comment #1

corey3rd says ...

why wasn't Stella Stevens cast as the woman?

comment #2

Dave says ...

Can we nip a little bad history in the bud already?

*WE* did not create the Taliban, nor Al Qaeda. The Soviet Union invasion did to some extent, and more importantly, the Soviet-puppet Najibullah regime did.

The Soviets withdrew in 1989. The U.S. by default stop caring about Afghanistan-- one can argue that was "bad", but only in hindsight. It wasn't like we were going to continue the war to topple the Najibullah regime, which last ANOTHER SEVEN YEARS before falling to the Taliban.

As for the separate and distinct beast that is Al Qaeda, the secret to their rise lies in the obvious: they hate EVERYBODY-- the hated the Russians invading Afghanistan, they hated the U.S. in the Persian Gulf. We didn't provide them an excuse-- they were itching for one.

Yup, *we* created Al Qaeda. And by that logic, the Jews had it coming from the Nazis, too.

comment #3

Josh Massey says ...

I like all of my history "as witnessed by Aaron Sorkin."

comment #4

Dirty Harry says ...

Has anyone else noticed that when Lefties blame anyone but the terrorists for terrorism their logic always stops at America? Hmmm... I wonder why that is?

Let's use some of that twisted leftie logic and see what color "we" land on.

9/11 was committed by terrorists who lived under the protection of the Taliban who were ushered in because of America's intervention into Afghanistan... But... Being true to lefti logic, why stop there...? Why stop on America?

Why not step further back? Why not blame the Soviets for invading Afghanistan? Or the Communist revolution for creating the Soviets who invaded Afghanistan? Or, the Tsar for being such an asshole he ushered in the Communist revolution that created the Soviets...

I just find it curious that in the Left's heady logic to blame terrorism on anything but, oh, the terrorists -- that heady logic always stops on America. (Or, Israel, if that's any handier)

Why America? Hmmm...? Always America...

Curious, no?

comment #5

le corbeau says ...

Gee, I kind of think someone has a point if a $100 million movie blames the deadliest attack on US soil in history on them personally. I could see getting bent out of shape about that. I mean, I hold Jimmy Carter pretty much responsible for 9/11, in that if he had responded forcefully and ruthlessly to the kidnapping of our Iranian embassy staff in 1979, a whole lot of US-middle east history would be totally different, but even I would find a movie about the hostage crisis that cut from them coming home safely to the burning rubble of WTC rather dirty pool, making a simplistic point in a demagogic way.

comment #6

Dirty Harry says ...

Round and round the liberal blame game goes and somehow it always stops on America. The fix is in. The game is rigged.

I just can't figure out why?

comment #7

Sean says ...

Dave, the lesson of the book Charlie Wilson's War is that we helped the Afghan resistance -- which includes some fairly barbaric folks -- and brought them up to speed with techno-guerrilla warfare. Ideologically, they didn't need us, but the tremendous influx of money and armaments in the region helped them evolve into a more lethal brand of fanatic.

comment #8

K. Bowen says ...

While I agree with Sean that that element is in there, that's one lesson of the book, far from the only one. The book generally has a positive view of Wilson's actions, I would say.

comment #9

Sean says ...

Harry -

It's because you stop paying attention to them as soon as they mention America doing anything wrong.

-- Sean, but not the Sean who just posted two posts above this one

comment #10

Hopscotch says ...

Having read the book, the screenplay and recently seen the movie.

I think Jeff's conclusion is correct that the screenplay had some very entertaining scenes taken out for the movie.

I liked the movie. It's very fun in some scenes, but a tad uneven overall.

comment #11

Zimmergirl says ...

I'm with you, Hopscotch. By taking out that last scene and a few other key scenes (like Joanna Herring sticking her hand down Wilson's pants or whatever she does) they made it a puff piece. It's still entertaining and funny in places but overall...meh.

comment #12

FancastAndy says ...

I haven't seen the film yet, but as a Sorkin fan (sometimes in spite of myself), I found this interesting enough to point to from my blog at Fancast.

comment #13

Sean says ...

KB: I agree that the book mostly praises Wilson, and, while I'm not a scholar on the matter, I think it's entirely fair to say that he masterminded a critical, and perhaps the critical, blow to the Soviet Union. But there was blowback, and it's something that we as a nation probably could have managed better.

comment #14

Craig Kennedy says ...

