Colin Powell: I'm not reading this, This is bulls- - -.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I was too young . . . my favorite early Prez was Reagan . . . until I learned to read. My understanding of Carter is that he was not a particularly good administrator (which a President should be) and the Democratic Congress wanted to rule after tolerating years of Nixon and Ford. I do not know enough to say Carter's policies were particularly inept . . . just that he lacked an ability to motivate the people (another worthwhile presidential trait).

During the energy crisis, Carter proposed shared sacrifice which did not go over well . . . despite the fact the best way to deal with foreign energy dependence is to use less and use what you must more efficiently. Carter also proposed basic national healthcare which was opposed by Liberals that wanted a more generous plan and various special interests that did not want to yield money or power (AMA, health insurance, drug companies) . . . not to mention commiephobes. By definition, Carter was a moderate pol with progressive ideas on healthcare and the environment.

Carter inherited bad foreign policy (although he did not correct it) in Indonesia, Iran, and Israel which culminated in a populist overthrow of the Shah and oil embargo which devastated our country's moral and economy. But since you have so much knowledge on the geopolitical and economic issues of the 70s . . . how about you explain how Carter policies and NOT the residual effects of the embargo or American business practice/consumer behavior.

Contrary to the limited think of the right, it is likely Volcker's actions at the Fed NOT Reagan that facilitated the abatement of inflation.

What America looked like before Carter took office
Yet back before the days of OPEC, the great oil companies often retained 65% or more of the revenue from a product that was produced on someone else's property.

President Nixon, as part of his ill-fated price control program, had slapped controls on oil in March 1973. The U.S., which had been self-sufficient in energy as recently as 1950, was now importing some 35% of its energy needs. U.S. petroleum reserves were nearly gone. Governments, corporations and individuals were entirely unprepared for what would happen next.

The embargo in the U.S. came at a time when 85% of American workers drove to their places of employment each day. Suddenly, President Nixon had to set the nation on a course of voluntary rationing. He called upon homeowners to turn down their thermostats and for companies to trim work hours. Gas stations were asked to hold their sales to a max of ten gallons per customer.

In the month of November 1973, Nixon proposed an extension of Daylight Savings Time and a total ban on the sale of gasoline on Sunday's. [Both were later approved by Congress.] But the biggest legislative initiative was the approval by Congress on November 13 of a Trans-Alaskan oil pipeline, designed to supply 2,000,000 barrels of oil a day.

A severe recession hit much of the Western world, including the U.S., and as gasoline lines snaked their way around city blocks and tempers flared (the price at the pump had risen from 30 cents a gallon to about $1.20 at the height of the crisis), conspiracy theories abounded.


Grolier on Carter
On assuming office in 1977, President Carter inherited an economy that was slowly emerging from a recession. He had severely criticized former President Ford for his failures to control inflation and relieve unemployment, but after four years of the Carter presidency, both inflation and unemployment were considerably worse than at the time of his inauguration. The annual inflation rate rose from 4.8% in 1976 to 6.8% in 1977, 9% in 1978, 11% in 1979, and hovered around 12% at the time of the 1980 election campaign. Although Carter had pledged to eliminate federal deficits, the deficit for the fiscal year 1979 totaled $27.7 billion, and that for 1980 was nearly $59 billion. With approximately 8 million people out of work, the unemployment rate had leveled off to a nationwide average of about 7.7% by the time of the election campaign, but it was considerably higher in some industrial states.

Carter also faced a drastic erosion of the value of the U.S. dollar in the international money markets, and many analysts blamed the decline on a large and persistent trade deficit, much of it a result of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The president warned that Americans were wasting too much energy, that domestic supplies of oil and natural gas were running out, and that foreign supplies of petroleum were subject to embargoes by the producing nations, principally by members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). In mid-1979, in the wake of widespread shortages of gasoline, Carter advanced a long-term program designed to solve the energy problem. He proposed a limit on imported oil, gradual price decontrol on domestically produced oil, a stringent program of conservation, and development of alternative sources of energy such as solar, nuclear, and geothermal power, oil and gas from shale and coal, and synthetic fuels. In what was probably his most significant domestic legislative accomplishment, he was able to get a significant portion of his energy program through Congress.

