Angry Bear: Open Thread

by: chrisblask

Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:35:20 AM EST


Bookmark and Share
I ran across an intelligent diary on MyDD this morning (I know, I know - no sense saying it) from Bruce Webb.  Bruce is a regular at the Angry Bear Blog.

Angry Bear is the product of a half dozen Ph.D economists, an historian, and financial professionals. The writers provide individual perspectives on broad sectors of the economy based on their unique training. They look at topics as varied as worldwide trade and industrial production and US government programs and regulations like Social Security."

In no particular order our current economists are Cactus, Divorced one like Bush, Ken Houghton, Spencer England, Stormy, Robert Waldmann, Tom Bozzo, Linda Beale, and Rebecca Wilder. Bruce Webb has added his expertise in particular on Social Security and current healthcare debate. Rusty(formerly Save the Rustbelt) adds his expertise on the health industry and mid-west. Noni Mausa is a professional writer and poet, who brings us a dose of reality.

I've invited Bruce and the Bears (now there's a band name) to mix with Mooses all they like.

chrisblask :: Angry Bear: Open Thread
Bruce points out that there is more to HR.3962 than left blogistan has taken note of:

Most important AND most overlooked sentence in HR3962

SEC. 102. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.
(a) GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.--Title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act is amended by inserting after section 2713 the following new section:
``SEC. 2714. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.
``(a) IN GENERAL.--Each health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the small or large group market shall provide that for any plan year in which the coverage has a medical loss ratio below a level specified by the Secretary (but not less than 85 percent), the issuer shall provide in a manner specified by the Secretary for rebates to enrollees of the amount by which the issuer's medical loss ratio is less than the level so specified.

Most of the criticism of HR3962 coming from the left revolves around the belief that the House bill has no premium and so no profit controls, that it in effect delivers millions of Americans into the hands of insurance companies who can continue to raise premiums at will while denying care by managing the risk pool in favor of those unlikely to make claims. This just is not true, not if the provision in this one sentence is properly implemented. In a stroke it guts the entire current business model of the insurance companies, based as it is on predation and selective coverage, and replaces it with a model where you can only make money by extending coverage to the widest range of customers and or delivering that coverage in a more efficient way.

Smart bears they got around there...
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Bookmark and Share
Angry Bear: Open Thread | 100 comments
BTW, someone add the Bear to the blogroll, (2.00 / 6)
if there is general consensus.  

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon
Agreed. (2.00 / 6)
I was impressed enough with that diary to post the link to my facebook page (something I won't normally do for stuff at MyDrivelDelivery).  He really seems to have taken a very good look at the bill, and his explanations went a long way toward alleviating one of my concerns about overall cost-control.  I look forward to John Allen's take on this piece.

I've invited Bruce and the Bears (now there's a band name) to mix with Mooses all they like.

Good call, except for the band name.  Right now, I'm liking Axis of Ego.

It's a terrible thing to look over your shoulder when you are trying to lead, and find no one there. -Franklin Roosevelt

[ Parent ]
Heh (2.00 / 5)


"If you're going to tell people the truth, you better make them laugh; otherwise they'll kill You." ~ George Bernard Shaw
[ Parent ]
Odd, I had never heard of them. (2.00 / 7)
I will have a look, and if no one objects today, I will add them to the blogroll tonight -- or someone else can do it sooner... whatever, I'm not picky. ; )

Interesting and somewhat reassuring to see their perspective on HR3962. I will admit I am highly critical of the bill (from the left), but I have largely kept my concerns to myself, hoping that it will be better than nothing. There are times when I fear it won't, though, and in light of that, I am glad that at least a couple of our progressive House members voted against it (Kucinich, Massa), since we had enough votes to pass it anyway. I am heavily in favor of single payer and had hoped for a strong public option in lieu of that, and it has been difficult for me to watch our side make compromise after compromise. I'm deeply afraid that it will get butchered even further as the process moves along, until the end result is largely useless or a boon to the insurance companies.

The health care debate has disheartened me on many levels. The ignorance of many of the people in this country is astounding, and the power of the insurance companies and their lobbyists is terrifying. Sometimes I just feel like closing the laptop, shutting off the TV, and crawling into a hole to escape it all.

"I now am bold to say to the swift changing hours,

Pass, pass upon your way, for I grow never old,

Fleet to the dark abysm with all your fading flowers,

One rose that none may pluck, within my heart I hold. "

That is what they want (2.00 / 5)
The opposition wants this:

The health care debate has disheartened me on many levels. The ignorance of many of the people in this country is astounding, and the power of the insurance companies and their lobbyists is terrifying. Sometimes I just feel like closing the laptop, shutting off the TV, and crawling into a hole to escape it all.

Hang in there. This is a fight for the patient and those with a strong stomach. Politics is, and always has been, a rather gruesome affair.  

"If you're going to tell people the truth, you better make them laugh; otherwise they'll kill You." ~ George Bernard Shaw

[ Parent ]
Lions and Tigers and Bears (and Mooses) (2.00 / 7)
Oh my! All us critters need to learn to herd/hunt together. Very cool Chris and thanks for the linky.

"If you're going to tell people the truth, you better make them laugh; otherwise they'll kill You." ~ George Bernard Shaw
I hope they post here (2.00 / 6)
or at least cross-post. I promise to be nice.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

HA! (2.00 / 6)


"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon
[ Parent ]
I was going to do a diary (2.00 / 6)
but I think it's basically just worthy of an open thread comment. I wandered over to MyDD and my jaw dropped when I saw this;

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009...

