husband I’d put poison in your tea”.
Churchill responded, “Madam, if you were my wife, I’d drink it.”
I think that sums up pretty well my thoughts about you and your posts.
GMC?
What Brian said.
heheh brian
whats the story about someone saying “sir you are drunk” and the reply was something like “madam, I am indeed drunk, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly?”
heheheh
GMC70
buh-bye
Dear ksfarmgrrl,
You are a real hoot! You say that privatization is not the only option, then your other options are reducing, eliminating benefits*; increasing the SS taxes by removing caps even though the benefits are currently capped**; then, the best option of all to privatization is…….privatization of certain benefits***! Why, because privatization is better!!!**** Gotta love ya!
*”We could restrict or eliminate survivor benefits.”
***”We could buy PRIVATE disability and life insurance to cover minor survivors and disability claims.”
****I did a paper on this back in 1978. It was true then and true now that using ss money to pay the premiums on private life and disability insurance would give better returns to the taxpayer.”***”I would be in favor of privatizing survivor and disability benefits, except who really thinks people would use the extra $ in their paychecks to buy insurance?”
(Shows no understanding of the president’s privatization plan)
**”There could also be an end to capping the contributions made on the upper end of some salaries. Make EVERYONE pay the same percentage of their ENTIRE salary.”
**””There could be a means test so that those who dont need ss retirement money dont drain the system.”
“My real fear about privatizing? People will not be responsible in terms of saving or investing for retirement. Some people are not irresponsible, they just dont have the money.”
(This fear of yours again demonstrates that you don’t have even a basic understanding of Bush’s proposal.)
“In any event, what will we do with the ones who couldnt or didnt fund their own retirement? Let them starve, freeze, or go without medicine?”
(Again, no understanding of Bush’s proposal.)
“Privatizing may lower the eventual ss payments, but it will only increase the welfare payments later on.”
(And again still no understanding!)
“Or we could eliminate all social spending. That would REALLY make the neocons happy and leave more money in the budget for the military industrial complex.”
Finally! A solution that is in line with the Constitution!!
I dearly love ya ksfarmgrrl! You make my point much more eloquently than I ever could!
You leave me without an argument!
Hank
Uh hank, wanna explain your plan, er, I mean bush’s plan?
If that is what you took away from my post, I give up.
But then, I guess you expected that.
SO much for the debate without insults you requested. Dont worry, I wont let it happen again.
I love you too!
Dear ksfarmgrrl,
I’m not sure what point you were trying to make. The general theme on SS from the libs is that there is no problem, or if there is a problem there is no problem and if there is a problem Bush’s plan won’t work. (I almost forgot, Bush is a liar)
Sorry you seem to think that I insulted you. I think SS is broke. The only plan on the table is Bush’s. You seem to aggree with me that something needs to be done about SS, but from your fears you don’t seem to understand Bush’s plan. That’s not an insult, it’s a fact.
Where do you want me to start in explaining Bush’s plan? Which one of your fears do you wnat me to address?
Hank
Hank – this “lib” says there IS a problem with SS and that the GOP borrow-and-spend policies are making it worse. A balanced budget and budget surpluses would help us prepare for the demographic crunch that is coming.
Actually Ben, I couldn’t agree with you more! Balanced budgets wouldn’t help SS that much, but Bush’s plan would at least put our money into private enterprises where it could grow. Grow out of the reach of the politicians, republicans and democrats.
Hank
WARNING, WARNING . . . we are officially in the “End Times”
To wit (this is Hank Price; not Michael Moore or Osama bin Laden):”The war in the Mideast was necessary for the free flow of oil. Our economy and therefore our national security depend on oil. For what ever historical reasons that we got ourselves into this predicament, the war against Iraq was necessary. For Saddam to ignore the UN resolutions with impunity would eventually cause us even more severe problems in the future.”
Anybody else think it’s strange, more than a little scary, when Hank Price, Osama bin Laden, and Michael Moore all agree on what motivates U.S. foreign policy decisions?
Shaking my head . . . end times for sure.
As long as we cut the benifits from SS and up the retirement age to 75 there won’t be any problems!