 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Care to wager a democrat winning in 2004? The only way would be if a more moderate republican candidate came along to steal enough votes(*cough* Perot *cough*) to allow one of the Berkeley fanboys like Dean(may God help us if he is ever elected, would make the Carter administration look progressive) elected.

Are you ignorant of Carter or just lack the aptitude for appropriate contrasts and comparisons? By common usage, Carter was a moderate Progressive . . . who also proposed National Healthcare which was derailed by the Democrats and various special interests. Most moderates embrace the notion that people are ultimately responsible for the outcome of their lives but government can assist significantly . . . as opposed to idiotic notions on the far right (government is ALWAYS a problem unless you are bombing someone) and the far left (government has a solution for everything).

Ever hear of inflation and rampant unemployment. A disaster both locally and overseas. His ineptitude knew no bounds. It was not until the last 6 months of his administration that he actually did anything worthy of being called presidential, by then it was too late to salvage any reelection possibilities and as such he was defeted soundly the next election.

Did you like the Carter admin?

rolleye.gif


You see to forget who really won election 2000 by 500,000 votes which was Gore, not to mention that Nader got at least 100,000 votes.

Bush won over moderates and progressives because of his campaign of compassionate conservativism, not only did he break most of his promises running under the guise of someone "compassionate" but he has shown to be very much far right.

All the liberals would have to do is stand behind a democrat canadiate after the primaries whether it be Kerry or Lieberman, and Bush would lose miserably.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
3
76
As I said before, this is not going to happen, believe it or not the large majority of voters(both registered republicans and democrats) are moderates. These voters are not going to vote for someone who is a right wing fanatic nor a left wing fanboy. Until the democrats wake up and smell the mocha cappucino and realize that the majority of the people don't want to hear their die hard left wing politics, they will lose both the presidency in 2004 as well as even more seats in the senate and house.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,433
6,090
126
Emotionally repressed people love to hate and talk radio has taught people that to hate is OK, Christian, and Republican. The repression of Damnation Christianity tied to Republicanism is a free ticket to hell. I don't see any way to stop the train. I think the country will die in the way of all infected organisms.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Emotionally repressed people love to hate and talk radio has taught people that to hate is OK, Christian, and Republican. The repression of Damnation Christianity tied to Republicanism is a free ticket to hell. I don't see any way to stop the train. I think the country will die in the way of all infected organisms.

You're probably right. Now why don't you move to Pakistan?
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Powell and Blair got what they deserved for being Bush's lapdogs.

I still think they can save some credibility if it turns out they received hokey intelligence. Blair's case is a bit more complicated b/c British intelligence should have independent knowledge of Saddam's regime. Throughout the past year Blair's statements were typically less dramatic than the claims of the Bush admin.

Powell serves at the President's behalf . . . if he had serious doubts he should have resigned just like Cook did in the UK.

Of course, it is always possible than we will find an underground labyrinth filled with WMD.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until the last half of the decade.
Yeah, I distinctly remember Cheney and Bush saying Iraq wouldn't be making nukes for years.
rolleye.gif


In the absence of inspectors, Baghdad's already considerable ability to work on prohibited programs without risk of discovery has increased, and there is substantial evidence that Iraq is reconstituting prohibited programs. Baghdad's vigorous concealment efforts have meant that specific information on many aspects of Iraq's WMD programs is yet to be uncovered. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information.
Let me guess . . . substantial is two trucks.

Iraq is unlikely to produce indigenously enough weapons-grade material for a deliverable nuclear weapon until the last half of this decade. Baghdad could produce a nuclear weapon within a year if it were able to procure weapons-grade fissile material abroad.
Why don't they try Niger . . .

Baghdad did not provide persuasive evidence to support its claims that it unilaterally destroyed its BW agents and munitions.
But now Rumsfeld claims they might have destroyed it before the war.