It starts off with;

Our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are war criminals.

Wait it gets worse. Apparently one of the commenters is a veteran of Iraq/Afghanistan and wrote this;

Thanks (none / 0)

should I surrender to the Hague now or are you going to turn me in?

by ND22 on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 09:41:38 AM EST

the diarist had the audacity to respond;

Re: Thanks (1.00 / 2)

It would be a start if you wrote a letter to the editor of an important news publication recognizing the error of your ways. I think that might discourage other young men and/or women from emulating your morally wrong choice.

by fairleft2 on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 11:36:16 AM EST

...wow


Ugh. (2.00 / 4)
fairleft2 is the same dipshit who thinks sticking gory photos of dead and dying American soldiers on lefty blogs will "halt imperialism" or some shit.


It's a terrible thing to look over your shoulder when you are trying to lead, and find no one there. -Franklin Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
You are primed to do a series on Loonie Lefties (2.00 / 3)
I'd read every one.

As for fairleft2, I am tempted to leave a flaming FU for it, but I hate to encourage the idiot.

For the record, as one Moose editor I promise to delete any such shite diary that ever appears here.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

[ Parent ]
Maybe I'll do one (2.00 / 3)
on the pseudo-endorsement of a Lou Dobbs Presidential candidacy on OpenLeft lol
[ Parent ]
This is a loon that posts on a blog called Lenin's Tomb (2.00 / 8)
at leninology.blogspot...

Not one single person left a supportive comment in that thread. Every single person ripped fairleft for the diary. I'd say that says something good about the left. A far-right diary that was as crazy as this one would have found supporters on a right-wing site.

That's one of the major difference today between the right and the left. Nothing is too outrageous for the right.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

[ Parent ]
Mr. Meek, who wrote that moving piece (2.00 / 4)
on meeting President Obama at Arlington yesterday was on MSNBC today.



Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.

I can't help but feel this whole Afghanistan thing (2.00 / 4)
rings like an episode of The West Wing. Like I can see Jed Barlett struggling with what to do, his advisors conflicted, deliberative, then going to Arlington for Veterans Day, then in the heartwarming climax scene, walking up to mourners of soldiers who died in the war and listening to their story while emotional music plays before BAM! credits roll.


[ Parent ]
Good for Him (2.00 / 6)
We have a sober, mature and thoughtful human being as Commander-in-Chief these days.  We have much to be thankful for in that respect, however much we may disagree with this or that position of his administration.
[ Parent ]
And Just for the Record (2.00 / 4)
There is something important behind it:


These moments when President Obama spotlights the war dead show us that somewhere the president is trying to not just change polices and laws, but to change a consciousness. It is almost like the president is saying, "we must all know about these sacrifices." And if he is thinking that, he is right. No matter our views on the wars we must remember those who make these sacrifices.

But I have to wonder, does support for the military escalation in Afghanistan rise or fall when the president puts the war dead front and center in the media?

For me, it doesn't matter. The president is right to spotlight these sacrifices no matter the impact on public perceptions.

Tom Matzzie - Obama's Visit to Section 60 Reminds America of War Dead - Again Huffington Post 11 Nov 09

Amen.

[ Parent ]
While I'm certainly quite sure the president knew there (2.00 / 3)
would be photographs taken, and shown, of his unplanned walk through Section 60 I think he did it much more for himself than anyone else.  It is also who he is to take a few minutes to get to know those fallen through those who mourn them.  I'm also sure he would have listened just as patiently had someone been less than polite.

(That probably came across more harshly than I meant it to.)

I have a feeling President Obama is going to address the country in some form when he does come to a decision.  I would suspect he will mention the experience at Dover, Ft. Hood, and Arlington.  Unless McChrystal gets all 40,000 there will be an outcry like we haven't heard before from the Cheney/McCain etc factions.  Having seen the cost of the war in ways the previous administration didn't could serve him well.

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.

[ Parent ]
I'm Sure He Would Too... (2.00 / 3)
But the distinction between this president and the last one, in their acknowledgement of the human cost of war, will not be lost on most Americans, I'm guessing.

I think you are right about the tenor of his forthcoming address but it will put the Republican hawks on notice that they cannot wave the flag and ignore the cost.  Somehow Obama seems to be more aligned with the hearts of Americans on these issues, and maturely weighs the cost of our choices and the likely outcomes beforehand rather than tragically and sanctamoniously after the fact.

I have not been disappointed with Obama for a moment since the inauguration.  He has met or exceeded my expectations in almost all respects.  Not least of which this.

[ Parent ]
Sometimes I am viciously reminded of how low things got under (2.00 / 4)
Bush/Cheney when I realize how we celebrate things we shouldn't have to celebrate.  President Obama's trips to Dover and Arlington are two.  The president really thinking about strategy in Afghanistan is another.  Did you know he's looking for an exit strategy? Seems like a no-brainer but we, apparently, didn't have one when the war started.  But here we are nearly rejoicing.

Shoot, I rejoice everyday that we have a president who knows how to act in public.  That's how low we had drifted.

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.

[ Parent ]
And we still don't have one 8 years later. (2.00 / 4)
Seems like a no-brainer but we, apparently, didn't have one when the war started.

and yet the wingnuts neo-cons want to rush forward without taking the time to create one now.

The President is doing the right thing by taking his time on this. It is obvious that it is the right thing, because the idiots that created this mess, like Cheney and the neo-cons, want to go forward without thinking about the consequences.

Here's the Powell Doctrine. Pay particular attention to 5, 6, and 7.