Makes you wonder why you are paying into a fund your entire life when you can’t see a penny of it till you hit 75 though…
Or where all your payments went.
What is the interest on your SS fund? Like 2%?
DD,
There are many things we do in our foriegn policy which involve protecting strategic resources.
To think that is wrong is “hopelessly naive”
Actually, nathan, it is a lot more than 2% if you also consider the insurance aspects of the program. There is a lot more to SS than just pension/annuity coverage.
Hank – budget surpluses would help in that they would free up the capital to get us over the baby boom bulge. However, the massive GOP deficits will make things immeasurably worse. The insane fiscal irresponsibility of the GOP is truly amazing! Perhaps even more amazing is that otherwise seemingly sane people seem to think this is all a good idea!
Dear DD,
Glad to see your homework is done.
Your last post, however, was a little disengenous. You merely cast dispersions on my opinions without any honest debate. You made no attempt to refute my opinions or defend yours.
You are better than that. I know.
Our foriegn policy, like every country’s foriegn policy should be based around security and economics. Ensuring the free flow of oil is essential to both and not the same as stealing oil.
Michael Moore is an idiot and I’m sure that you are intelligent enough to realize it. (unlike many on this BLOG)
OBL is a terrorist without a country.
To use either of them to merely push my buttons is evidence that you are either unwilling or unable to debate like a gentleman.
Which is it?
I love ya man, you make me look good!
Hank
Contrary to what you’re saying Hank, I maintain that Michael Moore and Osama were claiming that the U.S. motivation for invading Iraq came down to the acquisition of good sweet crude oil. What is surprising to me is YOU saying this.
Truthfully, I always thought that Saddam had WMD and that it was a choice of messing with him now, or later. I recall thinking when our troops were streaking to Bahgdad, “why isn’t that bastard unleasing all kinds of hell on us?” I thought maybe it was an Ali-like “ropea-dope” trick, i.e. that he would wait until all of our troops were near and then retaliate with WMD.
I disagree with you that stealing oil is a valid reason for invading Iraq. We are (you could make the argument that it is changing) the richest country in the world. We can buy foreign oil – or, at least we used to be able to.
If this second British memo is true. It did not matter to Bush if Saddam had WMD or not — we were going to invade. His motivation is still a mystery. However, one can infer motives when we immediately guarded the oil ministry building when we got to Bahgdad. Left the museum that had priceless artifacts (Biblical artifacts) unguarded so that it ended up being looted.
Now that I am thinking about it, I guess I owe you an expression of gratitude that you are willing to tell the truth about this administration. I think THAT little flaw will prevent you from getting a job with this Bush administration.
Just for your information, not that I think you might care, my homework is never done.
Regards.
Michael Moore is not an idiot, he’s as good at manipulating the facts to support his agenda as Rush Limbaugh, only with a lot less arrogance.Can’t believe that Hank admitted that we invaded Iraq to keep the oil flowing. The national security spin is the facade BushCo wants us to swallow.OBL has a country, Pakistan has him tucked away, nice and safe.As far as SS, better invest as much and as smartly as possible, otherwise you’ll be eating catfood casserole when you retire.
DD – not only did Bush leave the museums unguarded he also made the decision to leave armories unguarded. That is the source of the materials used to make all those IEDS killing and maiming our troops.
Dear Ben,
Again I agree! However, there isn’t going t be a budget surplus. Not in the near future. And the democrats have no plan for fixing it.
There hasn’t been a surplus in the last 20 years. (maybe longer, can’t remember the last surplus) And gentle people, its a liberal problem, not a democrat/republican problem. Even during the wonderous Clinton years of plenty the national debt grew each year.
Again I say, Bush’s plan would at least put our money into private enterprises where it could grow. Grow out of the reach of the politicians, republicans and democrats.
Hank
I’ll get back with you all later, sigh. So much ignorance, so little time.
rockl, I have the same problem with my 13 year old dobie/shepard mix…she’s figured out how to unlock the deadbolt on my front door…at least now nobody can tell me I’m the only one with that problem :)
Well I tell ya this Hank.
