Sen. Levin: Administration Planning Reduction of Troops in Fall to Help Win Elections
Sen. Levin: Administration Planning Reduction of Troops in Fall to Help Win Elections
This week Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq, announced U.S. troop reductions in Iraq by the end of 2007. On when those troops will be withdrawn, the New York Times reports:
If executed, the plan could have considerable political significance. The first reductions would take place before this falls Congressional elections, while even bigger cuts might come before the 2008 presidential election.
Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) reiterated that the timing of the troop withdrawals is politically motivated:
[Troop withdrawals] shouldn’t be a political decision, but it is going to be with this administration. … It’s as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this election, this November, there’s going to be troop reductions in Iraq and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
Conservatives have criticized progressives for suggesting a redeployment of troops in Iraq, saying they wanted to “cut and run.” But it looks like conservatives are willing to adopt redeployment when it will help them get re-elected in the fall, instead of now, when it is good policy.
Full transcript below:
WALLACE: Alright, Senator Levin, there’s also a report today that General Casey, the top commander of all foreign forces in Iraq, has laid out to plan to the Pentagon under which 7,000 U.S. troops would be pulled out by September and an additional at least 30,000 by the end of 2007. Now, you’ve been asking for a timetable. You put out a resolution this week that called for getting some troops out by the beginning of the year and a timetable for further withdrawals. Are you willing to take yes for an answer?
LEVIN: Of course. Frankly, it’s one of the worst kept secrets in this town that there’s going to be reductions in our forces, redeployments in our forces, before the election. I mean, it’s obvious what’s going on here. When we offered a resolution — not with a fixed timetable for the final departure of american troops — most Democrats voted against that. That was the Kerry resolution. We didn’t think there should be a fixed timetable for the ending, but we did, almost all the Democrats, including all of the Democratic senators who are considering running for president, then coalesce around the so-called Levin-Reed resolution, which urged simply the President to begin the phased redeployment of American forces from Iraq by the end of this year. The White House didn’t want to do that, and so it was rubber stamped by the Republican-dominated Senate. They just went along because the White House said no.
But let me tell you something — it will be the greatest shock in this town, it would be like a tornado hitting this town, frankly, if there’s not a reduction in our forces prior to the election. It will be timed for that by the administration, and i don’t have the slightest bit of doubt that —
WALLACE: This is twice you have linked this to the election. Let me ask you — do you think the decision to pull troops out is a political decision or a military decision?
LEVIN: It should be a military decision. General Casey at the Pentagon a few days ago said he believes there will be fairly substantial troop reductions this year. Of course, when we say military decisions, ultimately, it should be a civilian decision, but it shouldn’t be a political decision, but it is going to be with this administration. It’s as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this election, this November, there’s going to be troop reductions in Iraq and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Everyone needs to know about this.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:52 amWho said what about the democrats only goal was to get power back?
June 25th, 2006 at 11:53 amLMAO - you knew this was coming. Liberals scream for troop withdrawal, then when they get it, they discount it as political, not fast enough, whatever. Funny how liberals still can’t figure out why people are tuning you out?
Did any of you bother to watch Chris Matthew’s panel discussing how the anti-war crowd, and their new puppy John Kerry simply isn’t credible on security? How ’bout them apples?
June 25th, 2006 at 11:55 amTroop reductions?
ROTFLMAOL!
Al Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq have been violently trying to turn a secular Iraq into a fundamentalist Islamic Iraq for over twenty years.
Thus, Al Maliki and Al Hakim are kicking the US’ ass out of Iraq!
Al Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq (sic!), the two fundamentalist Shia factions holding the reins of power in Iraq, are not going to let US forces stay in Iraq which is home to some of the most holy Islamic sites.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:02 pmLOL Chris Mathews has zero credibility with well almost anyone. He is a Bush bot thorugh and through.
Question Jason, How is the repulicans spending 8 years, millions of dollars, and thousand of hours attacking Clinton. Who then complain that the left is not supporting the president?
June 25th, 2006 at 12:02 pmJason, if you use Chris Matthews, or even his panel discussion members, as a resource, you are cutting yourself off at the knees. They have all been water carriers for the right for a long time. How about them apples?
June 25th, 2006 at 12:06 pmJason M. Hendler: credible on security
Bush and supporters like you have directly caused the inadvertent fathering of a burgeoning fundamentalist Islamic republic which has extremely close and long standing ties to Iran which Bush called an `axis of evil, whose leader has denied the existence of the holocaust and has vowed to `wipe Israel off the map’.
How is the fathering of a burgeoning fundamentalist Islamic republic is direct response to the horrific attacks of 9/11–a huge failure by Bush in re to security–a good sign that Bush and the GOP is effective at security?
June 25th, 2006 at 12:08 pmAwww c’mon, what makes anyone think that Bush would use the troops for political purposes, or use them as props in a photo op? Levin must be living in the real world of something.
50 Ways To Dump The Dubya
June 25th, 2006 at 12:09 pmJason,
The liberals want to be credited with the idea of troop withdrawal, and if/when it happens. All of the sudden Bush is withdrawing troops? And now Bush will say its his idea.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:11 pmQuestion for Jason M. Hendler
Al Dawa, the party of Prime Minister-Designate al-Maliki, is a decades old terrorist group with direct and long standing ties with Iran, i.e. a so-called `axis of evil’.
A `suicider’ from the Al-Dawa party bombed the US embassy in Kuwait in 1983.
In 1984, four men from Al Dawa highjacked a Kuwait airbus travelling from Kuwait to Pakistan.
They held the plane for six days.
During this time, these four men from Al Dawa shot and killed two Americans: Mr Charles Hegna and Mr William Stanford.
9/11 + Iraq = Bush’s Islamic Fundamentalist Republic in Iraq
WTF?
June 25th, 2006 at 12:12 pmI don’t know which appalls me more - the fact that Bush will use our troops to manipulate the masses, or that the masses can be manipulated in this fashion… I really don’t.
We have to call them on this. We need to keep exposing their lies and their manipulation every time they do it. Show them for the despicable ventroliquists they really are.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:16 pmWhen Rove decided to divide te country after 9-11, he naturally thought that MOST Americans would side with the neocons and their “war on terror.” Rove and the neocon crowd are finding that 30% is not half and the Bush Administration has as it’s sole agenda item to drain the Treasury and fill the pockets of neocon supporters. Remember, Osama Bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein, killed Americans on American soil–this is the truth that will bring the GOP/neocons down.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:16 pmWe need to round up those homegrown terrorists and ship them over to Iraq so we can fight them over there. jeesh, one of those unknown knowns becoming a known known.
That way, we’ll be able to increase troop strength in Iraq.
Reduction schmeduction, another hundred thousand to two hundred thousand troops in Iraq will assure the defeat of both the Demoncrats and the Rethuglicans come November.
another unknown known about to become a known known.
Increase the number of troops in Iraq, that way more murkan suckers will die, which means more support for the troops.