  1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
  2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
  3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
  4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
  5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
  6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
  7. Is the action supported by the American people?
  8. Do we have genuine broad international support?[1]


"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

[ Parent ]
I'm a Firm Believer... (2.00 / 3)
In the Powell Doctrine.  How the hell did we lose track of that?
[ Parent ]
Cheney, et al (2.00 / 1)


"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

[ Parent ]
Unfortunately... (2.00 / 2)
As much as we'd like to think so it's not that simple.  The national IQ gave permission for that bullsh*t.  Under duress, to be sure, but when else does it really matter?
[ Parent ]
The national IQ or the mainstream media? Or both? (2.00 / 2)
The media certainly dropped Afghanistan when Bush et al switched their focus to Iraq.  Not only did they buy into the need to go to war there but they did not cover the affects of doing so on Afghanistan.

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.
[ Parent ]
It's Not Clear... (2.00 / 2)
But it's tempting to suppose the media and the public are chasing each other's tails in ever decreasing circles.  I was thinking specifically of the post-9/11 decision to invade certain foreign countries, as you noted.  You didn't need a masters degree in international relations, geography or nuclear physics to see that invading Iraq was a trivial and stupid notion but it was clearly a very minority opinion, in the punditry, the Democratic party and the public 'mood' at the time.

I'm convinced we could have achieved our international objectives more comprehensively with a little more focus and good planning and a lot less unilateral military action.

The public seems about the only instituion which could have resisted the invasion of Iraq once the Bush administration set that course.  The Democrats were AWOL on that one, largely because of the apparently unwavering public support for it.  The role of the media at the time was a discrediting lapse, to be sure, and probably marks the beginning of the decline from 'hard news' and intelligent dissent to popular culture triviality, but it's hard to say if they were leading the public in the march off the cliff or merely joining them.

[ Parent ]
The run-up to Iraq, and the Democrats' complicity in it, is (2.00 / 2)
very confusing to me.  It was obvious to me that Bush was rushing headlong into war and was using any excuse he could to justify it.  It was Powell's speech at the UN that made me think maybe there was something to the allegations, but still there was no evidence of immediate danger.  Democrats in Congress should have been jumping up and down, screaming, "slow down" kind of like Republicans are saying about healthcare reform.

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.
[ Parent ]
Indeed (0.00 / 0)
And in all fairness twenty Democratic senators voted against the AUMF, from memory, none of them with apparent presidential aspirations.  My conclusion at the time was that Democrats were concerned about being caught 'wrong footed' if the invasion of Iraq was short and successful, like the previous Gulf war, and that they would be excoriated when the troops came marching triumphiantly home.  The 'leadership' of the party, such as it was at the time, was pretty committed to hedging their national security bets in that wave of popular sentiment.

Powell, ironically the author of the eponymous 'doctrine' and architect of the previous Gulf war, gave the Bush administration lots of cover on the fatal decision to invade and John is right that the office of the Vice President has a lot to answer for in disseminating false information at the highest levels to create a smokescreen of doubt about something which was otherwise patently and obviously wrong.

But all of this was founded on the will of the public to assert the military power of the US somewhere to redress the injury felt by the horrific attacks of 9/11.  The problem is asymetrical warfare doesn't work that way, that's the point, and we were unprepared and disinclined to deal with it soberly and appropriately.  Sure the administration and the media exacerbated the national mood and invented a tangential enemy against whom our conventional forces would be credibly effective.  But I am still left believing that a large chunk of the US electorate just wanted to see sh*t blowing up on television somewhere in the Middle East.  We really need to do something about our national geographical literacy, at least.

[ Parent ]
What I remember from 2002-2003 (2.00 / 1)
is even the most liberal friends of mine supported the war...and have since recognized they were wrong...so I'm not sure the minority of Democrats who supported AUMF are really not seen as complicent by anyone but those who never supported it.

I think this split was between those who didn't know if it would be successfull, so they didn't want to end up on the wrong side of history vs. those (like Robert Byrd) who knew it was doomed from the start.

[ Parent ]
And Why Was That, Exactly? (0.00 / 0)
That 'even the most liberal friends of mine supported the war?'  That's the question.  As a student of history and current affairs the invasion of Iraq seemed an obvious train wreck to me from the start.  And an insidious one.

I can still recal the mixture of fury, frustration and incredulousness I felt at the whole public spectacle, New York Times and all.  And sorry but, as they say in Australia, 'blind Freddy' could have seen it at the time.  No excuses but a level of insularity Stateside which is arguably self-destructive.

Honestly the best answer I have is that most Americans just wanted to blow some sh*t up and the administration, read Cheney, used that for their own devious agendas.

Scott Ritter and Hans Blix were credibly and unequivocally mythbusting at the time.  And anyone who had been paying attention to the recent history of Iraq would have had to have harboured some doubts about the whole fabricated story.

I would really be interested to know why most of your liberal friends supported the war at the time because it beats me to this day.

[ Parent ]
Perhaps I can answer that. (2.00 / 1)
At the moment when Bush announced intentions to go to war with Iraq I had two very clear reactions:

First - what a waste of time and resources, I can't believe we are going to try to boil that messy ocean when we need to focus on Afghanistan.

Second - if we now display the indecisive weakness that our enemies expect of us we may as well drop our pants and grab our ankles.

The second summation may have been premature or incorrect but we won't ever really know, of course, because we'll never experience having made a different decisions at that point.  But from the perspective of an early-post-9/11 viewpoint it was intrinsically unacceptable to fall into a pile of squabbling arms and legs and let our CiC's threats turn into impotent pissing into the wind.