Mike Moore has said that as our troops are willing to endure and sacrifice so much, we should never send them into battle unless we have to. (paraphasing)
You don’t seem to share any such reservations hank. If you perceive that America needs something or has an agenda, the matter is to be addressed by military adventures.
I don’t know how many people you can get to give their all for wars of Imperial resource conquest and American mandate.It is telling as to you that you above embrace the President lying to fool the public into going along. Telling and troubling that there more than a few folks like you.
I’m heartened that after 3 years of it, the public seems to have had enough.
Glad at least your kid was willing to sign up to build your American empire Hank.
I hope you will better understand why some of us teach our kids to avoid military service.
Hank – we had balance and surplus at the end of the 90s. Still had a huge Reagan-Bush-Dole debt but at least had quit growing it.
Thanks Damoon for your most recent post. You express my thoughts, feelings and amazement exactly.
Ben,
If I am not mistaken, I think Nixon was the last president to balance the budget.
I’ll bet he is grinning in his grave with the rehabilitation on his image that GW Bush is doing for him.
“DD,
“There are many things we do in our foriegn policy which involve protecting strategic resources.
“To think that is wrong is ‘hopelessly naive.’”
Nathan,Don’t try to put words in my mouth and then try to refute them. You didn’t even do a very good job at that cream puff assignment.
Ok…
DD,
Do you think it is wrong for America to protect it’s strageic resources?
Nathan,
No.
But usually we find ways that are short of invading a soverign nation for what turns out to be bogus reasons. You don’t object to us protecting our interests in these other ways, do you? Diplomacy, whether you want to admit it or not, has worked pretty good for other presidents.
You’re surely not going to posit a false dicotomy – “invade or neglect our strategic interests”, are you?
Dear Ben,
National Debt at the close of the physcal years. Notice that the numbers get bigger each year, including the wonderous Clinton years of plenty.
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
Now a toss up bonus point question for anyone:
How do the IOU’s that the general budget owes SS for each of these years fit into these numbers?
If you don’t know this answer you might not be smart enough to debate SS.
Hank
“Maybe he went to war to out do his father. One-upsmanship?”
That’s been my thought all along, XXX. Or perhaps it was why he was chosen as the candidate and “helped along.”
George H.W. Bush knew there was not a good solution when it came to Saddam. He was able to anticipate the aftermath of removing him from power.
If only W. would have been willing to listen to his earthly father. . .
See, this is why I don’t bother to engage you on questions that require serious thought, Hank.
Your numbers are bogus. You willfully misinform yourself by going to the Limbaugh and Hannity web-sites and half the stuff you think you know is just wrong.
The numbers seem to go “up” because of inflation. When one uses numbers that have been adjusted for inflation (as any honest site would do), one can plainly see that the last five years or so of Clinton’s adminstration shows that the national debt decreased.
Here’s a figure you won’t hear on Rush though. Thanks to your President Cuckoo-Bananas, the national debt has increased some 60 percent from 5.7 Trillion to almost 9 Trillion in five years.
Even a Hank can see that this is not sustainable.
BTW, the SS surplus that is held in US government bonds (the safest investment on the planet) is calculated into this national debt.
Because bonds are debt. They need to be paid back.
If you conservatives want to start pumping the SS surplus into private investments like the state of Kansas does (KPERS), I have no objection to that.
However, thanks to conservatives past (who called it “socialism”), it is presently illegal to do that.
Yea, let’s privatize social security, then we’ll be at the mercy of CEO’s who inflate the value of their stock in order to secure their golden parachutes and the rest of us will be wondering what the hell happened to all that money we paid into the system.
Dear ProudLib,
Interesting spin. My numbers come from the Treasury Department.
Now, since we can fudge, if you adjust the national debt as a percentage of the GNP, or, factor in the gross federal revenues (which have been increasing at record levels since Bush’s tax cut) then the increase in the debt isn’t as bad as you might first believe.
But my friend, I didn’t use fudge factors. I didn’t resort to Rush or Hannity web sites, I merely copied the actual numbers from the Treasury Dept.
The numbers don’t ’seem to go up’ they went up every year that Clinton was president. Every year. The only reason he even got close to balancing the budget was because the republicans won the congress in ‘94 and took him screaming and kicking to fiscal responsibility.