I don't know. I still haven't read the script, but that kind of stuff could've played way too heavy handed on the big screen.

Even as a godless lefty, it's too simplistic to draw so direct a line between arming and training the Mujahideen and the burning Pentagon. You can draw a line, but it's not a straight bold line. It jumps around and there's plenty of blame to be doled out along the way.

That's my political 25 cents for the month. Enjoy.

comment #15

jeffmcm says ...

When nobody in my neighborhood has remembered to bring their trash cans off the street after they've been emptied, I bring my own cans in. I don't bother with everyone else's.

Harry, your posts would be a lot more interesting if they were actually intended for dialogue and not just for monologue.

comment #16

jeffmcm says ...

Oh, and: Herring should have dropped the case when she found out Julia Roberts was going to be playing her. Kind of a contrast going on there.

comment #17

christian says ...

Our foreign policy repeats itself: we get in bed with bad guys, they help us, get uppity, we demonize them, and they try to hurt us. The road might be crooked, but you can follow the lines.

comment #18

Dirty Harry says ...

I really long to be a uniter and not a divider but when I use the leftie-logic blameline that demands blaming terrorism on someone other than the, oh, terrorists -- it keeps going past America to the Soviets, Tsar, etc...

Why do you guys always stop on America again?

comment #19

FancastAndy says ...

I don't think they STOP on America, Harry. They just don't IGNORE America's role, either, and America's role is the one thing we can actually DO something about, so that's why it gets the focus.

comment #20

Dirty Harry says ...

I think you mean DWELL on America's role. SAVOR America's role. Bend themselves backwards in threes to BLAME America.

Can't blame the terrorists. Might help Bush.

comment #21

christian says ...

"Why do you guys always stop on America again?"

Because it's OUR COUNTRY too DH. You and Medved don't own it. Your willful lack of historical insight that doesn't fit your ideology is blinding.

But lemme guess, yoo love America so much that you impeached a president for a sexual dalliance while he was attacking the great enemy, Iraq. Is that how you support the troops and commander in chief while we're in harm's way?

comment #22

Dirty Harry says ...

I'm sorry, but I'm still confused, because what you blame 9/11 on -- abandoning Afghanistan --- is exactly what you want to do in Iraq.

If America was wrong to abandon Afghanistan, but America's also wrong to stick with Iraq...

You see what I'm getting at here? Get the whole "America wrong" theme you guys got going...?

I thought you might.

comment #23

christian says ...

Have ya ever been wrong about anything DH? Ever?

comment #24

jeffmcm says ...

Harry, the whole 'dwell/savor/blame' America thing is your perspective, and it's slanted. I can't help you with that.

All I can tell you is that I love this country and it pains me greatly when our leaders hurt it by doing stupid things.

So why not go back to the Czar? Because there hasn't been a Czar for 90 years, and because I am an American citizen, responsible for the actions of my government, not a Russian monarchist.

If you want to do any 'uniting' a good start would be to admit that, while this is a great country, it's also not a perfect one.

comment #25

Sean says ...

"because what you blame 9/11 on -- abandoning Afghanistan --- is exactly what you want to do in Iraq."

Well, if we're going to pull out sooner or later, surely it's better to do it before we arm the people who are going to hate us for pulling out *and* explain to them exactly how to focus their anger towards far more powerful nations, rather than after.

Reading Harry's posts, I'm reminded of conservative humor; surely you've all seen examples. Basically, there are talking points which have been repeated for so long among conservative circles that, even though they were debunked years ago (come on, Harry, liberals = blame America first? That might've played pre-Bush, but it's pretty clear that liberals blame incompentence wherever it comes into it... we just have more insight into American incompetence than anybody else's, because this is our country), these talking points have become "facts", and, thus, the jokes based on these facts don't actually make sense? Harry's doing the same thing, except he's not even as funny as Dennis Miller.

comment #26

Sean says ...

"leftie-logic blameline that demands blaming terrorism on someone other than the, oh, terrorists"

The problem is, if I follow rightie-logic, where people claim to be interested in responsibility, then George Bush should've been shot for treason years ago. Pick a reason; off the top of my head, I can think of five things which he has done which cost thousands of American lives, and/or guarantee incalcuble long-term damage.