My first exposure to Obama was my Mom forwarding the text of his "let's not go to Iraq" speech.  I read it, I admired his intelligent take on the situation and I wished he would just STFU.  We. were. not. stopping.  Wasn't going to happen for any reason whatsoever once Bush said it out loud in that environment, I don't care how brilliant an argument anyone made or how much marching on DC the political left was going to do.

So my "support" for the war in Iraq was much more a recognition that we would not in my view be well served by going in amidst a cloud of internal recriminations.  The best outcome with Iraq from the first time Bush spoke the words - given that, again, we were absolutely going in - was to get in, get the job done and get out.  Unfortunately we didn't have the last part worked out well to begin with and Bush tried to make it about WMD (it never had anything to do with finding WMD), so we ended up not getting out and stirring the maximum amount of internal bickering regardless.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

[ Parent ]
Yeah... (2.00 / 4)
I really appreciate your sincere reply.  But why Iraq, of all places?

From where I sat the attack on 9/11 was intended to precipitate a response from the US which would excacerbate tensions with the Muslim world and fulfil the propaganda which our opponents intended using to portray us as the enemy of Islam and we walked right into it.  Five years later we had virtually destroyed whatever coalition of support we had among our allies, disappointed our friends, mobilised our enemies and exposed our true weaknesses as a geopolitical power.  All of this was foreseeable and avoidable, in my opinion.

It is largely due to our counterintelligence and counterterrorism effort that al Qaeda is in decline and localised.  The invasion of Iraq has hindered this effort more than helped, never mind the loss of blood and treasure.  I was content to see the end of Saddam Hussein, mind you, but it seems a small benefit for the cost.

But the thing which always stupified me, given the challenges presented at the time by the theocracy in Iran and the emergence of Sh'ite militancy in the Middle East, was that we were determined to establish a populist democracy in majority Shi'ite Iraq.  Fair enough on the face of it from the point of view of Fukayama acolytes but the timing was highly questionable and the consequences yet to be fully realised.  Never mind that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the asymetrical Wahhabist terrorist challenge we faced at the time.

The Bush administration had their own agendas, to be sure, but I can't help but think the motivations of most Americans was frustration at being a great military power but unable to come to grips with our true enemy.  We just went out and found the nearest friendless bully and beat the crap out of him.  And Osama bin Laden is still at large.  What the hell was that?

 

[ Parent ]
I lived in post-9/11 New York (2.00 / 2)
it can be summed it perfectly based on what a local Democratic district leader told me in 2002;

"We need to do to them, what they did to us"

Most Americans did just want to blow sh*t up, Arab sh*t. Do you remember how many "Nuke Mecca" suggestions there were in the months and years after 9/11?

Actually, I think Iraq failing was a good thing in the long run, that's what knocked people out of that mentality.  

[ Parent ]
I think for the average person that was very true, (0.00 / 0)
but for Democrat politicians - and for political geeks like myself - it was more a pragmatic recognition that there was no stopping it once the President started it.  That genie was not going back into the bottle.

So, no matter what you thought about the idea, from that point if became a choice of trying to contribute (in whatever minuscule way) to having it go as well as possible, or adding fuel to the impotent rage against going in.

The politicians themselves may have felt more purely self-defensive about it - I agree that for most of it the choice was either sign up and keep your job or oppose and quit.

Out of curiosity, is there anyone here that believes there was any stopping the war once Bush spoke the words?

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

[ Parent ]
I don't (0.00 / 0)
for politicians like McCarthy and Israel, it was all about staying in power and not letting the right wingers in.

McCarthy's opponent in 2002 was Marilyn O'Grady, a rabid social conservative. Had she gotten elected, it's possible something like the Federal Marriage Amendment would have passed. Israel's opponent in 2002 was Joseph Finley, who sprewed anti-Islam across Suffolk County. Had both won in 2002, it's scary to think of how much damage they could've done, even if they had only served one or two terms.

The fact is, AUMF could not be stopped, Bush had his majority and he had popular support...we may soon discover healthcare reform had the same thing...so Democrat did what they could do, position themselves to survive for another day, because even had the Democrats been able to stop AUMF in 2002, and the majority in the Senate might have been able to, Bush would've gotten it eventually, even if it meant Democrats get whipped in 2002 elections.

What's funny is that we're laughing at the Republicans for doing the very thing we're angry at Democrats for not doing in 2002...committ political suicide to make a point.  

[ Parent ]
Gee, that makes a lot of sense. (2.00 / 1)
We are mad about Democrats not stopping a war that resulted in 10's of thousands of deaths and laughing at the Republicans for blocking health care reform that could save 10's of thousands of deaths. Yep, when you put it that way I can see the equivalence.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

[ Parent ]
In their defense (2.00 / 2)
some of these teabaggers truly believe healthcare reform will kill thousands of people.  
[ Parent ]
Yes... (2.00 / 1)
And that man and dinosaur lived together peacefully around 2000 BC.


[ Parent ]
Some people believe it, nonetheless. (0.00 / 0)
While I don't - and you don't - there is still a difference between being wrong and being malicious.

Most of the folks who oppose healthcare reform do so because they believe it will make matters worse in some way, many believe that it will lead to people being denied care.  They are (I'm almost positive) wrong, but they believe it.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

[ Parent ]
Sigh (2.00 / 1)

As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

H L Mencken


[ Parent ]
There was an election imminent (2.00 / 1)
the AUMF vote took place weeks before the 2002 midterm elections and the issue was causing Democrats to struggle.