Hank
PS All of the above thought was brought to you without once being serious.
PPS
So why aren’t the Republican’s taking Bush screaming and kicking to fiscal responsibility, Hank? At least under Clinton’s watch we came close to balancing the budget. With Bush allowing all the pork barrel spending, the Medicare drug presciption fiasco, and this crazy war, the country has been bankrupted. Where’s the fiscal responsibilty under Bush?
ksfarmgrrl,
I’m sorry to respond so late to your posts, but I was doing taxes (ugh). I’m glad that someone found a little humor in some of the blog postings.
By the way, back atcha..I read and enjoy all of your posts.
Dear Damoon,Hell, I don’t know.
Hank
Dear ProudLib,
“BTW, the SS surplus that is held in US government bonds (the safest investment on the planet) is calculated into this national debt.
“Because bonds are debt. They need to be paid back.”
If you actually believe this, you need to do a little more research. The debt the general fund owes the SS trust fund is in ’special’ government bonds.
Now here is a shocker for you: They are not figured into the annual deficit nor are they considered part of the national debt.
Now here is another shocker for you: The Supreme Court has already ruled that they don’t have to be paid back.
But if you sleep better at night knowing the politicians have been buying votes from old people for years by promising them blue sky, then by all means don’t let me rain on your parade!
I recommend that you have a private retirement plan though!
Love ya,
Hank
LOCKBOX
FICA taxes are meant to fund Social Security. They are and always have been spent as part of the general revenue. THis is the fault of both parties.
LOCKBOX
It is not a complicated word or idea. People liked to kick around and make fun of it becasuse they had a vested interest in dicrediting it…..and Al Gore.
LOCKBOX
Bank the money that is collected by FICA for Social Security. AND DO NOT SPEND IT ACCEPT TO PAY OUT BENEFITS.
Interest accrues and the program continues financially sound.
This idea will still work. Think of the funds that WOULD have accumulated these last 4 years of a GORE Presidency and a LOCKBOX
But that would save Social Security. And conservatives do not want to save Social Security or any other pogram that helps people. They want to kill it. If Hank was honest about it he would say so.
Conservative Agenda? Maybe they will be honest and share that too. My take is they got a vested interest in keeping peoples nose on the grindstone as long as possible……..making THEM money.
Dear JR,
Well Duh!
You bet I want to kill it! It’s an unconstitutional, broke, dishonest socialist failed plan.
I want it privatized. If the Bush plan is ever allowed to start phasing in privatization this country would be a lot better off.
Hank
Note how Hank completely ignored LOCKBOX.
I think privitization has been addressed as to why it won’t work. It depends on the ethics of people who already have a lot of money and thus no concerns as to THEIR retirement.
Go ahead Hank.
Dearest Jr,
I ignored the LOCKBOX in an unselfish act of human kindness. The idea of a LOCKBOX was such a simplistic political ploy that it deserves no serious discussion.
However, since your hero brought it into the political arena, there are some things about it that I don’t really understand. Maybe you can help me. Seriously. Please.
Please start by explaining how these funds collect interest while they are locked in the LOCKBOX. Who pays this interest? Is it the same interest rate that the ’special’ government bonds are now acrueing in the Social Security Trust fund?
Now we all know the the LOCKBOX that Algore campaigned on wouldn’t have been a real box with a lock on it, so in real life exactly how would it differ from the system we have now? We’re talking real money that we aren’t allowed to spend. Now if I deposit my extra money in the bank, they invest it. They pay me interest on my money, but they don’t really have my money, they have invested it. What is the government going to do with all of the real money in the LOCKBOX? Are they really going to just keep it in a box or are they going to invest it?
Now then, what about all of the ’special’ government bonds that are in the Social Security Trust Fund now? Are they going to be put in the LOCKBOX with our real money? When our annual FICA taxes are no longer able to match the annual SS benefits what do we do when our real money in the LOCKBOX is gone?
You see my friend, the LOCKBOX was no more than a simplistic political ploy that was being used to fool the old people four more years. It brings more questions than answers to the political debate.