It’s a no-brainer. We can win this war on terror, even if it takes forever. It doesn’t matter, we can win! Another trillion dollars spent to win the war will help too.
Senator Levin is out to lunch.
Spend more money, send more troops, win, win, win. c’mon
June 25th, 2006 at 12:18 pmdid anyone see feingold on MTP?
June 25th, 2006 at 12:20 pmi usually watch cbs Sunday Morning, but when i saw russ i stayed put - well worth it!
a full 25+ minutes… only one slight letdown - when he didn’t come out for impeachment out right, but his explanation was ok… one step at a time…
Who will be the last soldier to die for the Republican’s election strategy?
June 25th, 2006 at 12:23 pmAs long as no more US soldiers have to die for the neocon - Iraq lie, who cares who’s idea it is? I say we package Saddam and O’Reilly together as the new brain-trust for Baghdad and have them clean up Rumsfeld’s mess.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:23 pmOf all the responses to my post, this one cuts straight to the liberal strategy on Iraq, and their fundamental difference with Republicans. Democrats are worried about credit, image, popularity. Republicans start with values, that support policies and actions. We went in to remove a destabilizing force in the middle east (among other reasons), and we will leave when the country is a stable democracy. History will lay credit or blame, but the current mouthpieces for the Democrats betray their desire to look / feel good, and not DO good.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:26 pmITS COMING DOWN TO THIS FOLKS!
The Bush regime is going to have to un-seat the duly elected regime of Iraq. Why? Because the puppets that were supposed to only open their mouths when the string was pulled have ideas of their own.
When the above occurs Bush will become even more of a laughing stock in the eyes of the world than he is now.
Have you ever in your lifetime seen anyone more incompetent? I doubt it.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:26 pmWho will be the last soldier to die for the Republican’s election strategy?
Comment by George — June 25, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
REPEAT. OFTEN.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:28 pmWHO WILL BE THE LAST SOLDIER TO DIE
FOR THE REPUBLICAN’S ELECTION STRATEDY?
Jason - your so-called apples must be of the HORSE variety and best saved for barnyard activities. Your native Indian name must be ‘foul-mouth’.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:32 pmDemocrats are worried about credit, image, popularity. Republicans start with values, that support policies and actions….blahblahblah…
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — June 25, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
of all this troll’s posts, this might be the most delusional…
June 25th, 2006 at 12:33 pmJason,
How does this not embolden the enemy as Bush and Co. have been screaming any time the Democrats call for reductions or redeployment?
Democrats have called for a phased withdrawal and it’s “Hell no” from the Repubs.
Unbelievable is right.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:34 pm#17 - Jason, you are blind. So blind, in fact, that you are unteachable. Which make me wonder why you are here.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:36 pm17, your premise begins with the false assumption that ‘Republicans’ have values. You’re wrong.
They have none.
Today, June 25, 2006 marks the 130th anniversary of The Battle of the Little Bighorn, Custer’s Last Stand.
Custer looked like a porcupine after the Sioux were done with him.
The neocons look just like him, you just can’t see it.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:37 pmWhat are those Republican values again? DEATH–DEBT–CORRUPTION. Policies and actions? Ask the people of New Orleans about these. Every Republican up for office in 2006 and 2008 need to explain these: (1) Who will be the last soldier to die for the Republican’s election strategy? (Thanks George) and (2) Osama Bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein, killed Americans on American soil. Why are we in Iraq again?
June 25th, 2006 at 12:42 pmDemocrats betray their desire to look / feel good, and not DO good.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — June 25, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
How is killing 2500+ and 50,000+ while wounding tens of thousands more people the right thing to do?
We’re all about doing teh right thing. And the right thing was to have never attacked Iraq to begin with.
Iraq has never about 9/11 or the war on terror… It was about expanding the American Empire to include a territory in the Middle East that was rich in oil.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:42 pmChrist Matthews’ panel is a gaggle of bush-asskissers who love nothing more than bashing Democrats. Their mission is to keep Bush&Co in power so they don’t look so stupid, and can keep their jobs.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:43 pm#22, WC,
I don’t understand your first sentence, but regarding the second - Republicans will begin a phased withdrawal only when/as the Iraqi government can stand on their own. Republicans are NOT saying “Hell NO, never ever”, as you keep claiming.
As mentioned this morning on FOX, it appears that withdrawals will start soon, but the Bush administration is not going to provide a timetable against which liberals will measure and harass them. It will constantly monitored and changed if necessary based on the situation in Iraq.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:46 pmKaty, Feingold was very good on MTP, despite Timmy’s penchant to ask all democrats to defend other democrats.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:51 pmLet’s see,
June 25th, 2006 at 1:02 pmDemocrats call for a schedule for withdrawal.
Public opinion is on that side of the debate.
Cheney says Dems are chickens and the brave administration will stay the course (stay and die).
Maliki wants a schedule for us to leave.
Casey calls for a schedule for withdrawal.
Senators vote with BushCo.
Somehow BushCo will have to embrace Maliki and Casey, without admitting the Democrats have the right plan, or they will lose in November as well as lose even more lives and treasure in Iraq.
But BushCo does not have political motivation for what they do.
Karl! Oh, Karl Yoo-hoo!
ROTFLMAO.
JASON HENDLER
A lot of uninformed idiots post on this web-site, and you truly are one of the most idiotic.
You dont know what is going on, and you dont care, as long as the pay checks keep coming from Roveville to keep you in sandwich material.
General Casey was ORDERED back to the states to announce the identical timetable for withdrawal that the dems were going to vote on. You know that.
He was ORDERED to announce the timetable that would bring troops home, in significant numbers BEFORE THE ELECTIONS. You know that.
So why, with all you do know, do you still rant and rave like a neo-con idiot?
June 25th, 2006 at 1:02 pmThe 7000 or so troops that will be coming home this year will be replaced by 7000 more in the spring of 07. THere is no troop reduction only the rotating of soldiers. Units here already have their orders for deployment in May 07, and one Brigade is leaving here today.
You Repuppetcans need to wake up and realize that the Bush Ministry is leading you the way of Jim Jones.
Where is the sacrifice from those that have no relatives in Iraq? There are no mass blood drives, no ration cycles, no volunteering time and skills. We just keep getting deployed over and over (2 tours now), with the same recycled equipment, and the same Soldiers.
If the “GO TO WAR” groups had their precious son’s and daughter’s in Iraq, going on their second and third tours with the only replacements being the Brigade you replaced two years ago (as was our case), and heard that 17 Soldiers were killed, they would freeze every time their phone or doorbell rang.
