Blame Saddam.
By on Mar 29th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Blame Saddam.
“President Bush said Wednesday that Saddam Hussein, not continued U.S. involvement in Iraq, is responsible for ongoing sectarian violence that is threatening the formation of a democratic government.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
What a moron jackass. And Fox Americans, of course would believe him.
March 29th, 2006 at 2:35 pmSaddam must be extremely powerful, giving orders from prison.
March 29th, 2006 at 2:36 pmQuit whining, Incurious George.
Silly me, I thought it was the media, gays or the Dems who were to blame. It’s so much easier to stymie the US while in captivity. That clever Saddam.
March 29th, 2006 at 2:37 pmBut seriously…….Bush, all the might and technology of the US (world) are being beaten by a has been dictator who is locked up in a cell. What a great war time president he is.
Maybe Saddam is to blame for the secret US military tribunals too?
At least it’s not Clinton’s fault anymore.
March 29th, 2006 at 2:38 pmPres. Bush has now earned the term “Flip-Flopper in Chief”.
Next you know, he’ll be singing “Blame Canada!”
This is what we get from a political party that refuses to take responsibility for their actions. (Or lack thereof)
Dear God, why do you hate America so much as to afflict us with Pres. Bush?!?! Why!!!
March 29th, 2006 at 2:44 pmTime is not George’s friend. Every day that passes he cements his place in history as the worst president EVER of the United States. He’s lucky to be so stupid. Otherwise, he couldn’t deliver his scripted lies without laughing outloud. Guess, that role is left up the the poor souls who have to listen to him.
March 29th, 2006 at 2:49 pmJust when you think things can’t get any further out of whack, or that Bush can’t get any stupider…
Why is that sorry son of a bitch (and I mean that literally) still squatting in our Whitehouse?
March 29th, 2006 at 2:55 pmWhen Saddam is dead and gone, there’ll be no more Celine Dion! Blame Saddam!!
March 29th, 2006 at 2:57 pmTurd Blossom was quoted as saying -
“If the public doesn’t buy this one, we’ll just start blaming them for electing a reatrded President who took us to Iraq in the first place. Then we’ll see how they can blame George and me.”
March 29th, 2006 at 3:00 pmI guess this must be a joke. Blame everyone but you Bush. Right!!!
March 29th, 2006 at 3:03 pmI don’t see the republicans taking responsobility any time soon.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:06 pmBush farted and then pointed at Rove.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:06 pmUh huh.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:07 pmWhat happened to Bush’ promises of “accountability?” Oh yaah, I forgot . . . he just lies and lies.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:07 pmHitler Hitler Hitler! Try saying that 3 times fast.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:08 pmI have noticed that absence of trolls…anyone….anyone?
March 29th, 2006 at 3:10 pmThis continues what I would like to call the “Ned Flanderizing of America”. Just like Homer treats Ned, is just how these people treat us. Call us stupid, use our resources, and generally not care. What do we do? Just laugh and smile “Okely Dokely” George. It’s time to show these people we are not their sheep, we aren’t stupid, and you cant use us to support your agenda.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:11 pmI have noticed that absence of trolls…anyone….anyone?
Comment by Jules
You have to admit, Bush and friends are making it harder and harder for even the trolls to support them.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:16 pmBobcat, it also takes a LOT longer to come up with spin.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:17 pmI have to admit….I am enjoying this. He is such an ass!
I am sure they are all just waiting for their talking points from Rush and Rove. I cannot wait to hear how they spin this one.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:18 pmGuys…
A bit of clarification here. It does not appear that Bush is implying that Saddam is running things from jail. He is referring to the conditions in pre-invasion Iraq. Quote from the news item:
Bush said that Saddam was a tyrant and used violence to exacerbate sectarian divisions to keep himself in power, and that as a result, deep tensions persist to this day.
Keep in mind, this in no way means that I agree with Bush in his using this as a reason for the sectarian violence.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:23 pmSadaam? The crazy old bearded guy in the courtroom drama?
He’s responsible for religious and ethnic violence in a country he hasn’t seen or communicated with in over a year?