Your turn,
Hank
You assume evil purposes on the part of Al Gore that we cannot of course know. I prefer to assume he had good in mind. He did not want to kill the program as you do.
I have stated that collected taxes should be held in trust and paid out only to benefits. This will still currently work as more are paying in than collecting.
The government has money. The government lends money. Be it bonds or other means interest accrues on that money. Just like at your bank.
But why argue the saving of a program with someone who has posted that he wants it dead.
Um, Hank…Interesting how you’ll collect Social Security no matter what, since you’re over 55. Since YOUR Social Security checks are not at risk, I think it’s damn generous of you to gamble with mine.
Dear JR,
I don’t think Algore is evil. I think he was a pompous, elitist nitwit. I think he was stupid.
I actually asked you some very valid questions that you chose to ignore. Algore’s LOCKBOX does not address the problem of over one trillion dollars in useless ’special’ government bonds that are currently in the SS Trust fund. It doesn’t address the problem with the unfunded liability after 2025. In fact, it did nothing but give people a false sense of security.
You wrote:
“The government has money. The government lends money.”
What in the living hell are you talking about?
The government has no damn money! The government owes almost 9 trillion dollars via the national debt! This by the way does not include the 1 trillion dollars the general fund owes the SS trust fund!
JR, We really do need to do lunch!
There is no money!!
Hank
I’ll restate.
The government collects money.
I KNOW. You don’t like that. That is why it is hard to argue this with you. You want to keep your money
Taxes are collected for Social Security. Currently more are paying in than collecting. This will be the case for at least another 20 years.
What part of using the money collected for the purpose intended do you not get?
You can be forgiven it. BOTH sides have been spending the FICA collected taxes for too long.
AL Gore is not stupid. Bush is stupid.
Ben said:”DD – not only did Bush leave the museums unguarded he also made the decision to leave armories unguarded. That is the source of the materials used to make all those IEDS killing and maiming our troops.”
Sorry to come in so late on this, but I just now had the chance to find the info I needed.
Ben, it wasn’t only the museum treasures that were stolen/destroyed, but a piece of civilization, too. I was listening to BBC on NPR late one night about 2 years ago or so and heard archeologists and others talking about how the U.S. forces had bulldozed the top of Babylon for a base. I was appalled and saddened to hear this. This destruction cannot be rebuilt, replaced, or repaired. A part of history is gone. Forever.
Now I have the links. Thought some of you might be interested in just how we go about occupying a country that sits at the heart of civilization…and is a part of Biblical history.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4177577.stm
http://www.williambowles.info/iraq/2005/babylon.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1973682
Google: u.s. base built on babylon
Um, Hank…Interesting how you’ll collect Social Security no matter what, since you’re over 55. Since YOUR Social Security checks are not at risk, I think it’s damn generous of you to gamble with mine.
Dear XXX,
You have no SS. All of the money you have paid into SS is gone. If you die before age 65, (75 for you probably) there will be nothing in your estate from SS.
If it was privatized it would b different. Privatization has out performed our current SS sstem every where it has been tried.
It takes the money away from the politicians though, that’s why they will never vote privatization in. It is no gamble. Currently you have no right to any of the money that you have paid in.
It’s gone buddy, sorry.
Hank
Dear JR,
I know this subject is painful for you, read my posts again. You’re not understanding some of the very basic principals involved here.
The government has no money. The LOCKBOX was a disengenous joke.
Hank
Gentle people,
I’m really amazed at the general ignorance displayed on this BLOG when it comes to SS. The amount of money that everyone pays into this system is criminal. It’s gone.
Of the people that have posted concerning SS reform, not one has shown me that they have even a basic understanding of the president’s plan.
This is very sad. I’m sorry, I’m done with the SS discussion.
Hank
I am sure you are done with this discussuion Hank.
“The money is gone”
No it aint. It is being paid in every day, and by more people than are drawing benefits. It is only gone if we keep allowing it to be spent as part of the general revenue.
It would be an ideal world if folks were able to save for their retirement. These days they have to use that money for things like food and childcare.