I suspect that your notion of responsibility ("America is perfect, and everybody is responsible for what they do to us no matter what the reason") differs from mine, though, Harry.

comment #27

Sean says ...

"I think you mean DWELL on America's role. SAVOR America's role. Bend themselves backwards in threes to BLAME America."

Yeah, I can't imagine why Americans might believe that they would have some chance to influence the policy of their own country (as opposed to, say, "Hey, it's the terrorists faults they so terroristy, what can I do about it?") and, thus, try to focus on making the government of the country behave better. It must be easier to focus on voting for people who will blame all the problems and troubles of the world on everybody but them. That way, when you vote for them, and things get worse, you can just continue to stick your head in the sand and listen to them and blame everybody but them for the problems that they cause!

comment #28

Dirty Harry says ...

So, what are the cut-off years? When does America not get blamed? Fourteen-years? Twenty? Twenty-five? When do the dots get too far apart to blame America?

Did America contribute to 9/11 by abandoning Afghanistan or by having a presence in other Mideast countries? Because America's been blamed for 9/11 for doing both.

Why is America wrong to abandon Afghanistan and wrong to stick with Iraq?

See the disconnect here? See the "America wrong" thing that keeps cropping up no matter what America does?

I do understand why you guys don't want to blame terrorism on terrorists -- might help Bush -- and now I want to understand the leftie blame-America-game but something's off about it -- something called consistency and logic.

comment #29

christian says ...

Yes, DH, you are the master of consistency and logic.

So please, a summation of Bush as president. Dying to hear your objective take.

comment #30

Sean says ...

"So, what are the cut-off years? When does America not get blamed? Fourteen-years? Twenty? Twenty-five? When do the dots get too far apart to blame America?"

Given that you think that actions can ever be far enough removed from their consequences that those who act should not be held responsible for the consequences of their actions, your thinking on this subject is obviously too deep and well-reasoned for me.

comment #31

Sean says ...

"So, what are the cut-off years? When does America not get blamed? Fourteen-years? Twenty? Twenty-five? When do the dots get too far apart to blame America?"

Given that you think that actions can ever be far enough removed from their consequences that those who act should not be held responsible for the consequences of their actions, your thinking on this subject is obviously too deep and well-reasoned for me.

But, given that you refuse to see any connection between a motivating cause and an action, then you obviously must believe that our war in Afghanistan (and Iraq -- but that's a given) is unjust, right? I mean, a rational person would say "We attacked them because they were involved in attacking us," but, given that you aren't allowed to say that actions can be motivated based on the actions of others, I'm curious as to what led us into either of the two wars we're in now.

Since the terrorists aren't allowed any motivation in their attacks on us, we obviously had no motivation in our attacks on them, right? So, even by your non-existent logic, fully applied, we would *still* be in the wrong to be in Iraq.

comment #32

Sean says ...

"Why is America wrong to abandon Afghanistan and wrong to stick with Iraq?"

Well, my car keys weren't in my right pocket, so they must be in my left pocket. Nope, they weren't in my left pocket, so they must be in my right pocket. Nope, they weren't in my right pocket, they must be in my left pocket...

Obviously, at least one of the two options must be right!

comment #33

Sean says ...

Reminds me of "We have a surplus, so we need to lower taxes." "Wait, now we have a deficit? Well, the only answer is to lower taxes."

comment #34

Dirty Harry says ...

Christian: I could give you top ten lists of things both America and Bush have done wrong and in my CWW review I agreed that America abandoning Afghanistan was a mistake.

But forgive me for blaming the actual terrorists for 9/11 and the Soviets for causing them to radicalize. We were there to help. We left because we're not conquerors. And had we stayed liberals would've screamed about that too. Imperialism, or whatever the "ist" of the day is.

But while I lament us leaving Afghanistan I don't then turn around and hypocritically blame us for NOT leaving Iraq or FOR having a presense elsewhere in the Middle East.

You see, America can win with me because I'm consistent. And I'm consistent because neither my criticism or affection for this country is based on an irrational emotion, but rather, facts.

And I can list a lot more than ten-things America has done nobley and gotten right. And I talk about those things. And I defend this country when its loathers DWELL on her mistakes.