But no they’re enjoying their tax cuts, calling war vets cowards, disrespecting widows and those who have lost loved ones in war and attacks, tapping our phones, surpressing our votes, bankrupting our treasury, not cleaning up New Orleans, underfunding our schools, not finding out who outed Ms. Plame, not finding out how a Mr. Gannon-Guckert got unlimited access to the White House, not finding out what went on during the energy meetings, forgetting that ken Lay was a close friend of Mr. Bush and was present at the White House for those energy meetings, doing nothing on immigration, not voting on the Civil Rights Act lol (a Civil Rights Act for people who have been here since the late 1500’s, but illegals and other new citizens can vote without it), checking my internet searches, not looking for Bin Laden, Coingate, Plamegate, AIPAC-Gate, Abrahmoff, Delay-Gate. Frist-Gate, Hastert-Gate, Ney-Gate, Savavian, the three Homeland security officials who were caught trying to solicit minors for sex, Cunningham, Goss, Hooker-gate, Machine Gun Cheyney-Gate, and why is Laura sleeping somewhere other than the White House.
Just to name a few
RIP
SGT Stephen R. Sherman
C CO 1-5 Inf
KIA 03 Feb 05
Mosul, Iraq
Or as Tony Snow and the rest of the Repuppetcan’s would say
June 25th, 2006 at 1:04 pm#1462
#28 - As mentioned this morning on FOX…
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
Ok, I now know all I need to know about Jason M. Hendler.
June 25th, 2006 at 1:05 pmFolks, Jason Hendler is a lost cause. No matter what he is told or shown, he has his fingers in his ears, singing la-la-la-la.
June 25th, 2006 at 1:06 pmGive him up. — He is a goner.
woo hoo!, marie!
and yes, i kept thinking russ would say something like, i can’t speak for them, but his explanations were so great and strong and focused…
June 25th, 2006 at 1:09 pmso glad i watched him…
As mentioned this morning on FOX…
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!!!!!
We Have A Winner!!
RIP
SGT Stephen R. Sherman
C CO 1-5 Inf
KIA 03 Feb 05
Mosul, Iraq
Or as Tony Snow and the rest of the Repuppetcan’s would say
June 25th, 2006 at 1:11 pm#1462
Perhaps we need the soldiers deployed at home to “protect” the ballot boxes and Deibold machines.
June 25th, 2006 at 1:12 pmWhat was it that the Republican strategist once said? “You don’t roll out a new product in August.” I think that was it. And announcing a reduction of 7,000 troops from Iraq in September, sounds like someone just set a “timetable” to me. But when the recently announced call-up of an additional 21,000 troops for deployment to Iraq is figured in, there is no REAL reduction of troops, but an addition of 14,000 soldiers. They can (and will) say whatever they want, but it is all about political gain, nothing more.
June 25th, 2006 at 1:12 pm#32, Say What
June 25th, 2006 at 1:13 pmSgt. Sherman says it all in the last paragraph. Plain and simple. It’s all there, facts for all to see — but in the case of repuppetcans, deny.
Ok, I now know all I need to know about Jason M. Hendler.
Comment by Zookeeper — June 25, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
oh hell, zoo - when he first came on, after a few mostly-reasonable posts, he stated that he was reading coulter and that she was his hero… that’s all i needed…
yep, marie - a goner… just like this thread if we let it…
June 25th, 2006 at 1:16 pm#2 - Well said, and so true.
June 25th, 2006 at 1:17 pmO sure,katy,we know YOU would never bust up a thread.
June 25th, 2006 at 1:35 pmzookeeper - in case you read my post 40 as coming down on you, nope, no way…
June 25th, 2006 at 1:37 pmJason M. Hendler: We went in to remove a destabilizing force in the middle east (among other reasons), and we will leave when the country is a stable democracy.
The murderous Saddam Hussein was a stabilizing force which obstructed Iran, Bush’s #1 enemy, from taking over the Persian Gulf.
By deposing Saddam Hussein, Bush and his supporters like you have inadvertently fathered a burgeoning fundamentalist Islamic republic with extremely close ties to Iran, a so-called axis of evil’.
Thanks to you and Bush, we will leave when Iraq is a stable Islamic fundamentalist democracy.
June 25th, 2006 at 1:38 pm#43 - No offense taken, katy. I’ve mostly been ignoring Jason, until he commented that he has Asperger’s Syndrome. Then he piqued my interest. Now I see where his perseveration lies, so I’ll probably start ignoring him again. ;)
June 25th, 2006 at 1:43 pmgood to know, zoo… whew…
Comment by u-phony — June 25, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
is that you, un? whoever… you don’t have to hide…
June 25th, 2006 at 1:51 pmthat’s kinda phony, isn’t it?
is that you, un? whoever… you don’t have to hide…
that’s kinda phony, isn’t it?
Comment by katy
katy, I think that’s Denny in disguise.
June 25th, 2006 at 1:53 pmComment by Say What?! — June 25, 2006 @ 1:11 pm
You should send emails to Michael Moore so that he can get your words posted on his website. This is the second post of yours I have read, and I think you should be writing more like these. Coming from a soldier, they have a tremendous impact on anyone with a conscience.
Sorry about your friend. I can’t even imagine… I am very sorry you are over there in this illegal war. Please stay safe.
June 25th, 2006 at 1:57 pmis that you, un? whoever… you don’t have to hide…
that’s kinda phony, isn’t it?
Comment by katy — June 25, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
No, it’s not me. It’s not my character. And I’m not afraid of you (so need to hide). Why I call you out on your bullshit with this name. Like now. I have mostly been skipping your posts. Hard to do when I see my name in them…
Funny how you tell me it isn’t all about me, yet you can’t seem to stop thinking it’s all about you. Seems I’m not the only one who thinks you have issues…
June 25th, 2006 at 2:02 pm# 49—well said.
June 25th, 2006 at 2:13 pmyet you can’t seem to stop thinking it’s all about you.
Comment by unbelievable — June 25, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
ah hahahahahaha! that’s rich…
so, ok… i just wondered… a simple “no” would suffice…
and zoo, i don’t think it’s denny…
ah well… no sweat…
June 25th, 2006 at 2:18 pmHey, when the Democrats say draw down it means cut and run, so now that the Republicans are saying it - doesn’t it mean the same thing?
June 25th, 2006 at 2:25 pmSee, there you go katy, telling me the one right way to behave - your way.
You can think it’s me to feel better about me not liking your holier-than-thou attitude toward me to compensate for your own feelings of inadequacy (it’s extremely obvious) - but you’d be wrong. This is the only name I post under. I don’t need any others.
June 25th, 2006 at 2:27 pmSen. Levin is one of the fools in the Senate who has continued to fund the Iraq occupation, but now he is upset that Bush is twisting everything to help the GOP? DLC Democrats like Levin have cut their own throats by supporting the Iraq war, so they can resign for their stupidity!
June 25th, 2006 at 2:32 pm# 53–tell it like it is.
June 25th, 2006 at 2:34 pmwhew… talk about issues…
June 25th, 2006 at 2:37 pmIt’s no wonder that the income of the bottom 40 percent of America has FALLEN during this economy that Bush keeps telling us is fantastic. http://www.nytimes.com/ 2006/ 06/ 04/ business/ yourmoney/ 04view.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1149430487-UZxwgEA9zE6mSRkGxOC6/ Q It’s downright fantastic alright, if you are in the top 1/10th of 1 percent of America.