Im guessing Hank approaches this from the employers perspective. Pesky thing those funds employers are mandated to match their workers pay in to Social security. Workers are after all only relevant or useful as long as they are working. Oh and they do need to be working and making their employers money……right til they fall over dead.
KFG addressed upthread what would happen under privitization. I don’t need to do it again. She did forget to mention what conservatives would think or do with all the poor old folks.
They will tsk tsk and cluck and say. “They made their choices”.
Hank is in way over his head on this.
Social Security, which is not in deficit, is in terrible trouble because Bush tells him so.
Meanwhile, the entire federal budget, which is at the highest deficit it’s ever been, is just fine, apparently because Republicans incurred that debt.
Even using your unadjusted numbers, Hank, take a minute to add up all the debt in Clinton’s last 5 years to all the debt that Bush has accrued.
Which is higher? What is the RATE at which we’re incurring debt now and the RATE under Clinton?
The national debt was at an all-time low under CARTER. Reagan-Bush sent it through the roof. Clinton got it under control. And Bush, Jr. sent it skyrocketing again.
Conclusion–Republicans can’t be trusted with our money.
Hank’s only argument is that we dont understand the preznit’s plan. Yet when asked to explain the preznit’s plan, he refuses to do it. Typical hank. Dont offer anything of value, just deride others as being too stupid to even ENTER the conversation with him.
You betcha hank. Yer lookin’ real good.
The biggest sinkhole currently gobbling up revenue is the war in Iraq.
One wonders why a “necesary” war was not worth paying for. Or “have you forgotten” that bush is the only President in history to cut taxes while waging a war.
JR:”It would be an ideal world if folks were able to save for their retirement. These days they have to use that money for things like food and childcare.”
JR, you forgot gasoline while oil companies are making record quarterly profits. I’m still saving for retirement, but what I’m finding is that self-employment income that used to be reserved for “extras” is now becoming needed for “necessities”.
It is time to reconstitute the old Reagan campaign line: “Are you better off than you were 6 years ago?” Exxon/Shell, etc. can say a resounding YES, but can many others?
Please spare me the “class warfare” defense. My class is under attack and losing.
Using Hank’s own unadjusted numbers (not adjusted for inflation or GDP), let’s look at those figures
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.5009/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32 550 billion09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62 600 bill09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16 550 bill09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06 420 bill09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86 140 bill09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43 18 bill09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62 130 bill09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34 110 bill09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73 189 bill09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39 25109/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32 28109/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 28209/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66 34709/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03 34009/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25 37609/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32 37609/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16 25509/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00 252
We see Bush increasing the national debt by an average of more than 500 billion a year, or about 7 percent of debt per year.
We see Clinton increasing the debt by an average of 178 billion a year or 3 percent of debt per year.
We see Bush/Reagan increasing the debt by an average of 324 billion a year or 8 percent of debt per year.
Republicans run up debt at twice or three times the rate of Democrats.
Numbers don’t lie. Read ‘em and weep, so-called conservatives . . .
“Please spare me the “class warfare” defense. My class is under attack and losing.”
The above was not directed at you JR. Sorry, if it looked that way. Those of you prone to use this defense know who you are.
That jumped out at me for about a halfa tic DD.
I know you know me better than that. I’m a “casualty”
No harm no foul.
And those you meant it for do know who they are.
Now Proud lib you know what they are gonna say about the numbers……..
“It’s fuzzy math.”
PL – I would add another point: Under Clinton the debt increased SOLELY because of accrual of interest on the inherited Reagan-Bush-Dole debt. In fact, the interest accrual rate far exceeded the growth raet as we were running operating surpluses.
Yup, excellent observation, Ben.
It’s a vicious, out-of-control, unsustainable cycle.
Bush tax cuts have to be reversed. The war has to be stopped. And, yes, a lot of programs have to be cut.
No wonder the Repukes don’t want to honor their committment to Social Security.
Isn’t it interesting that Hank campaigns against our Social Security knowing full well that he’ll get his?
Must be that compassionate conservativism we keep hearing about.
The money spent on the war in Iraq would save Social Security for another 50 years or so.
XXX,
I do believe he is advocating for privatization.