"Warts and all." Don't forget there's the "and all" part too.

comment #35

christian says ...

How long is the expiration date of loathing what Team Bush has done to this country?

And if we really hated America, we'd kick back and watch silently as your party's policies grind it down.

And it isn't "America" we attack, but the fools in charge. But since conservatives hate government intrusion (uh huh), why do you consistenty defend that which you claim to oppose?

comment #36

D.Z. says ...

>"Can you ever predict a war?"

You and Zbigniew Brzezinski predicted the Soviet advancement on Afghanistan, and intentionally set up the counterinsurgency to defeat it...

>"The shelf life of a Stinger missile is five >years. There's no weapon we got them that can be >used today." [HE note: This is a witless >smokescreen rebuttal as neither the movie not >Sorkin's screenplay states or implies that >weaponry purchased for the Afghan Muhjadeen in >the '80s was used against the U.S. later on.].

Exactly. The training is all that really matters, anyway.

>Herring showed the script to Wilson and "we wept >and wailed and gnashed our teeth," Herring says. >"Then they brought in some legal muscle -- Dick >DeGuerin, the celebrated hot-shot Houston >attorney who got an accused Houston murderer off

Did he help push for the release of that guy who raped Clinton's cousin, too?

"and also defended U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on conspiracy and money laundering charges."

So you picked a one-hit wonder is what you're saying?

"The column says that Herring flew to last Monday's L.A. premiere "with Houston pals, who included former Secretary of State James Baker...[and] to everyone's great relief, she and Wilson liked what they saw on the screen."

Yes, I really should care about the feelings of a guy who helped sell weapons to Iran, crack to South Central, and guns to death squads.

"the U.S. "fucked up the end game" in Afghanistan because no one nurtured political or cultural ties with key regional players and combatants in the war's aftermath."

That is true, actually, but that's clearly not the issue.

Dave: "*WE* did not create the Taliban, nor Al Qaeda. The Soviet Union invasion did to some extent, and more importantly, the Soviet-puppet Najibullah regime did."

Oh, and the CIA had nothing to do with Saddam...

"The U.S. by default stop caring about Afghanistan-- one can argue that was "bad", but only in hindsight."

Yeah, civil war is only bad when it stops the oil flow, which is the only reason to "stay the course" in Iraq.

"Yup, *we* created Al Qaeda. And by that logic, the Jews had it coming from the Nazis, too."

Um, the Jews didn't provide tips or equipment to the Germans for their own genocide.

Harry: "Has anyone else noticed that when Lefties blame anyone but the terrorists for terrorism their logic always stops at America?"

Have you ever noticed that conservatives defend terrorism in the form of water-boarding and depleted uranium, and then blame the media when they get caught?

"Why not step further back? Why not blame the Soviets for invading Afghanistan?"

Because we encouraged them do invade?

"Or the Communist revolution for creating the Soviets who invaded Afghanistan?"

Yes, revolution is bad, unless it's us doing it...

"Or, the Tsar for being such an asshole he ushered in the Communist revolution that created the Soviets..."

No one doubts the Tsar's role in fomenting the revolution.

"I'm sorry, but I'm still confused, because what you blame 9/11 on -- abandoning Afghanistan --- is exactly what you want to do in Iraq."

Not really, since the terrorists in Iraq are learning from blowing us up, not because we're training them. Also, we've still left Afghanistan hanging; and all that money selling smack's helping to increase future attacks on our turf...

"So, what are the cut-off years? When does America not get blamed? Fourteen-years? Twenty? Twenty-five? When do the dots get too far apart to blame America?"

When we stop taking the sides of people who like to whip women for being raped?

"Did America contribute to 9/11 by abandoning Afghanistan or by having a presence in other Mideast countries?"

Afghanistan isn't a Mideast country, and yes.

"I do understand why you guys don't want to blame terrorism on terrorists -- might help Bush --"

Oh, please! Bush can't even help NYC from being attacked by terrorists when he gets a warning from his own agency!

"Why is America wrong to abandon Afghanistan and wrong to stick with Iraq?"

Because Afghanistan has more hiding places than Iraq...?