My Congressman was Steve Israel and he voted for it, as did Congresswoman Carolym McCarthy...I later found out that both had seen polls showing them losing if they opposed the war, because their base on Long Island was strongly in support of it, so they supported it and won by 58%-40% and 56%-43% respectively.  

[ Parent ]
Hence my Comment (0.00 / 0)
The 'leadership' of the party, such as it was at the time, was pretty committed to hedging their national security bets in that wave of popular sentiment.
[ Parent ]
They didn't have much of a choice (2.00 / 1)
the fault for the war lies in one place...the American people.

[ Parent ]
Wrong. (0.00 / 0)
The fault of that war rests squarely on the shoulders of those who planned, promoted, and pushed that war. Do you really think the public would have supported the idea of an invasion if they knew the truth at the time? Remember Rumsfeld and Cheney saying it would be over quickly and that we would be welcomed as liberators? Do you remember the fear mongering about "smoking guns" and mushroom clouds? The lies about ties between al Queda and Saddam? The lies about wmd? About Iraqi involvement in 9-11? Is all of that forgotten so soon?

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

[ Parent ]
and who fell for these lies? (0.00 / 0)
who cowered in fear and begged Bush to destroy Saddam, instead of saying "what a minute, where is the proof?" The American people.

[ Parent ]
Apparently, you and your conservadem friends. (0.00 / 0)
I know I was against the war at the time and spoke out against it every chance I had. I also know many of my friends were also against the war. I seem to remember heavily attended marches against the war. I remember politicians like Obama and Al Gore speaking out against an invasion.

Former Vice President Al Gore has stirred the political debate over Iraq, warning that a military campaign aimed at ousting Saddam Hussein could distract the United States from the war on terrorism.

Al Gore questioned the Bush administration's approach toward Iraq in a speech in San Francisco.

In 1991, then-Senator Gore was one of the few Democrats to support a resolution authorizing the use of force to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait.

But now the former vice president argues that President Bush's willingness to go after Iraq without broad international support would "seriously damage" the U.S.-led war on terrorism.

"I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than was predicted," said Mr. Gore. "Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another."

This country and Congress were hoodwinked into war. The media loved the idea, because it would generate lots of stories and viewers. The politicians were doing what politicians do - prevaricate and obfuscate. The administration was lying through its teeth about justifications for the war.

One prominent analyst noted that while public opinion polls indicate support for the president on Iraq, Americans are asking questions.

"There is a lot of evidence in the polls that there are some questions that the public is asking. "I have been out on the road in the campaigns quite a bit and you hear it in talking to people, said Craig Crawford, editor of the Hotline political newsletter in Washington, in an interview with CBS television. "There is real concern about the timing of this, whether it is really necessary. And Gore's central point is well taken."

What do you think the American people would have said if they had gotten honest information from the start?

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

[ Parent ]
They Lied to Us? (2.00 / 1)
Surprise, surprise.  If the average American at the time could have found Iraq on a map or knew the difference between a Shi'ite and a Sunni I would be more confident in your argument.

And your opinion of the media is the stuff of criminal negligence suits.

[ Parent ]
I think you're being too cynical by far. (0.00 / 0)
Sure, there was a lot of emotional and willful blindness to go around.  Sure, there were opportunists at many positions and levels.  But the Iraq war was not simply a business decision supported by corrupt media personalities and corporate raiders and foisted onto a moronic populace.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon
[ Parent ]
How do you explain the number of people that believed (0.00 / 0)
Saddam had a hand in 9/11? How do you explain the number of people that thought Saddam was on the verge of having a nuclear bomb? Tell people in NY that experienced 9/11 that Saddam might give a nuclear bomb to terrorist and suddenly they are all for an invasion. Tell them that Saddam had no capability for a bomb and that he had nothing to do with 9/11 and see how many would have supported an invasion.

Most Americans aren't like the teabaggers. They actually trust their highest officials to have the best interests of the country in mind when they make decisions. Especially if the news media and most of the pundits that get on the air are pushing the same agenda.

That doesn't make the populace moronic. It makes them people who have been manipulated.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

[ Parent ]
I Take Your Point... (2.00 / 1)
But who in their right mind would have believed a Ba'athist statist dictator and a Wahhabist terrorist militant were in any way connected?  I still maintain that the whole story was incredible on first principles.

A typical Aussie reaction among my acquaintances was that there was 'something in the water' back there and after awhile I was inclined to agree.

Although we have a difference of opinion here I think this is a fairly important point as the outcome was disastrous.  Sure, our leadership was arguably criminally deceitful in this matter but if the public just doesn't know poop from clay we may be in for another world of hurt again someday.

[ Parent ]
There were people making that very point (2.00 / 2)
before the war, but they got laughed at and ridiculed. They were also accused of being traitors or soft on terrorism. The run up to this war was a classical example of manipulation of public opinion by those in power.

You apparently knew the difference between Shi'ite and Sunni. So did I. That's why I never fell for that claim. Yet, why would people who had never really been exposed to Islam know something like that? If people even knew of it they probably thought of the players involved like Catholics and Protestants.

You can say that people should know this kind of thing, however there is a limit on how much time people can spend gaining new knowledge. A hard-working, middle-class family might read books, watch documentaries on The Discovery Channel or Animal Network and read newspapers, but that doesn't mean they will be exposed to the intricacies of what they consider a false religion. How much do you know of the Mormon religion or Scientology?