Nathan, I have no doubt that he’s advocating for privatization. Are you aware that Bush’s Privatization plan includes nobody over 55? As I’ve said several times, Hank is going to get his Social Security checks. I’d like to get mine. I’ve been paying in for over 40 years. I think I’m entitled to what I was promised.
Nathan, do you think the US government should stand behind it’s promises?
This is from the NYT. The Eagle has refused to run the story, and the editors have refused to give us a thread to discuss it.
-CF
*********************************
Bush Was Set on Path to War, British Memo Says
By DON VAN NATTA Jr.Published: March 27, 2006
LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush’s public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.
But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair’s top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.
“Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning,” David Manning, Mr. Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.”The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March,” Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. “This was when the bombing would begin.”The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.
Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.
Stamped “extremely sensitive,” the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair’s most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book “Lawless World,” which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president’s sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was “unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups.” Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.Those proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Mr. Bush’s extemporaneous suggestions, or were elements of the government’s plan.
Consistent Remarks
Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain’s Official Secrets Act, which made it illegal to divulge classified information. But one of them said, “In all of this discussion during the run-up to the Iraq war, it is obvious that viewing a snapshot at a certain point in time gives only a partial view of the decision-making process.”
On Sunday, Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president’s public comments were consistent with his private remarks made to Mr. Blair. “While the use of force was a last option, we recognized that it might be necessary and were planning accordingly,” Mr. Jones said.
“The public record at the time, including numerous statements by the President, makes clear that the administration was continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution into 2003,” he said. “Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply, but he chose continued defiance, even after being given one final opportunity to comply or face serious consequences. Our public and private comments are fully consistent.”
The January 2003 memo is the latest in a series of secret memos produced by top aides to Mr. Blair that summarize private discussions between the president and the prime minister. Another group of British memos, including the so-called Downing Street memo written in July 2002, showed that some senior British officials had been concerned that the United States was determined to invade Iraq, and that the “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.
The latest memo is striking in its characterization of frank, almost casual, conversation by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair about the most serious subjects. At one point, the leaders swapped ideas for a postwar Iraqi government. “As for the future government of Iraq, people would find it very odd if we handed it over to another dictator,” the prime minister is quoted as saying.
“Bush agreed,” Mr. Manning wrote. This exchange, like most of the quotations in this article, have not been previously reported.Mr. Bush was accompanied at the meeting by Condoleezza Rice, who was then the national security adviser; Dan Fried, a senior aide to Ms. Rice; and Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff. Along with Mr. Manning, Mr. Blair was joined by two other senior aides: Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, and Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide and the author of the Downing Street memo.
By late January 2003, United Nations inspectors had spent six weeks in Iraq hunting for weapons under the auspices of Security Council Resolution 1441, which authorized “serious consequences” if Iraq voluntarily failed to disarm. Led by Hans Blix, the inspectors had reported little cooperation from Mr. Hussein, and no success finding any unconventional weapons.At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. The president spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable. The two leaders discussed a timetable for the war, details of the military campaign and plans for the aftermath of the war.
Discussing Provocation
Without much elaboration, the memo also says the president raised three possible ways of provoking a confrontation. Since they were first reported last month, neither the White House nor the British government has discussed them.
“The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours,” the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. “If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.”It also described the president as saying, “The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam’s W.M.D,” referring to weapons of mass destruction.A brief clause in the memo refers to a third possibility, mentioned by Mr. Bush, a proposal to assassinate Saddam Hussein. The memo does not indicate how Mr. Blair responded to the idea.Mr. Sands first reported the proposals in his book, although he did not use any direct quotations from the memo. He is a professor of international law at University College of London and the founding member of the Matrix law office in London, where the prime minister’s wife, Cherie Blair, is a partner.
Mr. Jones, the National Security Council spokesman, declined to discuss the proposals, saying, “We are not going to get into discussing private discussions of the two leaders.”At several points during the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, there was palpable tension over finding a legitimate legal trigger for going to war that would be acceptable to other nations, the memo said. The prime minister was quoted as saying it was essential for both countries to lobby for a second United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as “an insurance policy against the unexpected.”