But another less publicized huge story is how Republicans have turned a blind eye to companies taking advantage of workers, and, what’s more, even letting management concoct lies in which they falsely blame American workers as hindering our competitiveness when management itself is the problem. Just one example which belatedly made the paper recently. In the much publicized case of GM teetering on bankruptcy, GM blamed pensions for its workers as hindering its competitiveness. The truth? That was a bald faced lie. Worker pensions, as reported in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (sorry “I am always†righties, you can’t fob this true story off as left propaganda as you do so many others), were in the black to the tune of over $9 billion, while EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT PENSIONS were in the red draining the company with over $1 billion in liabilities. And of course GM management tried to cover up how they were sitting their big fat air conditioned butts on the backs of US workers. See the story below.
Let me guess how many bloggers here fall into the management category that gets the $1 billion. Probably about the same as percentage of super-rich in society that get a huge disproportionate benefit from Bush’s tax favors for them, about 1 percent or less. Effectively, ZERO. That means all of you on this board who support Republicans have been duped by Rove & Crew: YOU VOTING AGAINST YOUR OWN INTERESTS. Sorry, I know it hurts. And you are still in stage 1 of the 5 stages of grief: DENIAL.
It will hurt one day and you will be very mad when you get to stage 2 (anger), but the real “fair and balanced†story is Republicans are hosing America and, on the other hand, Republicans are hosing America. Sometimes the truth just isn’t “fair and balanced.†It’s one way. Sometimes people are just plain greedy and bad.
Say what you want about the Democrats, but they don’t do this to people, and they would at least try to do something about this.
Maybe there’s a reason that 3 out of 4 of the last Republican Presidents were wracked with scandal, with Nixon thrown out of office in total disgrace, Reagan’s Administration hit with 29 convictions – yes no less than 29 convicted CRIMINALS in the Reagan Administration, and now we have a conviction in the procurement scandal, with more coming in the Bush Administration outing a CIA agent and thereby destroying our now sorely needed intelligence network in Iraq, Haliburton, ongoing rampant illegal warrantless spying, ongoing rampant torture, trumped up intelligence to justify a disastrous war in Iraq with false pretenses, gross negligence in responding to Katrina and now the aftermath, and massive corruption throughout the Bush Administration and Republican Congress. And the list goes on!
The Republican “leadershipâ€, or lack thereof, makes me sick to my stomach. We need oversight. We need Democrats in both Houses. We need to put the brakes on before Bush “doubles down†by rushing into Iran (roughly twice as big as Iraq in size/population) or even worse North Korea.
http://online.wsj.com/ article_print/ SB115103062578188438.html
Hidden Burden
As Workers’ Pensions Wither,
Those for Executives Flourish
Companies Run Up Big IOUs,
Mostly Obscured, to Grant
Bosses a Lucrative Benefit
The Billion-Dollar Liability
By ELLEN E. SCHULTZ and THEO FRANCIS
June 23, 2006; Page A1
To help explain its deep slump, General Motors Corp. often cites “legacy costs,” including pensions for its giant U.S. work force. In its latest annual report, GM wrote: “Our extensive pension and [post-employment] obligations to retirees are a competitive disadvantage for us.” Early this year, GM announced it was ending pensions for 42,000 workers.
But there’s a twist to the auto maker’s pension situation: The pension plans for its rank-and-file U.S. workers are overstuffed with cash, containing about $9 billion more than is needed to meet their obligations for years to come.
Another of GM’s pension programs, however, saddles the company with a liability of $1.4 billion. These pensions are for its executives.
This is the pension squeeze companies aren’t talking about: Even as many reduce, freeze or eliminate pensions for workers — complaining of the costs — their executives are building up ever-bigger pensions, causing the companies’ financial obligations for them to balloon.
Companies disclose little about any of this. But a Wall Street Journal analysis of corporate filings reveals that executive benefits are playing a large and hidden role in the declining health of America’s pensions. Among the findings:
• Boosted by surging pay and rich formulas, executive pension obligations exceed $1 billion at some companies. Besides GM, they include General Electric Co. (a $3.5 billion liability); AT&T Inc. ($1.8 billion); Exxon Mobil Corp. and International Business Machines Corp. (about $1.3 billion each); and Bank of America Corp. and Pfizer Inc. (about $1.1 billion apiece).
• Benefits for executives now account for a significant share of pension obligations in the U.S., an average of 8% at the companies above. Sometimes a company’s obligation for a single executive’s pension approaches $100 million.
• These liabilities are largely hidden, because corporations don’t distinguish them from overall pension obligations in their federal financial filings.
• As a result, the savings that companies make by curtailing pensions for regular retirees — which have totaled billions of dollars in recent years — can mask a rising cost of benefits for executives.
• Executive pensions, even when they won’t be paid till years from now, drag down earnings today. And they do so in a way that’s disproportionate to their size, because they aren’t funded with dedicated assets.
One reason executive pensions have grown so large is that they are linked to ballooning overall executive compensation. Companies often design retirement payouts to replace a percentage of what a person earns while active.
June 25th, 2006 at 2:48 pmBut for executives, the percentage of pay replaced is itself higher. Compensation committees often aim for a pension that replaces 60% to 100% of a top executive’s compensation. It’s 20% to 35% for lower-level employees.
Yes, katy, yours. You could have kept your delused accusation to yourself. But, no, you have the right to accuse me outloud rather unfairly and I have no right to call you on it? Yes, that is your issue alright.
June 25th, 2006 at 2:48 pmIt’s no wonder that the income of the bottom 40 percent of America has FALLEN during this economy that Bush keeps telling us is fantastic. http://www.nytimes.com/ 2006/ 06/ 04/ business/ yourmoney/ 04view.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1149430487-UZxwgEA9zE6mSRkGxOC6/ Q It’s downright fantastic alright, if you are in the top 1/10th of 1 percent of America.
But another less publicized huge story is how Republicans have turned a blind eye to companies taking advantage of workers, and, what’s more, even letting management concoct lies in which they falsely blame American workers as hindering our competitiveness when management itself is the problem. Just one example which belatedly made the paper recently. In the much publicized case of GM teetering on bankruptcy, GM blamed pensions for its workers as hindering its competitiveness. The truth? That was a bald faced lie. Worker pensions, as reported in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (sorry “I am always†righties, you can’t fob this true story off as left propaganda as you do so many others), were in the black to the tune of over $9 billion, while EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT PENSIONS were in the red draining the company with over $1 billion in liabilities. And of course GM management tried to cover up how they were sitting their big fat air conditioned butts on the backs of US workers. See the story below.
Say what you want about the Democrats, but they don’t do this to people, and they would at least try to do something about this.
