Last time I checked the stats was 96, at the time, labor unions represented about 13% of the US workforce.

But if you took out employees of state and federal governmental agencies, that number dropped to less than 3%.

No, not trying to pick a fight with Dave. Anecdotally, I've worked with and know some smart, hard working federal employees. In my experience (6 years with a defense contractor) they were rare.

If we're going to achieve accountability and efficiency in that environment, we're going to have to break more unions.

There are no fiscal conservatives in the running. The only real fiscal conservatives left are people like Gingrich and Scarborough, neither of which would survive even the primaries in NH.

I know McCain says he's fiscally conservative, but he offers no proof other than words. I agree that we have to find one soon. Otherwise the republicans will turn into a simply pro-life movement, just as the democrats are no more than a pro-choice movement (with a little anti-war thrown in for flavor). This non-issue has taken over politics and allows both Dems and Reps to sidestep important problems in our government.

Plus, it really p's me off.

Welcome to the "nanny state".

The public demanded it, now they got it.

Wrong approach, I think. There's nothing sexy about fiscal conservatism; it's like having your dad explain how to draw up a budget and stick to it.

A better route to the same destination would be a bit of good, old-fashioned Reagan style government hating. You know, the fact that even much-needed, well-intentioned government projects usually suck, not necessarily because the people involved are corrupt or lazy, but because they are almost completely unfirable. Many people who can't necessarily wrap their heads around the entirety of the free market DO understand that they themselves perform some days only because they might be fired if they don't.

Ronnie got through to my adolescent self the idea of the civil service as a sort of malignancy, or at least a machine that wastes in friction more than it accomplishes in work. In addition to being demonstrably right, it's got that exciting, anarcho-somethingorother about it.

Bush, like his father, is a Rockefeller Republican in Goldwater Republican's clothing. The only thing he wants different than a Democrat is big pro business government. McCain is no better -- he will be able to say what he believes people need to hear (just like Pelosi did today) but he'll be even WORSE than Bush has been when it comes to individual liberties like ... um ... free political speech.

To his credit, Jr. seems to have grasped that tax cuts == good, but he doesn't seem to realize why. It has nothing to do with the less-is-more prophices of the Laffer Curve. Tax cuts serve to limit the Federal Government, which -- like Dilbert's boss -- has been allowed to grow way beyond its level of competence.

-- fret

But Bush has never claimed to be a conservative, but rather a compassionate conservative.

You're right that the Republicans are missing an opportunity by failing to recognize this energy in their party. Perot demonstrated that conservatives do want (and are willing to vote for) someone who will keep the budget (and the .gov's power) in line. Gingrich caught on, but then the party slipped back to their old ways (no different in practice than the D's). Steve Forbes has the most cred on this issue today, but is still unelectable.

I can accept a trillion dollars of pork if it keeps Ross Perot off my TV screen. And I can cut a trillion dollars of pork if that's necessary to keep him off my TV screen. Pork is tolerable. Megalomaniacs like Perot put Clintons in power. We cannot have that.

Bush always was going to spend- the code for compassionate conservative is" I'm not a grinch-here have big bags of money".
After BJ, we would've considerd that a fair trade-off.
The thing that killed me was the drug bill that is a social and fiscal hydrogen bomb- I can never rank W as great because of that disaster.
For all the talk of Cheney's influence ,I'm seeing damn little of it domestically.
What I wouldn't give to hear the great Reagan say "Government isn't the solution, government is the problem", one more time.

The pump-up in govt spending is what's holding up the economy when real wages are dropping. I'd like to see the elimination of corporate welfare, ag subsidies, etc., but it ain't gonna happen with THIS gang.

And if you really got your wish -- the immediate elim of all that borrowed cash injected in the economy -- you'd send the US economy into a real tailspin.

Clinton was able to reduce govt spending while growing the economy -- but the past few years have had the govt $ pedal to the floor without growing opportunity at the bottom, and barely keeping the economy in the right direction. (Ignore the record number of bankrupties, okay?)

Clinton was able to reduce govt spending

Clinton didn't reduce govt spending - he reduced rates of growth.

'The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

'The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.'

'The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.'