This isn’t just wrong, this is impossible.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:25 pmSectarian Violence = Religious Differences
March 29th, 2006 at 3:25 pmI seem to remember this administration blaming Iran for the violence about a week ago.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:30 pmI guess next week they’ll blame Clinton for it.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:34 pmIn other words, Americans understand you’re newcomers to the political arena. But pretty soon its time to shut her down and get governing.
This was supposed to be The President of The United States talking.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:36 pmDude thinks he’s Ronnie’s cousin from brush clearin’ crawford.
Okay junior, time to: ‘get ‘er dunn’.
Re: #22
Let me restate the last sentence…I don’t agree with Bush’s assertion that the U.S.’s involvement in Iraq has nothing to do with the insurgency.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:38 pmI thought it was the media’s fault. not enough positive stories on CNN keeps fueling the insurgency.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:45 pmYou mean it not “Blame the PRESS“…anymore?
March 29th, 2006 at 3:45 pmIn other words, Americans understand you’re newcomers to the political arena. But pretty soon its time to shut her down and get governing.
#27 – Sad isn’t it?
Whereas a percentage of America likes Bush because he’s ‘plain spoken,’ the rest of us (and most of the world) think he just comes across as an idiot.
This man is the face of our nation. Other countries see/hear him speak and laugh. Great image to project to the world, isn’t it?
March 29th, 2006 at 3:45 pmBefore the invasion of Iraq, wasn’t the level of violence between sects pretty low? any one have any statistics. I agree WC I don’t think Bush is trying to blame Saddam for running the show from prison. I think what he is trying to say, is that the hatred between the the shias and sunnis is because Saddam in order to maintain control of Iraq, encouraged the tension between sects, to make sure they would never band together to overthrow him.
what really needs to be explored, is if this statement could be true.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:46 pmBlame, did he say Blame? How can he possibly blame any one? Isn’t that admiting he doesn’t care about the blame game? Do he and Scott McClellan ever chat? The President should think of any idea he has and then Google himself saying that notion and then remind himself for his own benifit.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:47 pmSo, let’s review.
Iraq’s current problems are because of:
1. Terrorists.
2. Defeatist liberals.
3. American media.
4. Saddam Hussein from a jailcell.
They’re running out of people to blame it on.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:49 pm#17 We’ve had a response, it just seems to obvious to have to post.
Breaks down like this. Saddam is responsible for the causes that have led to the secretarian violence by constantly oppressing the Shi’te and Kurds while elevating the Sunni. This means decades, if not even longer from before Saddam, of simmering tribal tensions. Now that the US has removed Saddam, until the country is completly under control the different factions finally have the ability to act out on these tensions. So what you get is Saddam is what has caused the secretarian violence, but he was also able to control it through strong arming.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:54 pmHere is a great article back from June of 05. I got this by Googling; Bush says Saddam is responsible for ongoing Sectarian violence. Google the ninth wonder of the world.
March 29th, 2006 at 4:01 pmhttp://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/06/26/news/nation/18_06_046_25_05.txt
#35 Umm the colonial powers that formed a nation claled Iraq out of various people who never liked each other to begin with are the root cause of this. What we see today is the same thing we saw in the Balkens during the 1990’s. Once the power that kept everyone in line was removed Tito/Central Yugo government and in Iraq’s case Sadaam the artificial country pulled apart because all along these people never for got that they were Kurds, Sunni’s and Shiites, just as the Yugos never forgot that they were croats serbs, macedonians, kosovoan etc…
Here’s a story for you. Back in 1981 I was in colege at a large midwestern university. We had a freshman player from Yugoslavia on the basketball team. I knew him and I also knew a young lady whos parents were from Yugoslavia. At a party I asked her if she’d like to meet him and she said no f’ing way because he was acroat he she was a serb. So in that case the central government kept these people from doing what they did once the government fell apart. The same thing is playing out today in Iraq. Do we find the Turks to be tyrants in the same manner that we describe Sadaam? They have been just as brutal, if not more so than the Iraqi’s were in supressing the Kurds.
Sadly this is what happens when outsiders (colonial european powers) draw artificial lines ont he ground. At the end of WWII they should have made three countries in Iraq yet they did not. America removed the glue that held the country in check and now we are paying the price, or rather they are paying the price. Had a shitte been in power rather than Sadaam, they would have been jsut as oppressive as the Sadaam government was. So please it’s not as simple as “its sadaams fault”
March 29th, 2006 at 4:09 pmAlso #35 that sounds like how conservatives are behaving in our country. Supressing the evil liberals and elevating conservatives whereever they find them regardless of their qualifications.