Mgmax: "I mean, I hold Jimmy Carter pretty much responsible for 9/11, in that if he had responded forcefully and ruthlessly to the kidnapping of our Iranian embassy staff in 1979,"

Yes, why can't he sell weapons to them like Reagan?

comment #37

Dirty Harry says ...

Christian: I'm still waiting for the "and all" from you. But you just can't bring yourself to do it.

And I'm equally curious as to why America's was wrong to abandon Afghanistan, but also wrong to retain a presence elsewhere in the Middle East, but ALSO wrong NOT to abandon Iraq.

Waiting...

comment #38

James Rocchi says ...

"The 'blame-America-first" crowd is contemptible; however, so is the 'blame-America-never" side of the aisle. ..."

comment #39

jeffmcm says ...

Harry, now that DZ has had his say, the debate is officially over.
Although I will say this, I can't speak for Christian, but for me the 'and all' goes without saying. I don't feel a need to continually trumpet my patriotism. It just is, as a baseline, for everything I think. So when I say something like 'our policies have failed' the unspoken, unnecessary rest of it goes '...at making our great country better and more free'.

I would have thought this was obvious.

comment #40

Dirty Harry says ...

Jeff: Context is part of truth.

comment #41

jeffmcm says ...

So what's your point. That you honestly believe that unless we say we aren't, we're saboteurs out to destroy America?
Next time I'll ask you to preface all of your remarks "Now I'm not in favor of establishing a Christianist plutocracy, but I do think taxes should be lowered." for example.

comment #42

jeffmcm says ...

By the way, libruls aren't the only ones who want to Blame America First, if you will recall the remarks made by Mssrs. Falwell and Robertson.

comment #43

Dirty Harry says ...

yeah, jeff, that's what I meant: Context in a sentence.

I mean context in ones overall presentation. All the time the left hides behind some variation of "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Okay, but sometimes actual patriotism is the highest form of patriotism and wouldn't it be nice if once in a while -- just once in a while -- a you or a Christian would give the "our policies have failed" bit a breather and gush a bit over this amazing (but imperfect) country of ours.

Not that I'm unaware of the fact that some just don't have that in them. And too many of them are in the entertainment field.

comment #44

SpinDozer says ...

There is no 'blame America-First' crowd. It is a strawman the for the sheeple who have to have scapegoats and whose tenuous grasp of 'facts' doesn't exceed the broadcast range of their propaganda distributor of choice.

This doppelganger makes a pretty good foil to shout down any number of analytical conclusions based upon data which emerges over time. Blubbering about everyone BUT the United States, its' policies, its' actions and the predictable consequences of those actions, means you never have to modify a policy or consider alternate actions, just follow the leader.

comment #45

Dirty Harry says ...

SPIN: You lost me at "sheeple." You're just way too superior for me. You;re the only one who isn't sheeple -- the only one who can see the truth.

Jeff: when I said "some people don't have it in them," I was in no way insinuating you. That wasn't sarcasm or a cheap shot. I should've been clearer.

comment #46

Dirty Harry says ...

SPIN: You lost me at "sheeple." You're just way too superior for me. You're the only one who isn't sheeple -- the only one who can see the truth. You. Are. Amazing.

Jeff: when I said "some people don't have it in them," I was in no way insinuating you. That wasn't sarcasm or a cheap shot. I should've been clearer.

comment #47

jeffmcm says ...

Harry, I'm sorry, but I just don't feel a need to join the chorus under most circumstances. If some arrogant Brit like Ian Sinclair popped in here right now to bash America, or DZ, who I think legitimately hates the country, I'd argue against them. But since it's just you I think it's more important to serve as a counterbalance.

comment #48

Dirty Harry says ...

Serve facts, not as a counterbalance. If you say that's your role how can I believe what you say?

comment #49

SpinDozer says ...

Lost you at Sheeple did I?

Too complex a concept for Right Wingers is it?

That's ok, just go have a nice thumbsuck and try not to mutter to much about the fact not everyone is not rational fact-based thinking machine like yourself.

comment #50

jeffmcm says ...

Harry, because facts are complex and multifaceted and why should I say what you're already saying if I agree with it? I don't really think you're always a 'fact-server' either.

comment #51

christian says ...

"and all" what DH?

There's no reasoning with right wing jingoists like yourself.

I love this country for its best not its worst.