'There are no great limits to growth because there are no limits of human intelligence, imagination, and wonder.'

'I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.'

'Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States.'

-Ronald Reagan

The government spending Clinton reduced was almost entirely in the defense budget. That's what happens when you cut force structure by between 25-35%.

The deanocrats do nothing,but let the conservative rage roar

Last time I looked, Nancy Pelosi was the only one who had pledged to give up the pork. Kinda makes the repubs look bad, know what I mean?

Reagan was a good talker. Deficit ballooned under Reagan.

CBO numbers show Clinton's reduction numbers. I've posted these before. Let's see YOUR numbers!

And it's not just the money. Bush can hold or even increase spending for an agency, and reduce its effectiveness tremendously, with cronyism, political hack appointees, and ineptness.

I don't understand the continuing Reagan idolatry. Sure, he was a convincing actor with good scriptwriters, but...

His administration had 32 criminal indictments. He gave us the horror of Iran-contra. And he actively supported the worst in Central America.

Take Guatemala. That nation's official Historical Clarification Commission charged its own government with a campaign of "genocide" in murdering roughly 200,000 people, mainly Mayan Indians, during its dictatorial reign of terror. The commission's nine-volume 1999 report singled out the US role in aiding this "criminal counterinsurgency." The violence in Guatemala reached a gruesome climax in the early eighties under the dictatorship of the born-again evangelical, Gen. Efraín Ríos Montt. Nine hundred thousand people were forcibly relocated and entire villages leveled. As army helicopters strafed a caravan of 40,000 unarmed refugees seeking to escape to Mexico, Reagan chose that mome>nt to congratulate Ríos Montt for his dedication to democracy, adding that he had been getting "a bum rap" from liberals in Congress and the media. His Administration soon provided as much aid to the killers as Congress would allow.
Reagan showed a similar indulgence toward the terrorists in El Salvador. The President and his equally immoral advisers consistently behaved as if they were hired public relations agents for the murderers of children, nuns, priests and peasants. Not long after these killings reached the amazing level of more than 200 per week--in a country with just 5.5 million people--Reagan mused aloud that they were not the work of "so-called murder squads" on the right, but of "guerrilla forces" who think they "can get away with these violent acts, helping to try and bring down the government, and the right wing will be blamed for it." In fact, only days later, Vice President Bush flew to San Salvador to insist that "every murderous act" committed by "right-wing fanatics...poisons the well of friendship between our two countries," and that "death squad murders" could cost the killers "the support of the American people." Didn't Reagan know what Bush knew? Does anyone care? After the war, the Catholic archdiocese in San Salvador documented the number of killings on each side. The tally: military and government-assisted death squads, 41,048; left-wing guerrillas, 776. Reagan was off by almost 5,500 percent. Liar or moron? You tell me.
Source

Starve

the horror of Iran-contra

The only people horrified were the usual suspects and they're scared of their own shadow.

the horror of Iran-contra

"The only people horrified were the usual suspects and they're scared of their own shadow. "
------------

Another anonymous supporter of providing arms to terrorists, appeasement of terrorists, negotiating with terrorists, and lying about it all. Another supporter of illegal funneling of public funds to political operatives, running drugs, and supporter of terrorizing innocent citizens through destuction of public property. Another supporter of presidential pardons for crooks.

In other words, another conservative.

The people horrified by the criminal activities of the Reagan administration are people who believe in the US Constitution. We aren't scared of you. We loathe you, and we fear what you are doing to the country. But we do not fear you.

What *is it* with conservatives and honesty, anyway???

Subheadline: "Despite Denials, Frist Updated on His Investments in Blind Trust Investments"

Who is going to get behind a "revolution" with THESE CROOKS?!?

Tubino:

We aren't scared of you. We loathe you, and we fear what you are doing to the country. But we do not fear you.

A bit melodramatic aren't we? I don't recall anybody asking for you to fear anything. And your fears for the country are matched by the right's fears for the country and society. Both sides are appalled at the other's apparent complete lack of morality.

George Lakoff points out that conservatives most value moral strength, while liberals most value empathy. Conservatives are generally happy with Reagan because he supported their value system, he resurrected the military, was proactive in the cold war, and raised the nation's morale.