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

[ Parent ]
I think we're in semi-agreement (0.00 / 0)
but on this;

You can say that people should know this kind of thing, however there is a limit on how much time people can spend gaining new knowledge. A hard-working, middle-class family might read books, watch documentaries on The Discovery Channel or Animal Network and read newspapers, but that doesn't mean they will be exposed to the intricacies of what they consider a false religion.

I do hold against the people...when we're debating sometihng as important as whether or not to send our children to die somewhere, the people better know something about the place they're deciding to send them. They acted as if sending their children off to war without knowing a damn thing about the situation they're going was just ok, no problem, whatever.

I'm not a parent, god-willing I will be someday, but even I think I'll be reprehensive about sending my children off to a war without knowing anything about where they're going, who they're fighting, and what led to the situation they're fighting in.

It just seemed like the American military was expendable back then, like they were sending robots...nobody seemed to take the risks seriously...it really aggravated me. Ignorance is not an excuse.

[ Parent ]
There it is again (0.00 / 0)
I do hold against the people

nobody seemed to take the risks seriously

How many more times do I have to point out that there were plenty of people speaking out. You seem to have blocked that memory out. The media fell down on the job. People didn't realize just how bad our modern news media had become until we looked back at the rush for war.


"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

[ Parent ]
As I Said... (0.00 / 0)
I take your point, however from memory there was a fairly comfortable period of time in which it was apparent that this was the direction our current administration had chosen:


Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.

Thomas Jefferson

Sure, we were manipulated by our government, the media completely abrogated its responsibilities and the Democrats wavered.  But it was all in the face of poll after poll which indicated a very strong support of the poulace to do something, anything, to reassert American power.

We need to wean ourselves off this reflexive tendancy.  It was pretty clear by 12 September that we were up against a cunning and resourceful opponent.  Our response, methinks, was lacking in subtlety and effectiveness.  How much of this is apportioned among the various responsible institutions is arguable, I admit, but a fair bit of it is due to the public's habitual lack of attention to detail.

We severely weakened ourselves with that effort, we can't afford to do that kind of thing very many more times.

[ Parent ]
Agree 1,000% (2.00 / 1)
"We severely weakened ourselves with that effort, we can't afford to do that kind of thing very many more times."

I'll bet Osama has been dancing with glee at what we've done to ourselves since 9/11. I am heartbroken whenever I let myself think about it.  

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

[ Parent ]
Sadly (0.00 / 0)
On this point we are in complete agreement:


I'll bet Osama has been dancing with glee at what we've done to ourselves since 9/11.


[ Parent ]
You're right (0.00 / 0)
but there were debates going on in New York then, I was there, and even with evidence presented, people still believed Saddam had a hand in 9/11 and still believed Saddam was developing nukes and those who disagreed and had proof were ignored as "hippies" or "anti-American terrorist lovers" or whatever.

People believed what they wanted to believe, the media did not challenge it, out of fear of being called hippies and anti-American terrorist lovers.

Maybe not moronic, but definitely stubborn.  

[ Parent ]
Did you believe it? (0.00 / 0)
If you didn't then people believed just the opposite.

This is why I get upset when I read statements like yours. When you say "people" you are basically saying "everyone". This is patently false.

I wouldn't argue with you over this if you would qualify your statements. If you said, "many people" or "a lot of people" or anything like that then you would be right. You don't say that. You say things like, "the American people."

The American people didn't enable the war. The majority of them did not vote for George Bush. Many of them took to the streets in an effort to stop the war.

After the war started, support was polled at 62%. That's after the start of the war. If I had been polled after hostilities were launched and asked if I supported the war effort then I would have answered yes, even though I opposed going to war in the first place.  

Support for the war was never overwhelming. Now subtract the people who would not have supported the war if they hadn't been misinformed. In that case, the majority of the American people would have been against the war if it wasn't for the disinformation campaign put out by those who were pushing the war.

Let's not rewrite history. The neo-cons are working feverishly on that very task.

What we need to learn from this is that we need to give our dissenters a more fair hearing when it comes to major decisions. And, yes, that applies to the teabaggers.

I'd say the administration has listened to the teabaggers and is working to satisfy their demands. For instance, there has been no effort to establish Socialism, Nazism, or Communism. About the only other semi-coherent demand is for deficit reduction and the President addressed that one yesterday or today. I'd say they should be happy.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

[ Parent ]
I Think... (0.00 / 0)
We are on the same side here, and I admire your loyalty to the body politic.  And your point about supporting the operation once started is worth considering.  But my whole point in raising this is to see if we could do better next time.

Let's not get into revisionism one way or the other.  I think it's pretty fair to say history will deal pretty harshly with the Iraq decision and the role of all concerned.

Getting back to one of my original points it seems very dangerous that our media and political opposition are chasing public opinion rather than informing and, to a degree, shaping it.  This is a tendancy which may prove to be detrimental to the people in the long run.  If the Iraq decision isn't Exhibit A for that I don't know what is.

[ Parent ]
We are in agreement. (2.00 / 1)
Mostly, anyway. Your original point is a sensible one. How do you propose we deal with it? I can see education as one answer. But, how do we deliver that education? That used to be the role of the press, radio, and television. We can't count on them anymore. Not in their current incarnation. How do you propose we disseminate the knowledge need for the public to make informed decisions?  

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

[ Parent ]
Good Question (2.00 / 1)
Trust is the issue, remember Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkite?  It took them years to establish credible authority.  We have eroded this trust and Balkanised our media into warring camps as likely to be manipulative as truthful.