The Republican “leadershipâ€, or lack thereof, makes me sick to my stomach. We need oversight. We need Democrats in both Houses. We need to put the brakes on before Bush “doubles down†by rushing into Iran (roughly twice as big as Iraq in size/population) or even worse North Korea.
http://online.wsj.com/ article_print/ SB115103062578188438.html
Hidden Burden
As Workers’ Pensions Wither,
Those for Executives Flourish
Companies Run Up Big IOUs,
Mostly Obscured, to Grant
Bosses a Lucrative Benefit
The Billion-Dollar Liability
By ELLEN E. SCHULTZ and THEO FRANCIS
June 23, 2006; Page A1
To help explain its deep slump, General Motors Corp. often cites “legacy costs,” including pensions for its giant U.S. work force. In its latest annual report, GM wrote: “Our extensive pension and [post-employment] obligations to retirees are a competitive disadvantage for us.” Early this year, GM announced it was ending pensions for 42,000 workers.
But there’s a twist to the auto maker’s pension situation: The pension plans for its rank-and-file U.S. workers are overstuffed with cash, containing about $9 billion more than is needed to meet their obligations for years to come.
Another of GM’s pension programs, however, saddles the company with a liability of $1.4 billion. These pensions are for its executives.
This is the pension squeeze companies aren’t talking about: Even as many reduce, freeze or eliminate pensions for workers — complaining of the costs — their executives are building up ever-bigger pensions, causing the companies’ financial obligations for them to balloon.
Companies disclose little about any of this. But a Wall Street Journal analysis of corporate filings reveals that executive benefits are playing a large and hidden role in the declining health of America’s pensions. Among the findings:
• Boosted by surging pay and rich formulas, executive pension obligations exceed $1 billion at some companies. Besides GM, they include General Electric Co. (a $3.5 billion liability); AT&T Inc. ($1.8 billion); Exxon Mobil Corp. and International Business Machines Corp. (about $1.3 billion each); and Bank of America Corp. and Pfizer Inc. (about $1.1 billion apiece).
• Benefits for executives now account for a significant share of pension obligations in the U.S., an average of 8% at the companies above. Sometimes a company’s obligation for a single executive’s pension approaches $100 million.
• These liabilities are largely hidden, because corporations don’t distinguish them from overall pension obligations in their federal financial filings.
• As a result, the savings that companies make by curtailing pensions for regular retirees — which have totaled billions of dollars in recent years — can mask a rising cost of benefits for executives.
• Executive pensions, even when they won’t be paid till years from now, drag down earnings today. And they do so in a way that’s disproportionate to their size, because they aren’t funded with dedicated assets.
One reason executive pensions have grown so large is that they are linked to ballooning overall executive compensation. Companies often design retirement payouts to replace a percentage of what a person earns while active.
June 25th, 2006 at 2:48 pmBut for executives, the percentage of pay replaced is itself higher. Compensation committees often aim for a pension that replaces 60% to 100% of a top executive’s compensation. It’s 20% to 35% for lower-level employees.
# 58–ca-ching!
June 25th, 2006 at 3:04 pmQuick shout out to the girls - I’M BACK, after a healthy lunch of chicken wings and Mountain Dew.
#44 Mustafa,
Now here is another interesting slant to this whole situation - the concept of Muslim nations, either as theocracies or Muslim democracies which invoke or reflect Sharia law. As Bush stated, the US should not expect that the people of Afghanistan and Iraq will choose to create democracies like the one we have in the US. Both are more parliamentary style like England, Canada or Israel, and while they are more socially liberal than the Islamic theocracies in Iran, they are far more restrictive than the west.
Europe themselves are facing pressure from their muslim populations to incorporate Sharia law into their legal systems, so I feel the tide is moving in the muslims direction. Moreover, muslims are displacing the native populations in Somalia and Sudan, and soon to be Chad and Niger, so more and more of Africa will become muslim, beating the Chinese and Indian immigrants in Kenya and other sub-Saharan African nations to the vast natural resources on the continent.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:12 pm[Troop withdrawals] shouldn’t be a political decision, but it is going to be with this administration
=======================
I find this statement hard to swallow. Wasn’t it a political decision, one created by think tanks and foreign policy experts and panels, secret meetings and WHIG groups formed, that started this political [regime change] war?
This war had been brewing in the minds of the political elite, inner circles, cabinet members, for some time. Bush, as incompetent as he is, had alot of help from alot of folks.
Of course it will be a political decision to get us out of Iraq, too bad that it has to come at the cost of election politics and not of foreign policy polity. This latest ploy shows the republicans to be on a power trip with the troops tokens to be tossed upon the table so they can keep there sorry asses in office.
“Power, money, resources, hatred and self-enrichment before man”
June 25th, 2006 at 3:14 pmThat should be the Coulter Republican ‘motto’
“delused”?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:21 pmkaty & unbelievable
Peace…
June 25th, 2006 at 3:24 pmJason,
You should eat healthier. Then maybe that crap you’re eating wouldn’t prevent reality from sinking in….
You really should read some non-biased sources for information, and then come to your own conclusions. Repeating the words of someone with an agenda to push makes you an accomplice.
Try Howard Zinn’s ‘A People’s History of the United States” He even criticized Bill Clinton, so that’s how you know he’s not biased… Check it out. One of the best books I ever read. And I used to be a conservative…
June 25th, 2006 at 3:24 pmexcellent post, sandman…
June 25th, 2006 at 3:26 pmJason M. Hendler: As Bush stated, the US should not expect that the people of Afghanistan and Iraq will choose to create democracies like the one we have in the US.
You are saying Bush actually intended to give the reins of power to Al Dawa, a decades old terrorist group with direct and long standing ties with Iran, i.e. a so-called `axis of evil’, whose leader has denied the fact of the Holocaust and has vowed to `wipe Israel of the map’?
You are saying it is acceptable that in total tens of thousands of people have been beheaded, tortured, raped, maimed, malnutrioned, drowned, burned, etc. for the sake of a burgeoning fundamentalist Islamic republic with extremely close and long standing ties to Iran, an axis of evil, whose leader has denied the fact of the Holocaust and has vowed to `wipe Israel of the map’?
Iraq: Bush’s Islamic Republic
By Peter W. Galbraith
NY Review of Books
SCIRI and Dawa want Iraq to be an Islamic state. They propose to make Islam the principal source of law, which most immediately would affect the status of women. For Muslim women, religious law—rather than Iraq’s relatively progressive civil code—would govern personal status, including matters relating to marriage, divorce, property, and child custody. A Dawa draft for the Iraqi constitution would limit religious freedom for non-Muslims, and apparently deny such freedom altogether to peoples not “of the book,” such as the Yezidis (a significant minority in Kurdistan), Zoroastrians, and Bahais.
This program is not just theoretical. Since Saddam’s fall, Shiite religious parties have had de facto control over Iraq’s southern cities. There Iranian-style religious police enforce a conservative Islamic code, including dress codes and bans on alcohol and other non-Islamic behavior. In most cases, the religious authorities govern—and legislate—without authority from Baghdad, and certainly without any reference to the freedoms incorporated in Iraq’s American-written interim constitution—the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL).