Liberals despise Reagan because he fired up the conservative base and because his domestic and foreign policies reflected little empathy for suffering peoples at home an abroad.

Each side focuses on the elements of his administration that are most important to them - as you do when you rave on about political corruption and criminality. If you don't think that political malfeasance is perhaps the only truly bipartisan activity in our government, then I suggest that you avail yourself of Google and look at the skeletons in Democrats' closets.

BTW, if you're going to quote Eric Alterman, please include his name in your comment so I can avoid following the link.

Liberals despise Reagan because he fired up the conservative base and because his domestic and foreign policies reflected little empathy for suffering peoples at home an abroad.

The people who suffered under the soviet block for decades might disagree.

The people who suffered under the soviet block for decades might disagree.

Liberals consider them newly oppressed. They were doing just fine before...

geoff rewrites history thusly: "Conservatives are generally happy with Reagan because he supported their value system,"
and
"Liberals despise Reagan because he fired up the conservative base and because his domestic and foreign policies reflected little empathy for suffering peoples at home an abroad."

So when Reagan supported death squads in El Salvador, he was supporting the conservative value system? Do you realize that the US was aiding and abetting the people who threw babies in the air to catch them on bayonets? El Mozote massacre, an investigation of which was stymied by the US State Dept? You can look up Mark Danner's article, which bends over backwards to avoid saying what all the evidence shows. But he lays out the evidence.

And when liberals thought the US shouldn't be putting MINES in the HARBOR of another country in violation of international law, they were being overly SENSITIVE?!?

geoff, here's something for you to consider. Maybe you don't like what Eric Alterman says, and so you don't want to hear it. The intellectually honest thing to do is to see if he's telling the truth.

Alterman is telling the truth about Reagan and El Salvador and Guatemala.

Why don't you avail yourself of google, as you advise, and see if you can find anything untruthful there. To simply avoid what you find disturbing is hardly sufficient.

What I see here and elsewhere is this reliance on a tautology: journalist X is critical of Reagan/my hero/conservatism, therefore is biased, therefore I can dismiss anything he/she ever writes.

The desperation to maintain an illusion is palpable.

You say the right is concerned too. Okay, show me the outcry over the unconstitutional "black budget", which tripled under Reagan. Show me the outcry over the ongoing detention of a CBS cameraman, without charges? Show me anyone on the right who dares to point out the shredding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Gosh, isn't it funny how all the concern comes from the left? Isn't it funny how merely stating the concern defines one as "left", and so dismissable by the ostrich-in-the-sand right?

I have a friend at work who has Reagan posters on the wall. I really like the guy, and we discuss politics regularly, and not surprisingly we are 180 degrees apart. But even though he is pretty well informed, he had no idea what occurred under Reagan in Central America. Like lots of people, he rationalizes the deficits, and pays much more attention to the nicely-scripted lines lauraw quotes above than to anything Reagan actually did.

He loves the image.

What's happening now is that you're getting the real Republican revolution -- and it's not what you were promised. But Reagan never delivered, Bush I never delivered -- and regular conservatives never figured it out.

The current team is delivering the same only more -- and using even more PR to keep spinning a different story. The looting of the treasury on a credit card is unprecedented. Where I (and maybe you) see $50 billion going to politically-connected firms in Iraq, with disastrous results, George Bush says, as with the response to Katrina, what isn't going right?

Bush - through Bremer, Cheney, etc. -- is delivering, in what matters most to him.

It's what you conservatives voted for -- because you paid attention to the hype and spin and ignored the history.

Got more to say, but gotta go for a walk with the kids.

Do you realize that the US was aiding and abetting the people who threw babies in the air to catch them on bayonets?

Good lord! Ummm...this is my stop.

Are you being ironic, tubino, or do you not realize that hoary old favorite dates back to WWI and the Germans and has popped up so often since it's a standing cliche of war propaganda?

Weasel,

There was a period of my life when I read the daily dispatches, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International reports about El Salvador.

I've been to El Salvador a couple of times. I've read the eye-witness accounts of what happened there. I've read the results of the investigations by forensic anthropologists, and I've read the truth commission report.