Education is the obvious answer, both in civics and foreign affairs.  One of the things which seems clear to me is that the US, because it is so huge and such a mass market, is incredibly insular.  Not meant as a criticism, just an observation.

The best suggestion I have heard is national service and some kind of overseas Peace Corp-like opportunities.  There's nothing like travel to broaden one's mind.  The trend toward global fluency seems easier for other nations because they have had to adapt.  The US seems resistent to this because the necessity hasn't been so urgent.  It will soon become apparent that it is and we ignore this trend at our peril.

[ Parent ]
Actually... (0.00 / 0)
I got a taste of that myself in email correspondence with friends Stateside whom I had known for years but who treated my views at the time with disdain or disrespect.
[ Parent ]
But they didn't (2.00 / 1)
and they didn't even attempt to wait and see if the information they got was honest...they believed whatever came out of Bush's mouth and ran with it...and for that, they are to blame.

[ Parent ]
I'll agree with this, (0.00 / 0)
although I'm not sure Bush/Cheney gave anyone time to gather their thoughts to understand exactly what questions to ask.  That may have been part of the strategy: crank up the war before anyone figures out what's really going on.

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.
[ Parent ]
As If... (0.00 / 0)
It would have taken more than twelve seconds to see right through it.
[ Parent ]
If they'd bothered to look. (2.00 / 1)
Which I guess brings us back to the beginning.

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.
[ Parent ]
They? (0.00 / 0)
Who is this "they"?

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

[ Parent ]
Also (0.00 / 0)
yeah I think the American people would've still said invade Iraq if they got honest information, they were just that vengeful after 9/11,

maybe not by 2004, but a year after 9/11, yeah, they would've supported bombing any country with a Muslim population.  

[ Parent ]
From a wiki page about polls on Iraq in 2003 (2.00 / 3)
February 2003

Following Powell's February 5 speech at the UN, most polls, like one conducted by CNN and NBC, showed increased support for the invasion. NBC's Washington bureau chief Tim Russert, said the bumps in support were "largely" due to president Bush's State of the Union speech in January and to Powell's presentation on February 5, which most viewers felt offered strong evidence for action against Iraq. Bush's approval ratings jumped 7 points, and support for the invasion jumped 4 points. Only 27% opposed military action, the smallest percentage since the polls began in April 2002. The percentage of Americans supporting an invasion without UN support jumped eight points to 37%. 49% of those polled felt that President Bush had prepared the country for war and its potential risks, a 9 point jump from the previous month.[7] A Gallup poll showed the majority of the population erroneously believed Iraq was responsible for the attacks of September 11.

Anti-war demonstrations took place in more than 500 US cities, among them Cambridge (Massachusetts), Berkeley, New York, Washington, Boston, San Francisco, Hollywood, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Milwaukee, Portland, Athens (Ohio), Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Oakland, Madison, Eugene, Detroit, and East Lansing. In several cases demonstrators were arrested. The protests reached their peak just before the Iraq War broke out.
[edit] March 2003

Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the U.N. Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration didn't not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%.[8]

An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war, lower than the 79% in favor at the beginning of the Persian Gulf War.[1]



"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

[ Parent ]
Really? (2.00 / 1)
The American people cowered in fear? Tell that to the 100's of thousands of people out on the streets protesting the build up to war.

I'm one of the American people. I fought against the war from the first moment it was put forward. I wasn't the only one. Are the people who stood against the war not part of the American people?

Read some poll numbers before you paint the entire population with the same brush.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

[ Parent ]
the poll numbers overwhelmingly supported the war (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I wouldn't call 57% overwhelming (0.00 / 0)
From this wiki page on early 2003 polling.

Some polls showed that Bush's 2003 State of the Union increased US support for the invasion, but other polls showed that it had little effect.[citation needed] Most polls showed that support for the invasion, depending on how the question is phrased, was at between 55-65% (58% according to CNN/USA Today, 57% according to the LA Times, and 67% according to Fox).[citation needed] However, the same polls also suggested that most Americans would still like to see more evidence against Iraq, and for UN weapons inspections to continue before making an invasion. For example, an ABC news poll reported than only 10% of Americans favored giving the inspectors less than a few weeks; 41% favored giving them a few weeks, 33% a few months, and 13% more than that.


"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

[ Parent ]
Worth Remembering... (0.00 / 0)
Those mid-fifties results were for a unilateral invasion in defiance of the UN.  That's still a startling statistic.
[ Parent ]
No, (0.00 / 0)
the number of people in favor of invading without UN support was way below 50%.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

[ Parent ]
From Your Own Citation Above... (0.00 / 0)
'If the U.N. Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion.'
[ Parent ]
Good catch. (2.00 / 1)
I was looking at the 47% that were in support without seeking a Security Council vote. That's still a long way from being an overwhelming number of people. Does anyone claim that Obama was elected by an overwhelming number of people?

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

[ Parent ]
I Think It's Arguable... (0.00 / 0)
In US political terms that it was a minor landslide.  There seems no doubt that the Iraq invasion had unequivocal popular support.
[ Parent ]
Yes, (2.00 / 1)
and it is also unequivocal that there were a lot of people opposed to the war. Far more than the media told us about. The media has already been judged and found wanting for their part in the run up to the war. We can talk about polls all day long, but what answers are people supposed to give other than what they learn from the media? Is everyone supposed to be as informed as political nuts enthusiasts like us?

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

[ Parent ]
The Media Failed (0.00 / 0)
And so did our Democratic leadership at the time.  And that goes a long way to explaining Obama's ascendancy early in the campaign.