Dawa and SCIRI are not just promoting an Iranian-style political system —they are also directly promoting Iranian interests.
9/11 + Iraq = Bush’s Islamic Fundamentalist Republic in Iraq
June 25th, 2006 at 3:32 pm“delused�
Comment by katy — June 25, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
deluded
s is next to d on the keyboard…
June 25th, 2006 at 3:34 pmkaty & unbelievable
Peace…
Comment by Zookeeper — June 25, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
She isn’t capable. Notice she is the one who brings me up and not the other way around… I’m trying to ignore her. But if she plays dirty, I’m calling her on it.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:36 pm#67,mustafa,
All one can do in a democracy is allow the people to elect from their own population to govern them and to determine how they will be governed. If there is a problem down the road, we will deal with it, but there is NO greater moderating form of government than a republican democracy. All other forms are minority controlled, and subject to the whim of a small number of people.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:41 pmJason M. Hendler: I feel the tide is moving in the muslims direction
No?
Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?
F. Gregory Gause III
From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2005
Summary: The Bush administration contends that the push for democracy in the Muslim world will improve U.S. security. But this premise is faulty: there is no evidence that democracy reduces terrorism. Indeed, a democratic Middle East would probably result in Islamist governments unwilling to cooperate with Washington.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:41 pm# 68 & 69—zing and ZING!
June 25th, 2006 at 3:47 pmJason M. Hendler
Do you think in the post-9/11 world it is now far better that Iraq is a burgeoning fundamentalist Islamic republic with extremely close and long standing ties to Iran, an `axis of evil’, whose leader has denied the fact of the Holocaust and has vowed to `wipe Israel of the map’?
9/11 + Iraq = Bush’s Fundamentalist Islamic Republic
The Iranian nightmare
By Michael Schwartz
[snip]
June 25th, 2006 at 3:47 pmNow, over two years after Baghdad fell and the American occupation of Iraq began, Kagan’s prediction appears to have been fulfilled - in reverse. The chief beneficiary of the occupation and the chaos it produced has not been the Bush administration, but Iran, the most populous and powerful member of the “axis of evil” and the chief American competitor for dominance in the oil-rich region. As diplomatic historian Gabriel Kolko commented, “By destroying a united Iraq under [Saddam] Hussein … the US removed the main barrier to Iran’s eventual triumph.”
#71, mustafa,
You’ll get no arguement from me that Islamo-fascism is the single greatest threat to American security, and as much as we try to bring democracy to them, so that muslims have some outlet for their pent up frustrations, they still have a deep seeded resentment towards the US.
We are following the best course of action available to us, but that is no guarentee we can completely diffuse the tense relations between muslims and the west.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:49 pm# 68 & 69—zing and ZING!
Comment by u-phony — June 25, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
Stop it.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:57 pmJason M. Hendler: We are following the best course of action
On 9/11, the most horrific security breech in the history of the USA, nearly three thousand people and hundreds of billions of dollars in damage were incurred on 9/11 and the best course of action is to inadvertently father a burgeoning fundamentalist Islamic republic with extremely close and long standing ties to Iran, an `axis of evil’, whose leader has denied the fact of the Holocaust and has vowed to `wipe Israel of the map’?
June 25th, 2006 at 4:35 pm#76, mustafa,
You have your facts right, islamo-fascism is already at a point beyond our ability to counter them. I wish Israel a lot of luck, yet they seem to know how to handle them.
June 25th, 2006 at 4:42 pmTo Jason M. Hendler:
Question: Is the burgeoning fundamentalist Islamic republic in Iraq justice for the horrific attacks of 9/11?
Question: Is the burgeoning fundamentalist Islamic republic in Iraq worth the oceans of blood and treasure being spilled for it?
June 25th, 2006 at 4:44 pmJason M. Hendler: I wish Israel a lot of luck
Well, aren’t you a sweetheart!
Thanks to Bush and supporters like you, Israel is now more threatened.
You’re doin a huckuva job Hendi!
June 25th, 2006 at 4:49 pm#78, mustafa,
Your attempts to equate justice and cost with the clash of cultures we are now experiencing is misplaced. In Tony Blankley’s latest book, he shows how far along we are in a clash of cultures in which mutual assimilation is unlikely, and a bloody conflict inevitable. There will be no justice, and there will be great loss of life and property to come. We are entering a period similar to pre-WWI or pre-WWII, and it will not be pretty.
June 25th, 2006 at 4:49 pmit’s ISLAMONAZISM to be more accurate…
fascism is closer to corportism, and that’s far removed from islam…
June 25th, 2006 at 4:56 pmbut why the u.s. is considered to be sliding down that path…
if not there…
#81, katy,
Good point, islamic-fascism is religion based, not industry based, as Nazi and Japanese fascism was, so fascism is a hard comparison, but nothing else is as close.
June 25th, 2006 at 5:06 pmnazi fascism???
June 25th, 2006 at 5:11 pmhoo boy…
#83, katy,
hmmmm, are you not aware that Nazis were a fascist party, as were the Brown shirts in Italy and the Japanese in WWII?
What am I missing in your hoo boy comment?
June 25th, 2006 at 5:36 pmConservatives have criticized progressives for suggesting a redeployment of troops in Iraq, saying they wanted to “cut and run.†But it looks like conservatives are willing to adopt redeployment when it will help them get re-elected in the fall, instead of now, when it is good policy.
Uh huh, because “bring the troops home now” is definitely not a political platform. Nope, not at all! I think it would be disgraceful if the Bush administration withdrew troops on a timetable according to politics. However, it didn’t happen before the 2004 election. We’ll see what happens in October and in 2008. Right now, it sounds like prominent Democrats trying to allege the Republicans are playing politics with the troops, precisely because that’s exactly what they’re doing.
What would many Democrats have for their Iraq policy to assuage their constituents other than “bring the troops home now”? Nothing. That is their entire political platform for Iraq that is directly to due with the Left’s demand that we get out of Iraq immediately.
It has nothing to do with what is the best idea for Iraq our ourselves. Even the Iraqis in general want us to stay at least for 6 more months, and then based on the security situation.
June 25th, 2006 at 5:58 pm# 75–o.k.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:10 pmThe Bush Republicans put politics above people, and election time above everything else.
Since Bush listens to only about 10 people in the entire world, and since the Bush Republicans only listen to Bush and their corporate and lobbyist campaign donors, it is entirely suspect that the Bush Republicans (and the few DINOs) would suddenly “come up with” a plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq all by themselves.
Therefore, logic suggests that the only reason they came up with this plan is because it was set into works by Bush’s 10 advisors, to help the Bush Republicans look like they “care” about America and our troops, conveniently in time for elections.