March 29th, 2006 at 4:13 pmI agree with Spongeboo the comment is truthful. So is this supposed to be the new reason we should have gone along with the war? Why is the President repeating something that was obviously know before. Is this bit up for regurgitation? I think that can be a problem when the message is too simple and too few in number. Actual facts and real data not withstanding. Wasn’t all the praise about Lyn Nofzinger related to his ability to tighten up a phrase saliently?
March 29th, 2006 at 4:20 pmWow, Squeege, you served up a softball here:
Saddam is responsible for the causes that have led to the secretarian violence by constantly oppressing the Shi’te and Kurds while elevating the Sunni.
True. We agree.
This means decades, if not even longer from before Saddam, of simmering tribal tensions.
Yup, still agreeing with you.
Now that the US has removed Saddam, until the country is completly under control the different factions finally have the ability to act out on these tensions. So what you get is Saddam is what has caused the secretarian violence, but he was also able to control it through strong arming.
Yup. We agree, still.
But that’s not what Bush and company told us was going to happen before we went in. It was supposed to be a quick in and out for the military, the Iraqis would hail us as liberators, and democracy would flourish.
Only Bush and company was so shortsighted and so badly misjudged the environment in Iraq, they didn’t see this coming. They expected to overcome decades of Saddam’s rule and centuries of Muslim culture in a couple of months for a couple billion dollars.
Instead, 3 years and $300 billion later, there’s no end in sight.
March 29th, 2006 at 4:24 pmIf Bush is blaming Saddam for how Saddam oppressed the Shiites and Kurds while elevating the Sunnis while he was in power, then it ultimately is an admission by Bush that he didn’t know what in the hell he was doing when he invaded Iraq. Bush should have understood these issues before starting his dirty little immoral war. Bush has to take the ultimate blame.
F**king simple minded idiot-in-chief.
March 29th, 2006 at 4:26 pm” So what you get is Saddam is what has caused the secretarian violence, but he was also able to control it through strong arming. Comment by squishypoop”
And now we have another example of the ineffective, and inept reichwing explanation for this. Our resident ‘tard has just left out the fact that it is the English and not Saddam who constructed this situation in Iraq – saddam merely continued to exploit it. So what does that mean according to the reichwing premise? Saddam didn’t cause nor is he responsible the sectarian violence, it’s England’s fault.
March 29th, 2006 at 4:26 pmbush has found out how hard it is to point that ‘blame’ finger around at himself.
‘fox has fired all of their trolls,someone whispered ‘keith olberman’
March 29th, 2006 at 4:27 pm#40 Softball because you agree with it? My understanding was softball meant you find it easy to refute.
Ryan: Still waiting on your reply on me backing up my economics statement in todays think fast thread. If I’m such a ‘tard’ as you so eliquantly put it, shouldn’t be to hard for you to prove wrong.
March 29th, 2006 at 4:31 pmAnyone ever notice how absolutely EVERYONE ELSE except the administration is to blame for EVERYTHING? Insurgency is caused by (take your pick): foreign terrorists, Saddam, Iran, Syria, Saddam dead-enders, the media, Hillary Clinton, liberals, Democrats, Karl Marx, even Groucho Marx. But no one, absolutely NO ONE in the administration is to blame for the fine mess they’re in. All that talk about people taking responsibility for their actions is all BS, the whole BS, and nothing BUT the BS.
March 29th, 2006 at 4:34 pmis there any political process to send bush over to iraq to govern, see how the limp wrist will do over there with some true enemies and danger to burst his bubble
March 29th, 2006 at 4:42 pm#40 Softball because you agree with it? My understanding was softball meant you find it easy to refute.
–Comment by squegeeboo
Read the whole post, dude. Specifically, the last part. Here, I’ll cut and paste it so you don’t have to scroll.
You said:
Now that the US has removed Saddam, until the country is completly under control the different factions finally have the ability to act out on these tensions. So what you get is Saddam is what has caused the secretarian violence, but he was also able to control it through strong arming.
I said:
“Yup. We agree, still.