Don't tell me what didn't happen there. Yes, stories of rapes, parents executed in front of kids, etc. can be found in many war zones. That doesn't mean they never happen.

If you want me to inform you about what happened, with your tax money, in your name, I can do it over the next few weeks.

If you just want to muddy the waters, please ... don't.

Cheney drew the lesson from Reagan that deficits don't matter. (Of course he meant politically, not economically.) I believe others drew the lessons that the evils committed by Elliot Abrams and John Negroponte et al don't matter -- politically.

So far, Cheney is right. The republican faithful forgives all, if image can be maintained.

Tubino:

This is why I don't respond to your comments any more - you say that I rewrite history, but all of your subsequent discussion distorts what I've said as you simply repeat your earlier points. If I hadn't been unspeakably bored as I ran thermal analysis cases, I'd have never written the above.

Note that nowhere in my comment did I deny anything you posted earlier (not that I necessarily agreed with it - I just didn't address it). So repeating your death squad cites is irrelevant. I was just showing you that the different viewpoints towards Reagan's adminstration could be addressed in the context of Lakoff's models.

Latin America was (and remains), unfortunately, way down on the list of conservatives' priorities, so no amount of harping on atrocities was going to get much attention from the public. It is very high among liberals' priorities. Conversely, the communist threat was (and remains) high among conservative priorities. Why the difference?

So my point was that Reagan's core beliefs resonated with the conservative base, and that the Latin American situation did not.

Okay, show me the outcry . . .

I was going to provide a list of conservative 'outcries,' but decided it was pointless. If you can say what you said with a straight face, then you are willfully ignorant and irreparably biased. Further discussion would only give you more opportunities to say things you like to hear.

Maybe you don't like what Eric Alterman says, and so you don't want to hear it.

No, I've read his work, and it is rarely reasoned and is clearly biased from the outset. His recent hissy fit over Brendan Nyhan's comments sealed my contempt for him. He's the left's counterpart of Rush Limbaugh, and only a couple of steps from Ted Rall/Ann Coulter.

"Eyewitnesses described infantrymen spearing Belgian babies on their bayonets as they marched along, singing war songs. Accounts of boys with amputated hands (supposedly to prevent them from using guns) abounded…. Tales of women with amputated breasts multiplied even faster. At the top of the atrocity hit parade were rape stories. One eyewitness claimed that the Germans dragged twenty young women out of their houses in a captured Belgian town and stretched them on tables in the village square, where each was violated by at least twelve `Huns’ while the rest of the division watched and cheered. At British expense, a group of Belgians toured the United States telling these stories. Woodrow Wilson solemnly received them in the White House."

This from an anti-Iraq war article in the New American called "War Party's Atrocity Porn." The article continues:

Atrocity porn plays a critical role in the process of mobilizing mass hatred on the part of the state’s designs. Like its sexual equivalent, atrocity porn (especially, and obviously, in the case of stories describing rape and other sexual abuse) appeals to prurient interests to manipulate base impulses.

As the man says, "The authors of atrocity porn also cynically exploit the predictable reactions it will provoke from decent people." I suppose you can take some comfort from being described as decent people, tubino.

For the audience at large: I don't know if you've read Alterman's What Liberal Media? (I suspect not, since most conservatives sensibly avoid his writing), but it has one of the most telling passages on his views.

You would think that the first step in determining if the media were liberal or not would be defining what 'liberal' is. Here's what Alterman has to say (p. 19):

Indeed the right's ideological offensive of the past few decades has succeeded so thoroughly that the very idea of a genuinely philosophically "liberal" politics has come to mean something quite alien to American politics.

Contemporary intellectual definitions of liberalism derive by common accord from the work of the political theorist John Rawls.

He then goes on to describe John Rawls' ideas, which basically advocate a redistribution of wealth and opportunity so that everybody has precisely the same quality of life. So, if you're not to the left of John Rawls, you are not truly liberal.