But the larger question isn't really about information.  It's about making emotional choices rather than sober ones.  Wilfull ignorance is a consequence of not wanting to hear the truth, which as you point out, was readily available at the time.

In the 21st century that is a luxury we are no longer afforded.  That was the last Mad Hatter's Tea Party we will be able to throw.

[ Parent ]
The Shocker... (2.00 / 1)
Is that there are probably still voters who assume that Saddam Hussein and 9/11 were somehow connected.
[ Parent ]
Started, No... (0.00 / 0)
But who else could have stopped it?  If we fail to learn these lessons we will be condemned to repeat them.

I knew all that stuff tying Iraq to al Qaeda was crap at the time and so did half of the rest of the world.

[ Parent ]
We Agree (0.00 / 0)
And I'm not trying to rub our noses in it, I just think it's important to learn the lessons of history so we can avoid them in the future.  Hence my original comment to John, it's handy to blame Cheney but we need to look a bit deeper, he was the man behind the curtain, to be sure, but we were all off to see the wizard.
[ Parent ]
Wars make for good ratings, at least initially. Just ask Phil Donahue. nt (2.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
It did (2.00 / 1)
my mother was glued to the television in the first days of the war.

Even in the newsroom at Newsday, it was like watching a movie, everybody was in front of the television all day.  

[ Parent ]
Gen. Powell wisely told the president to take his time. (2.00 / 1)
Of course, that's just because they are both black and Powell has to give Obama cover for taking sooooo long to make a decision that will fail in the long run.

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.
[ Parent ]
Rush! (2.00 / 1)
Is that you?

;~)

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

[ Parent ]
Heh! (0.00 / 0)
Unfortunately, they are just sooo darned predictable.

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.
[ Parent ]
Here's a cool thing I found via TPM. (2.00 / 3)
whitehouse.gov is going to be doing video updates during the president's trip to Asia.

Earlier today, the President left for Asia, stopping over in Alaska before heading to Tokyo, Japan.

During this trip, we're going to try something new.  To offer an inside perspective to everyone back here in the U.S., Ben Rhodes, the Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, will provide frequent updates on the trip.

Here's the first installment.  Frankly, I hope the dude's delivery gets a tad more exciting as he gets the hang of this.



Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.

Because I'n in a mood, this is an open thread, and it's Friday night (0.00 / 0)
here's my favorite song of the moment (subject to a whimsical change at any moment.)  The video ain't much unless you don't know the lyrics.



Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.

Also, why has no one diaried DOJ's announcement from (2.00 / 1)
this morning?!

I figured a couple of folks would be on top of that.

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.

Ruh? (0.00 / 0)


"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon
[ Parent ]
KSM and others are coming to NYC. (2.00 / 2)
WASHINGTON - Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court, an Obama administration official said Friday.

snip

Holder will also announce that a major suspect in the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, will face justice before a military commission, as will a handful of other detainees to be identified at the same announcement, the official said.

It was not immediately clear where commission-bound detainees like al-Nashiri might be sent, but a military brig in South Carolina has been high on the list of considered sites.

The actual transfer of the detainees from Guantanamo to New York isn't expected to happen for many more weeks because formal charges have not been filed against most of them.

The attorney general has decided the case of the five Sept. 11 suspects should be handled by prosecutors working in the Southern District of New York, which has held a number of major terrorism trials in recent decades at a courthouse in lower Manhattan, just blocks from where the World Trade Center towers once stood.



Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.

[ Parent ]
Oh, that. (2.00 / 1)
You're right, it is a great story.  I bet you'd make a great diary out of it (that comment contains 90% of what you'd need to say... :~).

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon
[ Parent ]
Man... (0.00 / 0)
That would make a great Law and Order episode.
[ Parent ]
Only if Jack goes back to lead prosecutor, (0.00 / 0)
Adam comes back as DA.  Claire rises from the dead for the sexual overtones, and Lenny rises from the dead just because I looove Jerry Orbach.

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.
[ Parent ]
That's the Cast I Was Thinking Of... (0.00 / 0)
Was there ever any other?
[ Parent ]
I assume you're being flippant (I like that word). (2.00 / 1)
I did have to look up his name, but I liked Jesse L. Martin who played Lenny's last partner.

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.
[ Parent ]
Me Too (2.00 / 1)
No Fred Thompson, though, thanks.  Man, did we dodge a bullet there.
[ Parent ]
But what sort of Boston Legal episode would it make? n/t (2.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
Boston Legal is gone, (2.00 / 3)
don't rub salt in my wound...

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon
[ Parent ]
Angry Bear: Open Thread | 100 comments
Search




Advanced Search
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Blog Roll
Angry Bear
Balloon Juice
Booman Tribune
C4O Democrats
Crooks and Liars
Daily Kos
Five Thirty Eight
Glenn Greenwald
Huffington Post
MYDD
Open Left
RumpRoast
Scholars & Rogues
The Field
Wonkette
VetVoice
Moose With Blogs
Atdleft
Barr
BorderJumpers
Brit
BTchakir
Canadian Gal
Charles Lemos
Cheryl Kopec
Curtis Walker
Douglas Watts
Hubie Stubert
John Allen
Intrepid Liberal
ItStands
JoeTrippi
LibraryGrape
MichaelEvan
National Gadfly
Senate Guru
Zachary Karabell




Advertisement


Back to Top

Posting Guidelines  |  FAQ  |  Privacy Policy  |  Contact the Moose  |  Contact Congress
Powered by: SoapBlox