perfidy

I think events through the invasion of Afghanistan would have played out the same (almost) no matter who was president. Given that we knew Al Qaida did it, and that they were based in Afghanistan, any reasonably attentive and responsible president would have done that much.

Afterwards, things would probably diverge.

Clearly with a reasonable administration in charge, we would not be in Iraq at the moment. We would not be facing $10 trillion deficit in ten years. We would not be cutting vet benefits while giving tax cuts to the richest amonst us. We would not be solidifying class boundaries by eliminating the estate tax. We would have the complete support of the UN as we engaged in COVERT warfare against terrorism, wherever it is found. We would have other countries paying for much of it. Five billion a week goes a pretty long way when it comes to intelligence and finding information, if you're not blowing it on trying to transform a middle east that isn't ready for it, when you lied about that in the first place.
An ethical president would not have lied about reasons for war.

I think "clearly" is a little too strong an adverb for that statement, Ross.

Buckethead, I'm going to take the predictable and maddening middle position on this one. "Clearly" does apply to many of Ross' assertions. I'm going to assume you are taking the most exception with his first statement.

Charge one, Iraq and reasonableness, lack thereof: not guilty. Reason and Iraq are not tightly connected.

Charge two, huge deficit problem; Bush's fault: guilty.

Charge three, redistribution of benefits to the benefit of those less needy; also Bush's fault: guilty, guilty guilty!

Charge four, estate tax and class divisions; you betcha Bush's fault: guilty as hell and smirking in the dock!

Charge five, UN support and covert wars: hung jury (good porno title, yeah?). I'd LIKE to have had the UN's support but it's not clear that their FULL support would be forthcoming under any circumstances short of a full on bureaucratic sitzkreig, or even opitmally desirable. However in re: covert war against terrorists, more please, and soon!Of course, the CIA won't recruit Arabs or gays, or people with sin in their past, which makes it kind of hard to infiltrate bazaars effectively.

Charge six, on ethics and lying; presidential: guilty, but so? Accusing a president of lying is like accusing water of being wet.

Deficit numbers like that are handwaving, because they do not take into account changes in the economy over time, or the effects of policy on business and consumer behavior. Further, running deficits in wartime is not exactly verboten. If nothing ever changes, it'll be $100 trillion in 2030. Holy Jeebus, let's assassinate the mother before he spends all the money in the world!

I've argued over the value of taking out Iraq, I won't do it again here.

Bush has made no significant changes to redistributive policies since he came into office. And, he's going to add a huge one that I know Ross hates, so that isn't a particularly valid criticism of an "unreasonable" administration. And if you cut taxes 10% for everyone, the people that pay the most will benefit more in absolute terms. Shut up! Nanananana! The bottom part of the income curve doesn't pay taxes at all. The "tax cuts for the Rich" meme needs to die, now. Talk about the payroll tax and SS if you want to help the poor.

All respect to Windy City Mike, but arguing class war in this nation is bogus. That money has already been taxed at least twice if not more during the life of the person who got it, why screw the kids? (It's all for the children, remember) It's just a money grab, and does nothing to reduce effectively non-existent class divisions in American society. You can argue, maybe, that there are economic classes here, but the membership is so fluid that any kind of voodoo Marxist analysis of the behavior of people in them isn't valid. When I was poor, I didn't support the gouging of the rich, because I hoped to someday be rich. Many others in this country agree. Now that I am middle class, my opinions haven't changed, and when I am rich, I still won't want to be gouged.

So, Ross thinks that the benighted middle easterners are incapable of living in a civilized society. Sounds racist. I don't think that the UN (given that France and Russia are in it, and on the Security Council) would have been substantially less obstructive if a "reasonable" administration was in power. The primary motivation for France and the other third rate powers is the limitation of American hyperpuissance. We have that power regardless of whether the guy sitting in the oval office is a reckless cowboy, android-American or fucking Ross Perot. The only way we would have complete UN support is to do exactly what they tell us to do. And if that means not fighting the war on terror, fuck them. We can argue over the relative merits of individual steps in the war, but the UN would have had us do nothing, in Iraq or Afghanistan. That isn't acceptable.

And, the President hasn't lied about the war. The Uranium thingy is ridiculous, as is the warping of Wolfowitz' words. I have complaints about how forthcoming they are, as I have posted here before, and will again. But I don't think they lied, or even misled us. Even the French assumed that Saddam had WMD. Don't crack on the President because he believed the same. It was universally argued before the invasion that it was wrong because inspections needed more time.

So there.

I tried to be nice in my first reply to Ross. Johno pushed the button.

Exactly how is class fluid in this country? I think you sorely underrate the number of people who resent the wealthy, and I think you even more sorely underrate the sticky effects of debt and education in keeping the vast majority of Americans where they are, at the margins of the so-called "middle class."

Of course, we can handwave on either side of the issue, one pointing to the giant suburbs around DC as evidence of newly-minted upper middle classes , and the other pointing to wage slavery and Detroit as evidence that class is not fluid.

I'm not interested in doing this, as it's clear that reasonable people may differ greatly on this.

Also Steve, if the "bottom of the income curve doesn't pay taxes at all," where do I send away to get my sales-tax, gasoline tax, cigarette surcharge, property tax, local tax, and state tax waiver forms? Many poor people don't pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX, but they pay ALL the rest of them, and since it's coming out of a much smaller pool of funds, these taxes take a proportionally bigger chunk out of their earnings, than they do from wealthier taxpayers. This is just the way it goes, it's not something that needs a law or a crusade. But you [strong]cannot claim[/strong] that the bottom of the income curve are "lucky duckies" (to use the Wall Street Journal's mendacious term) because they make so little as to not have to pay the Feds. Talk about hand-waving.