It's easy to see why Alterman can't find liberal bias, and it is telling that the irony of his passage escapes him.

geoff makes this odd, apparently unironic claim: "Latin America was (and remains), unfortunately, way down on the list of conservatives' priorities, so no amount of harping on atrocities was going to get much attention from the public. It is very high among liberals' priorities. Conversely, the communist threat was (and remains) high among conservative priorities. Why the difference?"

WOW. I'm guessing you weren't born when Reagan wasn't president, because Central America WAS a priority for conservatives, BECAUSE of the claimed threat of communism!!!

Do you have any idea what the US involvement in CA was? Apparently not.

So you said, "So repeating your death squad cites is irrelevant. I was just showing you that the different viewpoints towards Reagan's adminstration could be addressed in the context of Lakoff's models."

Sure, I understand that. And I was just showing you that that characterization of Reagan for conservatives only works in ignorance of Reagan's actual actions. Then I gave you a story of my friend to make the point. I could have used my father, who loved to quote Reagan, but actually opposed almost everything Reagan actually did. This is in fact how I learned the lesson of Reagan: for the majority of people, the image matters most, and can be contradicted completely by the actions.

Bush II is pushing this to new limits, from the fake ranch to the incredible cronyism.

geoff, if you don't think that "left" means something different now, consider that Nixon thought healthcare was a problem the govt should address.

Hillary C is still called a radical lefty, and a govt healthcare solution is the most radical thing she ever proposed.

The bias of the US media becomes obvious by comparison of coverage of int'l events with non-US press.

One tiny, tiny example: Most of the war supporters I've talked to are surprised to learn that the coalition has never had full control of the road from Baghdad to the airport.

One tiny, tiny example: Most of the war supporters I've talked to are surprised to learn that the coalition has never had full control of the road from Baghdad to the airport.

It's true! We've never heard of roadside bombs, checkpoints and manned barricades or that Italian journalist whose car our guys shot up because we thought it was full of bad guys. We think that's happening everyplace except the vital road to the airport. Dang, we're stupid.

"We think that's happening everyplace except the vital road to the airport. Dang, we're stupid."

Non sequitur much?

Okay, time to recap.

Weasel defends the Reagan administration by "proving" that atrocities don't occur in war, because sometimes in some places people say they did, when sometimes they didn't.. Congratulations! For your next trick, why don't you shoot for the whole law of causality?

In response to my claim about the illusion inherent in Reagan worship, geoff explains Lakoff's models of the illusion -- and steers clear of any of that messy reality. When I suggest he is close-minded about people who bring bad news, he explains that he's close-minded about this person, who once said something geoff didn't agree with. Again, no attempt to refute the claims about the Reagan admin.

So in sum ... you got nothin'.

I'll come back with some lovely atrocity info for Weasel to weasel around. Do it for the Gipper, Weasel!

I'll come back with some lovely atrocity info for Weasel to weasel around. Do it for the Gipper, Weasel!

Okey-dokey, turbino. But if it's that old thing about grinding babies into communion wafers, I'll give you such a pinch!

"Okey-dokey, turbino. But if it's that old thing about grinding babies into communion wafers, I'll give you such a pinch!"

That was truly funny. I don't even feel mean anymore.

The El Salvador history is actually quite relevant now. It was less than a year ago that many news sources reported a supposed Pentagon plan to use El Salvador as a model for the DEATH SQUADS, to be used in Iraq.

Like I said, the lessons that the current admin drew from Reagan's legacy is quite different from most people's.

For those who imagine that the MSM has a liberal bias, take a good look at what happened with the coverage and results of the massacre at El Mozote.

The reporters were punished, called liars, discredited by the Reagan admin. Raymond Bonner suffered a lot for it. Their stories were verified much later through forensic evidence and much more. The White House was able to lie successfully, and pretty much got away with it. Currently I can't imagine a major paper like NYT or WaPo breaking a story like this, as they did 20+ years ago.

Read that link through all the way, and consider how much stronger is the rightwing control on the MSM now. (well okay no one here will agree with me on that -- but it is true)

I didn't know that the case took another twist just THIS YEAR:

"On March 7, 2005, the OAS's Inter-American Commission on Human Rights reopened an investigation into the El Mozote massacre because of new evidence found by a team of Argentine forensic anthropologists in 2003. Recent efforts by lawyers in El Salvador to reopen the case, which was shelved in 2000, had repeatedly failed, even after a court ruling that year stripped protection under the national amnesty law from suspects in the most egregious human rights violations.