If we had ALL this intelligence before the war . . . why couldn't the inspectors find anything (with US assistance) and why have we not found anything now that we can longer blame Saddam for being obstructionist? Granted, we cannot find Saddam either so maybe he's got the stash with him.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
In the event that the 'solid' evidence of WMD turns out to be false/forged/exaggerated, I think it should be made public. At the point it becomes clear that the 'solid' evidence isn't worth squat, what difference does it make if the sources are at risk of being compromised? (I don't think I'd trust anything from those sources ever again anyways)

 

hagbard

Banned
Nov 30, 2000
2,775
0
0
Originally posted by: Zrom999
Maybe this whole Iraq thing was a huge, highly complex, well thought out, diabolical plot to... make Powell look like an ass when nothing turns up. Haha, bad joke.

If this was genuine intel, someone in the CIA needs to be fired. This is what happens when your source of info is disgruntled people, opposition groups, and opportunist who would benefit from Saddam's removal. They would tell the US what they wanted to hear just to get them to do their dirty work. Or its more likely the US deliberately used these false intel reports a justification for their true, unbenign intentions in that region.

Which is what I've been saying for six months.

 

tweakmm

Lifer
May 28, 2001
18,436
4
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Excuse my while I break-up the high-fiving, cork-popping, and back slapping.
rolleye.gif


CIA lying too?
The CIA doing something dishonest??? Say it ain't so guy!
There is probably a trail of white powder all the way to Tenet's office.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Boy, i'm sure proud to be an american right now!
You should be proud . . . every American will stand behind our country's responsibility to rebuild Iraq and how many others do you think would tolerate a raucous debate before an invasion and (hopefully) indepth investigations afterwards?! If this was an intelligence failure, heads will roll. If this was cooked up evidence, heads will roll. Regardless, at least one country has a significantly less oppressive government than before the war. The ends NEVER justify the means but the Bush administration will have history on its side when it comes to judging the quality of the liberation . . . the occupation will be a totally different story.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Excuse my while I break-up the high-fiving, cork-popping, and back slapping.
rolleye.gif


CIA lying too?

CkG

Yes.

So they lied to Clinton too?

CkG

May well be. What does that have to do with anything? Your link is dated October, 2002. Clinton may have dragged his feet, but I'm pretty sure he was out of the White House before then.

Oh, for the record, I didn't say the CIA lied to Bush. I think they lied for Bush. All the difference in the world.

Some Bush apologists like to cloud the issue by mixing the past with the present. They point to old U.N. or CIA reports as "proof" that Iraq has WMDs today, or at least prior to the start of the war. Pure BS. We all know Iraq had chemical and biological materials -- past tense. The question is whether it still had them when we invaded. You can't use Clinton-era intelligence data to claim that Iraq still had these weapons in 2002.

 

hagbard

Banned
Nov 30, 2000
2,775
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Boy, i'm sure proud to be an american right now!
You should be proud . . . every American will stand behind our country's responsibility to rebuild Iraq and how many others do you think would tolerate a raucous debate before an invasion and (hopefully) indepth investigations afterwards?! If this was an intelligence failure, heads will roll. If this was cooked up evidence, heads will roll. Regardless, at least one country has a significantly less oppressive government than before the war. The ends NEVER justify the means but the Bush administration will have history on its side when it comes to judging the quality of the liberation . . . the occupation will be a totally different story.

"Investigation". God. What do they need to "investigate"? This has gone exactly as it was planned out years and years ago. bababa....
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Powell and Blair got what they deserved for being Bush's lapdogs.

I still think they can save some credibility if it turns out they received hokey intelligence. Blair's case is a bit more complicated b/c British intelligence should have independent knowledge of Saddam's regime. Throughout the past year Blair's statements were typically less dramatic than the claims of the Bush admin.

Powell serves at the President's behalf . . . if he had serious doubts he should have resigned just like Cook did in the UK.

Of course, it is always possible than we will find an underground labyrinth filled with WMD.

The only thing is that senior analysts provided good intel before the war. That was suppressed by higher ups at the request of the administration. Basically, it was "we do not want to see anything that does not agree with the President's perspective" That gives plausable deniability as an option. Like the Contra affair.

As far as finding WMD's, that is not the point BBD, at least not mine. How many atomic bombs do you need to find to change a lie to the truth? Fact is that it was make very clear that Saddam had these weapons, we knew it for a fact, and we knew what and where they were. Well, oops! No, nothing can fix that.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
The only thing is that senior analysts provided good intel before the war. That was suppressed by higher ups at the request of the administration. Basically, it was "we do not want to see anything that does not agree with the President's perspective" That gives plausable deniability as an option. Like the Contra affair.