The memo said Mr. Blair told Mr. Bush, “If anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning the oil wells, killing children or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq, a second resolution would give us international cover, especially with the Arabs.”
Running Out of Time
Mr. Bush agreed that the two countries should attempt to get a second resolution, but he added that time was running out. “The U.S. would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would twist arms and even threaten,” Mr. Bush was paraphrased in the memo as saying.The document added, “But he had to say that if we ultimately failed, military action would follow anyway.”
The leaders agreed that three weeks remained to obtain a second United Nations Security Council resolution before military commanders would need to begin preparing for an invasion.Summarizing statements by the president, the memo says: “The air campaign would probably last four days, during which some 1,500 targets would be hit. Great care would be taken to avoid hitting innocent civilians. Bush thought the impact of the air onslaught would ensure the early collapse of Saddam’s regime. Given this military timetable, we needed to go for a second resolution as soon as possible. This probably meant after Blix’s next report to the Security Council in mid-February.”Mr. Blair was described as responding that both countries would make clear that a second resolution amounted to “Saddam’s final opportunity.” The memo described Mr. Blair as saying: “We had been very patient. Now we should be saying that the crisis must be resolved in weeks, not months.”It reported: “Bush agreed. He commented that he was not itching to go to war, but we could not allow Saddam to go on playing with us. At some point, probably when we had passed the second resolutions — assuming we did — we should warn Saddam that he had a week to leave. We should notify the media too. We would then have a clear field if Saddam refused to go.”
Mr. Bush devoted much of the meeting to outlining the military strategy. The president, the memo says, said the planned air campaign “would destroy Saddam’s command and control quickly.” It also said that he expected Iraq’s army to “fold very quickly.” He also is reported as telling the prime minister that the Republican Guard would be “decimated by the bombing.”Despite his optimism, Mr. Bush said he was aware that “there were uncertainties and risks,” the memo says, and it goes on, “As far as destroying the oil wells were concerned, the U.S. was well equipped to repair them quickly, although this would be easier in the south of Iraq than in the north.”
The two men briefly discussed plans for a post-Hussein Iraqi government. “The prime minister asked about aftermath planning,” the memo says. “Condi Rice said that a great deal of work was now in hand.
Referring to the DefenseDepartment, it said: “A planning cell in D.O.D. was looking at all aspects and would deploy to Iraq to direct operations as soon as the military action was over. Bush said that a great deal of detailed planning had been done on supplying the Iraqi people with food and medicine.”Planning for After the WarThe leaders then looked beyond the war, imagining the transition from Mr. Hussein’s rule to a new government. Immediately after the war, a military occupation would be put in place for an unknown period of time, the president was described as saying. He spoke of the “dilemma of managing the transition to the civil administration,” the memo says.The document concludes with Mr. Manning still holding out a last-minute hope of inspectors finding weapons in Iraq, or even Mr. Hussein voluntarily leaving Iraq. But Mr. Manning wrote that he was concerned this could not be accomplished by Mr. Bush’s timeline for war.
“This makes the timing very tight,” he wrote. “We therefore need to stay closely alongside Blix, do all we can to help the inspectors make a significant find, and work hard on the other members of the Security Council to accept the noncooperation case so that we can secure the minimum nine votes when we need them, probably the end of February.”At a White House news conference following the closed-door session, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair said “the crisis” had to be resolved in a timely manner. “Saddam Hussein is not disarming,” the president told reporters. “He is a danger to the world. He must disarm. And that’s why I have constantly said — and the prime minister has constantly said — this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months.”
Despite intense lobbying by the United States and Britain, a second United Nations resolution was not obtained. The American-led military coalition invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, nine days after the target date set by the president on that late January day at the White House.
So much for Hanks
“necessary war”
CF:This is from the NYT. The Eagle has refused to run the story, and the editors have refused to give us a thread to discuss it.
-CF
Thanks for posting the article. I didn’t see the editors declining a request to post a thread — rather, I think their inaction was dictated by our discussing the memo irrespective of whether there was a thread posted or not.
Of course the war was necessary. Halliburton needed the business and our Humvees need the oil.