If the Commission on Human Rights finds enough evidence tying the Salvadoran government to the killings, the case will go to the Inter-American Court. Though it is unlikely that the court's decision would result in jail time for those involved, the court could demand that the government conduct an investigation of the incident and require payment of reparations to the families of those who died or disappeared."

How about that Elliot Abrams, eh?

Read that link through all the way, and consider how much stronger is the rightwing control on the MSM now

Bwahahahaha! Tubby, you need to give up the ganga man. It's rotting your brain and making you paranoid. In other words you now have the skills to be DNC Chair. Congrats!

Someday, when you start taking your meds, you're going to realize you and like-minded fellow travellers do more to keep Republicans in power then anything or anybody else. Thanks and keep up the good work!

BrewFan weighs in with his usual reasoned discourse.

BF, you're down with murdering children by the dozens, right? Great, I knew we could count on you.

So I notice you've gotten very quiet since I refuted your Stuart Bowen claim, and gave you the dope on the $8.8B.

Still not too late for you to take it back, you know. How about this part:

An official involved in the spending and disbursement of the Iraqi proceeds described an environment awash in $100 bills. One contractor received a $2 million payment in a duffel bag stuffed with shrink-wrapped bundles of currency. Auditors discovered that the key to a vault was kept in an unsecured backpack. They also found that $774,300 in cash had been stolen from a vault. Cash payments were made from the back of a pickup truck, and cash was stored in unguarded sacks in Iraqi ministry offices. One official was given $6.75 million in cash and ordered to spend it in one week, before the interim Iraqi government took control of Iraqi funds.

I made it easy for you to read lots more HERE.

So let me guess: you're not going to attempt to refute the $8.8B points, or Reagan in CA, or Frist's insider trading, or the general point that you guys are getting the revolution you should have expected, and your hopes are based on unrealistic hype.

So what are the odds that you would address the new torture revelations?

This is your revolution, folks. Massive federal spending and control, politicians acting above the law, abuse of citizens, suspension of key parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, incompetent civilian leadership of the military, ...

and guys like BrewFan who are willing to cheer it on, uncritically, because he loves his team more than his country.

BF: forgot to mention the obvious. If the US had a liberal MSM, the story of the $8.8 billion would have had ongoing front-page coverage spurring an independent investigation, as would have another dozen huge stories of massive financial abuse sanctioned by the current administration.

This is your revolution.

Your revolution:

Over the summer McCain tried to add amendments to the $42 B Pentagon authorization bill. His first amendment would establish the Army Field Manual as the standard for interrogation for all DOD custody detainees. Another McCain amendment would require all nationals of a foreign country held by US to be registered with the Red Cross, and a third amendment would insist on same language as the UN Convention Against Torture, ratified by the US.

In short, McCain’s amendments would have forced the US to stop violating a treaty the US had signed.

Result? Frist pulled the spending bill off the floor, on orders from the White House. Bush did not have to veto it.

And of course the SCLM barely reported it.

You guys had a chance to push your party the right direction, and probably were unaware of it. Did conservative blogs and email alerts encourage you to contact the WH etc. to support the McCain amendments?

I doubt it.

What you need is a rebellion, or a COUNTER-revolution.

Bush cancelled his trip to Texas for a photo-op to look presidential regarding Rita. Reason? Weather was too sunny, would have made a "bad visual."

You can't make this stuff up.

Another White House official involved in preparing Mr. Bush's way noted that with the sun shining so brightly in San Antonio, the images of Mr. Bush from here might not have made it clear to viewers that he was dealing with an approaching storm.

--------------
Ah, the revolution is complete.

You bought the Reagan image, rather than the reality. Cheney might as well have said,
Reality doesn't matter. Reagan proved that.

Weasel was more right than he realizes.

There is now a site up for graphic images of the war.

That link is to a Nation article on it, but has the link to the site.

billmon is on it too.