But you claim to love America yet are content with the status quo, such as homelesseness, a dying midddle class, massive debt, outsourcing, guns for kids, illegal wars, business crime, and an adminstration so staggeringly corrupt that you blame Americans for daring to protest.

And how dare my father who served in Vietnam have to SUE HIS OWN GOVERNMENT for exposing him and others to Agent Orange. The noive of that traitor! Of course, it was haters like you who blocked the truth for years. To protect your Hollywood vision of a good ol' war movie. Disgusting. Like Bush and Cheney and the rest of the jackals you've been hiding behind.

comment #52

christian says ...

And what really bothers you DH is that America no longer stands behind the crooks and liars that you've been mindlesslessly servicing the past 7 years. So in your twisted logic, that equates to America hatred. Because you've been wrong.

comment #53

Dirty Harry says ...

Dozer: Yeah, Sheeple was it. I knew I was out of my league. You're special. You see the truth. The rest of us are all just, well... Sheeple.

Christian: "But you claim to love America yet are content with the status quo, such as homelesseness, a dying midddle class, massive debt, outsourcing, guns for kids, illegal wars, business crime, and an adminstration so staggeringly corrupt that you blame Americans for daring to protest."

I'm not content with "all" of that. Just the guns for kids, illegal wars, and an administration so staggeringly corrupt part

Wait -- business crimes are okay and, uhm... You know what? I am content wiht all of that. You're right.

comment #54

jeffmcm says ...

Glad we cleared that up.

comment #55

christian says ...

Well, you elected a president who allowed Ken Lay to rape California and other states with their electric gouging -- all in the name of the glorious unregulated FREE MARKET! And those are the close friends of the president and vice-president! So what's your take on regulation now? Any regrets? Or is just a few bad apples again? See, ripping off America sounds un-American to me.

But to your party, it's just good business. The Art of War.

comment #56

Dirty Harry says ...

"you elected a president who allowed Ken Lay to rape California and other states with their electric gouging -- all in the name of the glorious unregulated FREE MARKET!"

You all of that like it's a bad thing.

comment #57

SpinDozer says ...

'Sheeple was it. I knew I was out of my league. You're special. You see the truth. The rest of us are all just, well... Sheeple.'

If by 'the rest of us' you mean the 20-30% of poll responders who think Bush is a good President, then yeah, me and the rest of the country are superior to the crybabies. You are the model citizen of any totalitarian state, left or right.

And since you are the one whining about nonexistant people who "blame America First", it is you who have staked out the territory of knowing The Truth and then you post about your inability to understand how anyone could have a different opinion.

comment #58

D.Z. says ...

Dirty Harry: "Okay, but sometimes actual patriotism is the highest form of patriotism and wouldn't it be nice if once in a while -- just once in a while -- a you or a Christian would give the "our policies have failed" bit a breather and gush a bit over this amazing (but imperfect) country of ours"

So it's patriotic to out an undercover agent?

jeff: "or DZ, who I think legitimately hates the country,"

No, I just hate the people who run it into the ground.

comment #59

le corbeau says ...

No, I just hate the people who run it into the ground.

Like Quentin Tarantino!

comment #60

Dirty Harry says ...

Dozer: What do you expect? I'm a sheeple.

Or is the singular "Shperson?"

You know what? Nazi's fine. Or Dirty HarryMcHitler. Whatever floats the Democrat Underground's boat.

comment #61

SpinDozer says ...

'Whatever floats the Democrat Underground's boat.'

I believe normal literate people would find 'Scumbag' totally acceptable.

comment #62

le corbeau says ...

Thread checklist:

Taliban, sole responsibility for existence of due to US: √√√
Nazis, random mention of: √√
Jimmy Carter, history's greatest monster: √
Expectation of morally pure foreign policy from us if no one else on the planet: √√
Random semi-obscure rightwingers namedropped: Michael Medved √, Dennis Miller √
Clinton impeachment: √
Assumption of mental superiority for liberals: √
Iran-Contra, as reason to invalidate entire decade: √
Enron, as reason to invalidate entire decade: √
Oil, as moral taint of entire century: √
Waterboarding: √
Depleted uranium: √
Vague, no-shit-Sherlock warning "Bin Laden determined to attack US" cited as actionable intelligence Bush failed to act on: √
Jeffmcm attacks DZ: √
Use of Sullivanesque neologism "Christianist": √
Falwell and Robertson just as bad as Osama: √
Use of Chomskyesque neologism "Sheeple": √
Insistence that third decade of astonishing economic boom represents death of the middle class and epidemic of homelessness: √

Astonishingly, no mention of Fox News or Ann Coulter yet. Someone get on that, right now.

comment #63

Dirty Harry says ...