But that’s not what Bush and company told us was going to happen before we went in. It was supposed to be a quick in and out for the military, the Iraqis would hail us as liberators, and democracy would flourish.
Only Bush and company was so shortsighted and so badly misjudged the environment in Iraq, they didn’t see this coming. They expected to overcome decades of Saddam’s rule and centuries of Muslim culture in a couple of months for a couple billion dollars.
Instead, 3 years and $300 billion later, there’s no end in sight.”
March 29th, 2006 at 4:54 pm“Ryan: Still waiting on your reply on me backing up my economics statement in todays think fast thread. If I’m such a ‘tard’ as you so eliquantly put it, shouldn’t be to hard for you to prove wrong. Comment by squishypoop”
It wasn’t, your own link proved you wrong – MORON. You reichwingers are dumber than a bag of rocks.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:03 pm#47 first, thanks for saving me the effort of scrolling, much obliged.
I did read the whole thing the first time. It dosn’t seem like you refute me at all, you just seem to expand on my one sentence “Now that the US has removed Saddam, until the country is completly under control the different factions finally have the ability to act out on these tensions”
March 29th, 2006 at 5:05 pmsquishypoop responds to bobcat proving yet again he can’t read simple english, think cognitively or discern basic facts. We call that ‘reading comprehension’ for the intellectually inclined – and it’s a common failing of reichwing leaning individuals. Some claim it’s because they can’t learn, others claim it’s because their egos are too fragile to let them admit they were wrong, and still others claim they are nuts. I think any combination of those factors is usually a safe bet.
Sorry squishy, but bobcat wins, you lose.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:08 pm#49 –
Okay. Does that mean you will admit that Bush sufficiently screwed up the pre-war planning?
March 29th, 2006 at 5:09 pmThe NeoCons wanted to take out Saddam not because he was a dictator but because he provided support to Palestinian suicide bombers. Unfortunately, a few thousand young Americans have paid a big price to achieve this goal. The war in Iraq has NOTHING to do with the safety and security of American citizens.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:13 pmThe NeoCons wanted to take out Saddam not because he was a dictator but because he provided support to Palestinian suicide bombers. Unfortunately, a few thousand young Americans have paid a big price to achieve this goal. The war in Iraq has NOTHING to do with the safety and security of American citizens.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:13 pm#51 Sure, but that was in the past, and we need to look to the future to succeed.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:14 pmRyan: Theres more back at the other thread, but heres just a bit more for you
1939
* GNP rises 7.9 percent; unemployment falls to 17.2 percent.
* The United States will begin emerging from the Depression as it borrows and spends $1 billion to build its armed forces. From 1939 to 1941, when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, U.S. manufacturing will have shot up a phenomenal 50 percent!
* The Depression is ending worldwide as nations prepare for the coming hostilities.
* World War II starts with Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
Just a bit more showing that WW2 is what ended the great depression.
To everyone else, sorry for the off topic post.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:16 pm#54 the logic of “its in the past, lets move forward” does nto work. Remember the old adage those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If Bush bungled the war job and only looks forward refusing to learn from his mistakes, which he has admitted to none thus far, then why should he be given a green light on any other war he wishes to carry out. The big lesson from history right here is to see what was done with Iraq in the 1920’s and not keep perpetuating it. There is more than one distinct country there, lets let them have their autonomy. Also the lets not look back logic seems to say that forgive what we have done and move onward. That seems to be the rallying cry of the republican party when it comes to this administration, yet for the whole of the 1990’s they could not let a failed realestate deal die a dignified un-hearalded death. Interestign dichotomy there. DO you think we should take the “its already happend, lets move on” approach with criminals in the states?
March 29th, 2006 at 5:26 pmMark, that part of it was meant as a joke.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:27 pmSo, is Bush saying that if Saddam were still in power, the violence would go away?
Is he saying that Iraq was safer under Saddam, than under the US occupation?
March 29th, 2006 at 5:28 pmI still like Saddam’s idea of how to settle all this. Didn’t he offer a Mano a Mano showdown with Bush?
I say, build that cage of steel and turn the two of them loose on eachother. My money would be on Saddam. Even in his weakened state he could serve up Bush’s heart in a matter of minutes! What a SmackDown that would be!!!
ITMFA!!!