Busa, Bush may claim ignorance but who would believe him when the majority of the country was opposed to war as late as early February . . . in part b/c they were unconvinced at the evidence presented. Who would believe this administration had evidence so damning they were convinced there was significant WMD in Iraq but had NO idea that some intelligence was not credible? We were having a worldwide debate as to the quality and quantity of evidence for Saddam's "global threatening" WMD program.

At this point, the opposition from France, Russia, Germany (and China on the DL) begins to look less and less like self serving "Weasels" . . . granted they are still self-serving . . . and more like reasoned assessment of the actual risk. France, Russia, and China were prepared to invest billions in Iraqi oilfields AND signed 1441! Of course they signed it . . . they did not expect inspectors to find much and certainly nothing to the scope intimated by Bush. They should know since they sold a lot of material to Saddam.

Bush led this parade at least gave the impression he led the parade. At the very least, this episode may help Congress grow a spine.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
The problem BBD I am concerned about this is the malleable view people take when reviewing recent history. How many times did the reason for the war change? How many times have we seen those here go into a tirade about the poor Iraqis and how we went in to liberate them, while before the fact, they said it was about WMD's and not liberation? You may recall that a few stood firm against this war, not letting the wool be pulled over our eyes, but a great many reluctantly gave into the justification presented by the administration. Will it be any better after the fact? I fear not. Selective memory, and excuses made in hindsight will cover the trail of either immorality, criminal stupidity or both.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Excuse my while I break-up the high-fiving, cork-popping, and back slapping.
rolleye.gif


CIA lying too?

CkG

Yes.

So they lied to Clinton too?

CkG

May well be. What does that have to do with anything? Your link is dated October, 2002. Clinton may have dragged his feet, but I'm pretty sure he was out of the White House before then.

Oh, for the record, I didn't say the CIA lied to Bush. I think they lied for Bush. All the difference in the world.

Some Bush apologists like to cloud the issue by mixing the past with the present. They point to old U.N. or CIA reports as "proof" that Iraq has WMDs today, or at least prior to the start of the war. Pure BS. We all know Iraq had chemical and biological materials -- past tense. The question is whether it still had them when we invaded. You can't use Clinton-era intelligence data to claim that Iraq still had these weapons in 2002.

So if you admit that Saddam had them, where did they go? The resolutions said he had to destroy them and account for them. If WMD possed a threat back in 1998, then WMD pose a threat today. All Saddam had to do was show proof of the destruction and we'd have been satisfied a long time ago(if he followed the rest of the cease-fire agreement too;) ). There is no "clouding", Intel showed they had them, no proof shows they were destroyed - end of story. Sure, some intelligence reports turned out to be wrong, but "intelligence" is always a calculated risk. Infact, I'm glad our intelligence was wrong about the strength and willingness of the Republican guard to fight(err on the side of caution). I'm not necessarily using Clinton-era intelligence to justify this attack - the Clinton stuff is to show that he used the same argument(wmd) to attack Iraq, and that the intelligence he used was gleaned from the same agencies Bush used today.

CkG
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
CkG, the problem I have been trying to address is that there was a lot of intel that said HE DID NOT have WMD's. The administration selectively choose the reports not based on their merits, but whether they verified Bush's ideas. I do not mean the reports were half and half. No, most quality reports discarded the WMD claims. This is something I have brought up now and again since before the war.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,433
6,090
126
I'm afraid I agree with you Hay. Congress will not grow a spine, nobody will be the wiser, everybody was played for as a chump. Natural organic shame will prevent people from seeing they were sucker punched. Who wants to admit they were a tool used in the commission of a crime. I see nothing coming of this but an attempt on the right to deflect it by claiming its just another wacko left wing political charge designed to smear the President. Who's going to admit the President murdered our soldiers in a religious war the intentions of which he couldn't publicly divulge because the people would have stopped him. The military was used as a weapon of religious fanaticism. Can't let that get out.