Tubino:

I don't know who pee'd in your cornflakes, but let's recap. The thread starts with a post hoping that an anti-pork movement will gain momentum. You try to redirect the thread to discuss atrocities in Latin America under the Reagan administration. No one really wants to follow this diversion, so it's our fault that we haven't addressed your articles.

Then you deluge us with a panoply of links dealing with more off-topic issues. Please realize, BTW, that this is only an effective discussion tool if you believe that we're going to read your articles and immediately be transformed into staunch liberals. In the more likely scenario that we're going to do research and try to explore both sides of a given story, you're just burying us in links that we cannot possibly follow effectively.

Just to make it official and get a couple of your items off the table, I think most here would agree that if torture occurred, then those responsible or cognizant should be prosecuted. And if the Army has been holding the CBS cameraman without cause, an investigation should be launched. If, on the other hand, the military is correct in claiming that classified evidence shows that he is guilty, then Ariana Huffington should have the decency to apologize.

But I'll make this offer - if you want to explore the $8.8 billion, I'll bite. Just clearly state your thesis so we don't get sidetracked, and we'll have at it.

"BF: forgot to mention the obvious. If the US had a liberal MSM, the story of the $8.8 billion would have had ongoing front-page coverage spurring an independent investigation, as would have another dozen huge stories of massive financial abuse sanctioned by the current administration. "

Or, in our little place on the space/time continuum tubby, these stories weren't covered by the MSM because they have no factual basis!

Now that you've made it clear you think the MSM is part of the VRC, you no longer have any credibility with me. Denying reality is a sign of mental illness and I don't find it sporting to even keep teasing you.

Aaahh, never mind. I don't think any further discussion would be fruitful, or even entertaining.

test

There is now @ site up for gr@phic im@ges of the w@r.

O.G.R.I.S.H - more th@n you c@n h@ndle

People get shotup in @ b@ttle - now there's is @ stunning - @bsolutely fucking stunning revel@tion!!

geoff,

The title of the post is The Third Republican Revolution, and then brings up Reagan and Gingrich as central to revs #1 & #2.

My thesis is that if you look at what Reagan DID, rather than what he symbolized, then what Bush II admin is doing is just the logical next step in the republican revolution.

That Bush is slipping on the IMAGE part is undeniable, but what he is doing (increasing govt spending, cronyism) is really not a betrayal of what the repubs have done when they could. He's just doing more of it, faster.

To make this case means showing that the Reagan image is completely contradicted by the reality. Reaganomics and Reagan policies in Central America are points to make the case.

I mention the Bush reality as a continuation of what these guys found was possible in Reagan and Bush I: getting away with treason (Iran-contra) and serial lying, to Congress, as well as presidential pardons.

I show an example of Bush II concerned 100% with image, 0% with reality.

I mention that the MSM contributes to this disconnect of reality and image. The fact that so few Reagan fans know even the basics of Reagan's policy in CA shows this to be true. What happened to the press when it showed this disconnect gives another data point. More recently we can see that such massive expose's are increasingly rare. The Toledo Blade is giving a rare glimpse into what a real investigative press can do, by uncovering the pay-to-play system in Ohio. Very rare stuff anymore, though plenty of targets.

So all the stuff I posted is in fact on topic. You’re getting the revolution you voted for.

(You see the connection between the soldier-posted photos and weasel's denial of atrocities? War porn is going on now, but based on real photos?)

My thesis on the $8.8 B is simple. The investigation carried out for Waxman, which I've given the link to many times, gives the actual sources of testimony and audit reports. I cited it extensively in the thread linked above, on the phrase "I made it easy for you to read lots more HERE." Just follow that through.

So when you read through all that (and other stories you can find when you google, including money quotes from republicans who were also shocked), the result is clear: an investigation is fully warranted -- and will NEVER HAPPEN until there is a change of control of the House and Senate.

The republicans are complicit. Read the report, and tell me I'm wrong.

"People get shotup in @ b@ttle - now there's is @ stunning - @bsolutely fucking stunning revel@tion!!"

What's new is that soldiers are posting the photos, often the same day. And these are much more graphic than what we normally see.

They are posted on a amateur porn site. See any problem with turning war violence into target for voyeurism?