March 29th, 2006 at 5:29 pm#58 its really ahrd for me to tell that as I have right wing friends with that attitude and live not far from where Mark McGwire hit many of his long balls and we all know how he feels about looking to the past.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:33 pmwhy does anybody bother to print this shit? why repeat anything Bush says. Duh.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:34 pm#61 in the words of the Simpons
We shall go forward not backward
Upward not forward
and always twirling in to the future
#62 “That is a lame answer and makes you an apologist.” or a comedian, albiet a bad one, as stated in #58
March 29th, 2006 at 5:43 pm#65 only if the muslims could then use it as a suicide belt.
Is that more in line with the extremes?
March 29th, 2006 at 5:47 pmAs usual the OPPOSITE of what GW says is true.
Saddam was the guy who kept the ’sectarian’ violence down, much like Tito managed to do during his regime in Yugoslavia.
As far as leadership goes, Saddam Hussein was leagues ahead and far, far above GW. Were Saddam to be released and sent back to Iraq tomorrow, the civil war would stop immediately.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:54 pmsquishypoop, once again you post a link that disproves what you say. The recession in the late 30s happened because spending on the new deal was reduced, remarkably correcting itself when more spending resumed the following year.
Sorry, but you lose.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:59 pmConvoluted reasoning by the chimp-in-chief.
March 29th, 2006 at 6:10 pmI wonder how Saddam is able to command the civil war from his prison cell? I guess blaming Clinton won’t work any more.
Oh, it goes back three years? I see, Saddam KNEW this would happen, so he pre-arranged it! Bush has lost his mind, not that it was valuable, but it’s sure is gone.
Once again, everyone else, sorry for the off topic post
Ryan:
March 29th, 2006 at 6:18 pmThe Second New Deal (1935-1937) was characterized by reform. Increasingly, members of Congress and others called for fundamental reform of society, not just relief of the symptoms of social and economic problems.
http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture19.html
‘37 the year the second new deal ended, saw the start of the second recession, my argument was “WW2 turned the nation around, while the initial first deal did improve unemployment, after the second new deal unemployment started to rise back up to pre-newDeal levels.” Something that every one of my links supported, even to the point of show the increase in spending by FDR in late 38/39 was to gear up for WW2.
Well, let’s see here. Bush blames Saddam. No surprise there. Bush is also a very corrupt, greedy, stupid person.
Meanwhile, the truth remains, the Bush Cabal has just roasted and toasted Iraq. Without any help from Saddam.
Sectarian violence has displaced more than 30,000 Iraqis — victims of gunmen who warn them to leave or die — since a Shi’ite shrine was bombed last month, the government said on Wednesday.
The attack on the mosque in Samarra on February 22 touched off reprisals and pushed
Iraq toward civil war. The bodies of hundreds of victims of communal violence have been dumped along the streets, many bound and showing signs of torture.
The bloodshed has also created a potential humanitarian crisis. Thousands of families had to flee their homes after being threatened with death because of their sect.
Sattar Nawrouz, spokesman for the Ministry of Displacement and Migration, estimated 33,000 people have been uprooted by insurgents or Islamic militants bent on purging areas of Shi’ites or Sunni Arabs…
[from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060329/wl_nm/iraq_displaced_dc ]
Ya. I’m real sure that Saddam caused all this. Really now. Quick. Someone get Bush a Brain.
March 29th, 2006 at 6:30 pm#56 spudge boy
March 29th, 2006 at 6:47 pmastute observation.
George Bush is really the Wizard of Oz scarecrow incarnate.
March 29th, 2006 at 6:51 pmExcept the scarecrow was likeable.
““WW2 turned the nation around, while the initial first deal did improve unemployment, after the second new deal unemployment started to rise back up to pre-newDeal levels.†squishypoop”
And that’s the point, after the second new deal STOPPED, as in it was largely halted or reduced by conservatives in congress. In fact that this is brought out in the link you posted for huppi:
In otherwords the second new deal WAS working, and it was costing far less money than the war spending was.
You’ve only proven my point, but you’re too stupid to even recognize it. It wasn’t a failure of the new deal, it was a failure to CONTINUE the new deal – brought on retarded CONservatives like yourself that couldn’t see the truth in front of you.