Don’t be a fool and fall for it. This is to get votes and nothing else. Because as soon as the elections are over, regardless of who wins and loses, this “plan” will suddenly evaporate and it will be back to the business as usual of occupying Iraq. I bet you anything on that.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:45 pmSTOP THE BULLSHIT.
THERE IS NOT ONE PERSON IN POSITION OF AUTHORITY WHO HAS SAID THAT ANY TROOPS WILL BE REDEPLOYED FROM IRAQ; NOT THIS SEPTEMBER OR ANY OTHER TIME.
When will the idiots who misinterpret these things start reading between their own lines?
LORD, read what it is transcribed here (however briefly):
WALLACE: Alright, Senator Levin, there’s also a report today that General Casey, the top commander of all foreign forces in Iraq, has laid out to plan…
“there’s a report today”…
NOT A QUOTE OR STATEMENT FROM GEN. CASEY OR ANY OTHER ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL!
“there’s a report today”…
WHY DO SUCH LIBERAL IDIOTS HOLD SUCH A DULL KNIFE TO THIS NONSENSE-SPEAK?
LORD, talk about the idiot creatures you do make, and the lies they do believe, and the head-fakes they go for…
GO AHEAD IDIOTS, POP THE CHAMPAIGNE CORKS…
Celebrate Troop withdrawal from Iraq!
But before you get too drunk, answer me a single simple question:
Which administration official or Command Officer has said any U.S. Troops shall be redeployed from Iraq, in September or at any time?
Give an exact name to the things you dream others are saying, because the answer to the question of who in authority is saying Troops will be redployed from Iraq is…
NOBODY!
READ BETWEEN YOUR OWN LINES, IDIOTS.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:54 pmAmazed,
The Bush Republicans put politics above people, and election time above everything else.
So that’s why they pulled out all those troops before the 2004 election. Wait a minute…
Politicians of all flavors put politics above people, but no one can say that the Bush administration has played politics with the deployment of troops in Iraq. Not yet, anyway.
June 25th, 2006 at 7:11 pm# 75–o.k.
Comment by u-phony — June 25, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
Thank you :)
June 25th, 2006 at 7:23 pmBack on thread - Isn’t it just TOO delicious having Dem Leads criticize ANYONE for playing politics???? It’s called politics. (Hint: On the baseball field, they play b-a-s-e-b-a-l-l.) And ALL this from the Party who thought the cliche, “Culture of Corruption” was going to propel them to victory in November….bahhahahahahaaa…..
’til later…..
June 25th, 2006 at 7:44 pmInteresting how all the regular trolls at TP are male…
June 25th, 2006 at 7:50 pmhey !watch that
June 25th, 2006 at 8:06 pmHey watch it I can handle comments about my spelling but you should watch the sexism
June 25th, 2006 at 8:08 pmsoon you’ll be sound”ing like moon batand I quotehey maybe you can find a black,jewish, transexual,child molester fag who who has had a few abortions to run .Careful now don’t get hung up
June 25th, 2006 at 8:10 pmas for hermaphrodite’s baseball metaphor there are 2 ways to see the game .#1 its not whether you win or lose but how you play the game (implying ethical behavior)#2 winning is everything (implying none)Do you think rove cheats at poker too?
June 25th, 2006 at 8:15 pmunbelievable,
Interesting how all the regular trolls at TP are male…
Yes, it’s a massive conspiracy, just like everything else is to you. You might have taken a clue that most people commenting at blogs are male, but no, you never got the memo. According to MyDD.com blog demographics survey, 75% of bloggers and blog readers are male.
It seems you think fairly obvious things are “interesting”. That might be because you are too busy wrapped up in your conspiratorial mind rather than just looking at the reality in which you find yourself.
June 25th, 2006 at 8:15 pmand I believe the mighty nighty is a jewish soccer mom if I recall correctly and I don’t see how that bares on the conversation!
June 25th, 2006 at 8:17 pmyeah 92 I hear ya! all the trolls are men and the moonbat-progressives are all girls or wannabe-girls.
June 25th, 2006 at 8:18 pmtrue men fight for their country, moonbats run and hide and act like girls. Oh no how terribly un-politically correct of me! sniff oh we must stamp out that eveil, evil sexism… another paranoia brought to you by the wonderful folks who brought you politcal correctness, turning chicken in Iraq and hating America.
you moonbats are slipping… I am starting get just a leeetle disappointed in ya’ll…..
Sure despite the fact that virtually bushes entire cabinet is made of of oil execs and that all our supposed resons for killing 10’sof 1000’sof civillians have turned out to be false and the fact that these same people wrote of their intention of invading the mid east to control that oil theres no reason to suppose theres a conspiracy afoot .
June 25th, 2006 at 8:23 pmIt must be difficult defending your heroes when they actually put their names to papers saying they intended to invade the mid east years before 911 but that and I quote “barring a national catastrophy it will be hard to galvanize the american public behind such a scheme”
June 25th, 2006 at 8:28 pmyou will have to spread the guano pretty thick to obscure the facts bat, maybe you should just stick to hate speak and ugly racial slurs ,they seem to be more your style
June 25th, 2006 at 8:31 pmreal men fight for whats right and thats what I’m doing here real men don’t condone torture or wars of aggression or maybe thats just political correctness you really need help with your attitude ! maybe you should take up yoga or get a pet
June 25th, 2006 at 8:38 pmReal men? 103? Ask the russian embassy staff? you twit
June 25th, 2006 at 8:43 pmcome again I’m sensing a bit of umberage
June 25th, 2006 at 8:55 pminsults are all you folks seem capable of .How about a reasoned arguement and an open mind or anything but nasty name calling. didn’t you learn any manners as a child ?
June 25th, 2006 at 8:58 pmReal men, condone? wars of agression? condone? I don’t condone anything… I support our troops because I was one. I want to bring our troops home as much as anyone, but the job has to be done and our troops know that. Making everyting a politial point just plays into the enemy’s (yes we have enemys} hands. Glad these people were not here during wwii
June 25th, 2006 at 9:03 pmAs i just said I can understand it must be difficult when your leaders signed their names to a statement saying they planned to commit a war crime before 911 and your patriotism leaves no room for the constitution
June 25th, 2006 at 9:04 pmOkay I can buy that and I do support the soldiers over there who had no part in planning this war
June 25th, 2006 at 9:06 pmConstitution has been adheered to, check the votes. If you want to stick up but up in the air and say have at it, go ahead.
June 25th, 2006 at 9:07 pmBut a war of agression is what this is and our enemies are also people whose countries have been walked allover by us .The US backed saddam with full knowledge of the butcher he was
June 25th, 2006 at 9:07 pmPlanning the war? hmmmmm….. may I ask? who do you think planned the war?
June 25th, 2006 at 9:09 pmI dont see this as a “war of agression” I and everyone i know want out at the first opportunity….. what are we getting out of a ” war of agression” if you had this argument when we were fighting the indians here. i’d say yeah, now i say your crazy.