Also, today we learn of an Army investigation into abuses where "PUCs" had limbs broken. Turned into sadistic outlet for stressed soldiers. Maybe that's no revelation to you, but adds a twist to the voyeur side of the web photos.

But go back to sleep if you want. Or compare with Orwell's view of desensitizing, as written up by billmon.

"1.2 trillion over 10 years - think about that."

Okay, I've thought about it. That's about 2.5% of what we'll end up spending over that scale. Cosmetics.

My thesis on the $8.8 B is simple. The investigation carried out for Waxman, which I've given the link to many times, gives the actual sources of testimony and audit reports. I cited it extensively in the thread linked above, on the phrase "I made it easy for you to read lots more HERE." Just follow that through.

So what is your thesis?

What's new is that soldiers are posting the photos, often the same day...And these are much more graphic than what we normally see.

Doh - they all got digital cameras and internet connections now.

They only seem "more graphic" if you're only getting your information from a squeamish MSM. Anyone who bothered to research actual combat footage wouldn't find this suprising at all. Graphic pics go as far back as camera technology itself -- the civil war.

For that matter, none of this is any different than routinely seen in morgues around the country every day. Ordinary car crashes produce very similar results.

I had a neighbor who ran a towing/storage business for insurance wrecks. The inside of those cars was a regular gore-fest. brains, bone fragments, blood splattered all over. Most looked like they'd been run over by a tank -- ugly stuff. Usually the beer cans and broken bottles were still rattling around inside somewhere too.

Want to really "save lives"? Get the fucking drunks off the roads. That'll save about 20,000/yr. Iraq is a pimple on the ass of a flea on the ass of an elephant.

Jeez, geoff. You ask,
"So what is your thesis?"

But you overlook what I said above:

So when you read through all that (and other stories you can find when you google, including money quotes from republicans who were also shocked), the result is clear: an investigation is fully warranted -- and will NEVER HAPPEN until there is a change of control of the House and Senate.

I posted all that stuff about the $8.8billion because someone (BrewFan?) didn't believe there was looting etc. I actually think that my use of the word LOOTING was referring to what the CPA did with Iraqi resources, not specifically the $8.8B, but if you read what happened... it is one huge abuse of funds. And oh yes it was conscious and intentional. Get to the part about the "company" hired to do the audit of BILLIONS: a place that had only a San Diego garage for an address? Again, go to the other thread where I posted it all.

It's way worse than the worst alleged in the UN Oil-for-Food scandal, yet... what happens? Essentially we have only the perpetrators (or enablers) to do the investigation.

Tubino:

The title of the post is The Third Republican Revolution, and then brings up Reagan and Gingrich as central to revs #1 & #2.

Solely within the context of reining in government spending. There was no mention of foreign policy or domestic policy - the entire post was focused on reducing pork and government waste. Expanding that subject to include Latin American atrocities remains completely off-topic.

I actually think that my use of the word LOOTING was referring to what the CPA did with Iraqi resources, not specifically the $8.8B, but if you read what happened... it is one huge abuse of funds. And oh yes it was conscious and intentional.

The major complaint of the report is that large amounts of cash were handed to the Iraqi government with no independent assurance that the money would be properly spent by the Iraqis. The CPA deserved this criticism, although rectifying it would have been very difficult. The complaint does not say that the CPA embezzled the money or handed it to idshonest contractors (who are being dealt with under the government contracting system).

The republicans are complicit. Read the report, and tell me I'm wrong.

You have, as usual, grossly mischaracterized the situation and, in this particular case, the Waxman report.

...he explains that he's close-minded about this person, who once said something geoff didn't agree with.

Why do you purposefully misrepresent what I said? This is not the first time, even in this thread. Do you really think you can engage in a supposedly serious discussion if you abuse the other participants like this? Quite troll-like.

an investigation is fully warranted -- and will NEVER HAPPEN until there is a change of control of the House and Senate.

This is not an arguable thesis - it is a statement of opinion which cannot be proven or disproven by examination of the facts.

I've VERY disapointed Tubino hasn't grasped on the PAINFULLY OBVIOUS "Third Reich" riffs waiting to be rolled out on this thread's title.