The subsequent war spending was in fact a JOBS program funded by the government. It may not have been called the WPA, but it was a federal jobs program that spent vast sums of money to build up the american infrastructure. The war isn’t what boomed the economy, it was the willingness to spend money to make jobs – period. Just as it had been until 1937.
Sorry, but you lose.
March 29th, 2006 at 8:04 pmI should have written:
In otherwords the second new deal WAS working, and it was costing far less money than the war spending that followed it did, for its return on investment.
March 29th, 2006 at 8:05 pmRyan, let me see if I get your argument.
1. I say “WW2 turned the nation around, while the initial first deal did improve unemployment, after the second new deal unemployment started to rise back up to pre-newDeal levels.”
2. Your final response is:It wasn’t a failure of the new deal, it was a failure to CONTINUE the new deal. Which means after the New Deal(s) stopped, there was a new recession.
Allow me to reiterate part of my point once again:”after the second new deal unemployment started to rise back up to pre-newDeal levels.”
Seems like we agree on that part of it.
Also in your final response:”The subsequent war spending was in fact a JOBS program funded by the government. It may not have been called the WPA, but it was a federal jobs program that spent vast sums of money to build up the american infrastructure. The war isn’t what boomed the economy, it was the willingness to spend money to make jobs – period. Just as it had been until 1937.”
Which seems to break down into your view, that it wasn’t the war that saved the economy, it was the war spending.
Funny thing about war spending, you need a war to be able to spend on it. So let me redo part of my point again:WW2 turned the nation around.
So basically, on my New Deal(s) stance, you agree with me, and on my WW2 stance, you agree with me.
Yet you claim “Sorry, but you lose.”
In fact your main point seems to be that the New Deal shouldn’t have been stopped, something that I have never argued for or against, all I have done is state that while the new deals helped, WW2 stopped the Great Depression.
Is it really that hard for you to admit to agreeing with a conservative?
Once again, to everyone else, sorry for the off topic post
March 29th, 2006 at 8:29 pm“Allow me to reiterate part of my point once again:â€after the second new deal unemployment started to rise back up to pre-newDeal levels.â€
Seems like we agree on that part of it. squishypoop”
No because what you wrote implies that the new deal failed – because it doesn’t say after the new deal was cut back – it just says ‘after the second new deal’, which implies after it was IMPLEMENTED.
Perhaps it was just a semantic error, or misunderstanding, but your statement was not clear – and not something I could agree with. If you had written when the new deal began to be repealed, the economy saw a recession – then that’s factually correct, and I can agree with you.
“In fact your main point seems to be that the New Deal shouldn’t have been stopped, something that I have never argued for or against, all I have done is state that while the new deals helped, WW2 stopped the Great Depression. squishypoop”
No, not really, what I’m saying is that it was working, and that when it was cutback another recession hit. Whether it could/should have continued is a different debate. For instance applying the WPA workforce to do military related production is still a ‘new deal’ kind of result, but it’s not what most economists, nor people like yourself would call a new deal program. I merely argued the point that it had worked, that the economy and jobless was low because of government spending – and that a second recession hit that additional government spending (including war and infrastructure spending) produced similar economic increases.
March 29th, 2006 at 9:12 pmHey, wait a minute, the trolls haven’t blamed the French in quite a while. I wonder when they’ll make Bush’s list of the people to blame?
March 29th, 2006 at 9:27 pmSo
lil w is admitting
1. Saddam was better able to keep the peace in iraq, controlling all the factions of Islamic fundamentalists, Christians, and secular interests…..
and
2. Saddam had a better war plan and is kicking our ass because our leaders allow our troops to be sitting ducks while their occupation fuels the insurgency.
guess lil w should have learned in nam……
fighting a guerilla insurgency with conventional/police forces is like
bringing a knife to a gun fight
eh?
March 29th, 2006 at 9:29 pmWe support the election process, we support democracy, but that doesn’t mean we have to support governments that get elected as a result of democracy,” Bush said.
So he fights for democracy only to disregard it if he does not like the outcome? This IDIOT (Bush) doesn’t have a clue!!!
March 29th, 2006 at 9:45 pmTotal idiocy. The factions here have been fighting with each other for over a thousand years. Even though the Brits used their usual MO (divide and conquer) to subjugate, the factions were at each others throats before that. Doesn’t anyone in this administration know any history of the area or history of the religious factions (I.e. what makes a Kurd a Kurd, a Sunni, a Shiite)??