June 25th, 2006 at 9:11 pmhabeas corpus GONE the gov’t monitoring phone records computer records you must not have been getting news there .If you condone the presidency assuming tacit dictatorial powers Telling congress it doesn’t tofollow the laws passed by the legislative branch (signing statement) then I must confess Idon’t know what your fighting for
June 25th, 2006 at 9:13 pmThe project for a new american century of which virtually bushes entire cabinet belongs to published and signed that they intended to invade the mid east for its oil before 911
June 25th, 2006 at 9:15 pmGot nothing to hide, I make 9 international calls a month, I expect (demand) it.
June 25th, 2006 at 9:16 pmGood
June 25th, 2006 at 9:17 pmyou won’t see that on cnn but it is public record and that”barring a national catastrophy it would be hard to galvanize the american public behind such a scheme
June 25th, 2006 at 9:17 pmI now have grandkids, I believe in america, i believe in them
June 25th, 2006 at 9:19 pmyou don’t care if this administaion planned and broadcast plans to invade the mid east for its oil before 911?
June 25th, 2006 at 9:19 pmI dont think we need to leave what was a great society the beginnings of SOMALIA which we were directed to leave because of 19 deaths.
June 25th, 2006 at 9:21 pmyou want them to die for world domination through control of the rest of the planets oil supply ?Iraq was not involved in 911 and the 911 commission stated this in its findings
June 25th, 2006 at 9:21 pmlove your country fear your gov’t Its why we have a constitution in the first placeif the founding fathers trusted big gov’t they wouldn’t have written it .Dictators happen
June 25th, 2006 at 9:23 pmI beleve in america, I dont think we should stick our ass up for anyone, especally for our kids. Now lets talks about how many dogs you have in this fight. What’s your stake?
June 25th, 2006 at 9:26 pmpre meditated war is a war crime Pre emptive war is lawyer speak for aggression.Ilove my country toobut the flag is somuch less important to me than what itstands for FREEDOM LIBERTY TOLERANCE The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
June 25th, 2006 at 9:28 pmWow freeman, you dont get out much do you, I can send you some tennis balls for your walker
June 25th, 2006 at 9:28 pmSo 125, Give up?
June 25th, 2006 at 9:30 pmwhy are we in iraq lets start there My stake here is obvious I’man american with a wife of 21 years and 3 children
June 25th, 2006 at 9:30 pmPremeditated? Hmmmmmmmmm seems the votes were there, senate, congress, etc. More votes here than for wwii
June 25th, 2006 at 9:32 pmWow, you shouldn’t have had kids, I wouldn’t if I wereso afraid of my government.
June 25th, 2006 at 9:34 pmour country has been assasinating democratically elected leaders toppling democratically ellected gov’ts and supporting horrific dictatorships for 50 years+you don’t thinkthat breeds terrorism .Saddam is just one example Rumsfeld brokered arms deals with him so he could attack Iran in a truly horrific war because the CIA couldnt topple the democratically elected gov’t there after 3 attempts .Do you think that made my kids safer?
June 25th, 2006 at 9:36 pmI had kids when are worst scandals here involved the presidents sex life
June 25th, 2006 at 9:38 pmWow freeman, didn’t know that, you suspect any other countries do that?
June 25th, 2006 at 9:39 pmso you would trust any gov’t that came to pass .Now its you who are naive.History has very few good examples before the west over the last 70years or so.
June 25th, 2006 at 9:40 pmstill havent answered my question.Doyou think arming saddam made my kids safer?
June 25th, 2006 at 9:42 pmIm niave, while your sex president was in power, we deployed to somolia, we ran, yes ran after 19 were killed. Trust, trust only goes so far, if we are willing to commit and unwilling to finish then go ahead and kill your kids…. this country wont be here much longer.
June 25th, 2006 at 9:45 pmIm not a democrat I believe both paties are owned at present by large international corporations
June 25th, 2006 at 9:48 pmyeah we gave iraq weapons, you conveniently forget iran and 400 days of holding our dick in our hands while carter masterbated in the rose garden. oh damn, carter gave them the weapons………….. then regan continued.
June 25th, 2006 at 9:48 pmFunny thing though, during desert storm all the weapons were russian or chinese.
June 25th, 2006 at 9:50 pmwhy do you think we are in Iraq ?Wouldn’t it bother you to know 100 000 died so we could control the worlds oil suppy and that the members of administration wrote of their intentiontoinvade before they even were in office
June 25th, 2006 at 9:51 pmdid we arm saddam?
June 25th, 2006 at 9:52 pmNO, would it bother you that over a million died before we got there?
June 25th, 2006 at 9:52 pmSaddam only had a 45 and sward.
June 25th, 2006 at 9:54 pmwrong this was after the revolution in Iran regan armed saddam because of the fear that the revolutionaries in Iran might fool with mid east oil in the gulf
June 25th, 2006 at 9:54 pmIf you were iranian and the uS overthrew your gov’t twice would you like the US?
June 25th, 2006 at 9:56 pmAnother liberal bs thought, whats it matter? did we arm the afghans? how bout some 200 other countries. bogus bs and u know it.
June 25th, 2006 at 9:56 pmIf I ere IRANIAN, i’d be concerned, but I aint.
June 25th, 2006 at 9:58 pmI grew upin new york with good friends who had fled Chile after the US assassinated Allende .30,000 Chilians were rounded up systematically and slaughtered for their political beliefs >Do you think thats allright ?The world court found Kissenger guilty of war crimes in absentia ?Do other human lives matter outside american lives ?
June 25th, 2006 at 10:01 pmFreeman, I really hope you win the lottery so you can live your dream. Some good places to look at are some of the old soviet block countries who truly like americans, oh wait, they may not like you. Some of the islands maybe, what the hell, buy your own. Its apparent you dont like it here. bye
June 25th, 2006 at 10:02 pmnot very christian of you is it
June 25th, 2006 at 10:02 pmso obviously you can understand why we might have terrorists that hate us Doesn’t that worry you ?
June 25th, 2006 at 10:04 pm“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.â€
June 25th, 2006 at 10:05 pmGoering at nuremberg
Again ur facts on Chile are wrong… by the way who was president then? u have 10 sec, no internet lookups. Dont remember our troops being there? u chilian
June 25th, 2006 at 10:05 pmIf that passes as patriotism for you than I think it is you who should move sir You seem to have no conscience or concept of what makes this country great .I’m here to stay.
June 25th, 2006 at 10:08 pmCIA NIXON
June 25th, 2006 at 10:10 pmThese policies are whats created our present problems .
June 25th, 2006 at 10:13 pmtsk tsk freeman, has nothing to do with patotism. your so discontented and i so hate to see you suffer. your children are suffering. and my concept of what makes this country great is strength, not weak knee’d no child responses like yours. If your an illegal immagrant you probably like this site.
June 25th, 2006 at 10:13 pmByw, cia was created in the 40’s
June 25th, 2006 at 10:14 pmwe are unsafe because of thos