For God’s sakes, one viewing of Lawrence of Arabia and you know more Iraqi history than does this clown. Since he doesn’t like to read, someone should tie him down and make him watch a couple of movies that have some historical or cultural significance. You would think that something would have to sink into this simpleton’s brain.
March 29th, 2006 at 10:11 pmWe’re very lucky to live in today’s America because of the “era of personal responsibility” that President Bush has restored to Washington.
March 29th, 2006 at 10:24 pmThat darn Librul Media and Saddam Hussein want us to fail in Iraq.
President Bush not believing that there would be any resistance after the initiial invasion, and not having a strategic plan for the occupation, has nothing to do with what’s going on in Iraq today.
Grape Kool-Aid is the best flavor.
#77 and 78
*BLINKS, BLINKS AGAIN**
For a moment there it looked like Squegeeboo and Ryan Neat had a post each (Directed at each other) Without Nazi, Hippy, Facist, Welfare Check, Reichtwing, Commie, Dumbass, Alfalfa Sprout, Imperialist, Job hunt, Internment camp in it at all.
*Rechecks post**
Oh my it was true,
*Sheds a tear*
Maybe there can be World Peace
What’s next Dogs and Cats living together, mass hysteria???
March 29th, 2006 at 11:24 pm“War is peace
March 29th, 2006 at 11:58 pmFreedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength”
Sorry.. Everytime anyone in this administration says anything, my mind immediately returns to doublethink.
Thank you, Mr Orwell.
Ryan:
“after the second new deal” was meant to mean after its halt/cutbacks in 1937, but fair enough, I see the validity in your points, while disagreeing on some of them. with out misunderstandings/semantic issues no major religion would ever have fractioned, thats part of the fun of history.
So what do you say, tomorows think fast, have a debate on if the new deal should have continued or not? I know its a woulda/coulda/shoulda kind of debate, but those are the best kinds.
Tundra-If we can get along, then why’s it so hard for the Shi’te, Sunni’s and Kurds? Give peace a chance. As long as its a Peace the USA and Bush want, of course.
March 30th, 2006 at 12:25 amLike many other things in the Bush administration, their failed policies are someone else’s fault.
They have been blaming Clinton for all that is wrong with their fiscal, and social policies for the US; it was only a matter of time before they started blaming Hussein for their failures in Iraq even as the Bush cabinet has been firmly in control in both countries for years.
Aaah, the party of personal responsibility…
March 30th, 2006 at 1:20 amThat is some SERIOUS “buck passing” he’s doing there. Didn’t GWB tell us that Saddam Hussein “has been removed from power”? So I guess we can add that to his ever expanding pile of lies?!? Can’t he do ANYTHING without screwing it up ???, And then looking for someone else to blame for it? He is a JOKE, a very, very BAD JOKE!
March 30th, 2006 at 1:57 amThis neocon ‘blame-game’ strategy reminds me of my ex-wife who, after 17 years being divorced, continues to blame her ex-husband for her current misfortunes.
On the other hand, maybe there is a ray of hope here. I’m amazed they aren’t falling back blaming Bill Clinton for the civil war! (Or did I miss that press conference?)
March 30th, 2006 at 4:00 am“For God’s sakes, one viewing of Lawrence of Arabia and you know more Iraqi history than does this clown.”
That’s a long movie. Dubya doesn’t have the attention span for a long movie.
Check.
Dubya doesn’t have the attention span for a movie.
Check.
Dubya doesn’t have an attention span.
Imagine if he’d had to read Lawrence’s Seven Pillars of Wisdom. Whew!
March 30th, 2006 at 6:16 pmGeorge W.Bush is responsible for every death and injury [American and Iraqi] because of his war of choice and choice of war.
March 31st, 2006 at 3:26 am[...] Saddam, stuck in prison is hardly likely to want to encourage a religious war, being non-religious himself (yes the koran in his hand every day at trial is probably just to endear himself to the few die-hards). Saying he is “responsible” is asinine at best. [...]
April 1st, 2006 at 10:18 amPayday Loan Advance
Instant cash advance can be found to be productive and essential answer to funding supporter on the internet.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:19 pm