Mgmax, that is hilarious. Bravo.

comment #64

jeffmcm says ...

'third decade of astonishing economic boom'? Where is that happening? In my world, there were recessions in the late 80s-early 90s and from approx. spring 2001-2003.

comment #65

SpinDozer says ...

Assumption of mental superiority for Right Wingers: √

That is why you and DH post, right? The phrase 'group-think lefties' echoes from some enchanted isle.

comment #66

le corbeau says ...

Unemployment hit its postwar high in late 1982: 10.8%. It has steadily decreased since then-- not going above 8% in the last 24 years, not going above 7% in 14 years, at the level of functional full employment for the last 2 years straight.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

The S&P 500 reached 200 for the first time 22 years ago. It closed just under 1500 today.

Third decade of an unprecedented economic boom. It is an inarguable fact, no matter how one might wish for misery and disaster.

comment #67

le corbeau says ...

I claim only superior command of the facts, Spin old chap.

comment #68

jeffmcm says ...

Sure, except for the whole part about being wrong, when you base your figures on the rest of the economy. Remember the 1992 election, when Bush senior lost in spite of his stunning victory in Iraq?
According to these folks there have been 4 recessions in the last 20 years:
http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

comment #69

SpinDozer says ...

'I claim only superior command of the facts, Spin old chap.'

US victorious in Korean War?

Your "facts" are largely imaginary and generally second hand from Powerline and other dispensers of the ole crapola.

comment #70

le corbeau says ...

Yes, Jeff, there have been recessions. The point is, even when the economy has downturned during that time, it's been fundamentally strong-- and recovered within a relatively short time. Unlike, say, in the 1930s-- or the 1970s.

comment #71

jeffmcm says ...

Sure...but that's not what you said. And I think some worries about the fundamental structural soundness of the economy are justified.
http://www.factcheck.org/update_on_kerrys_shrinking_middle_class_-.html

comment #72

christian says ...

I would make the archetypal Hallliburton jab, but it's too cruel, what with the gang rape of an employee in Iraq who was literally kept under guard after the attack...well, we know where the real hate comes from:

Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.

"Don't plan on working back in Iraq. There won't be a position here, and there won't be a position in Houston," Jones says she was told.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court against Halliburton and its then-subsidiary KBR, Jones says she was held in the shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water by KBR, which posted armed security guards outside her door, who would not let her leave. Jones described the container as sparely furnished with a bed, table and lamp.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3977702&page=1

Remember, Victory!

comment #73

christian says ...

And with the recent revelation of the CIA destroying tapes that probably show torture, I expect more rightie spin into hell:

Oct 22 2003 -- Final autopsy report relating to death of "52 y/o Iraqi Male, Civilian Detainee" held by U.S. forces in Nasiriyah, Iraq. Prisoner was found to have "died as a result of asphyxia...due to strangulation."

November 14, 2003 -- a sworn statement of a soldier stationed at Camp Red, Baghdad, states that "I saw what I think were war crimes" and that "the chain of command....allowed them to happen."

May 13, 2004 -- a sworn statement of the 302nd Military Intelligence Battalion recounts an incident in which "interrogators abused 17-year-old son of prisoner in order to 'break' the prisoner."

May 18, 2004 -- a Privacy Act statement of an Abu Ghraib sergeant notes that prisoners had been forced to stand "naked with a bag over their head, standing on MRE boxes and their hand[s] spread out...holding a bottle in each hand."

May 24, 2004 -- Sworn statement of interrogator who arrived at Abu Ghraib in October 2003, discussing use of military dogs against juvenile prisoners.

June 16, 2004 -- Marine Corps document describing abuse cases between September 2001 and June 2004, including "substantiated" incidents in which marines electrocuted a prisoner and set another's hands on fire.

Undated: Sworn statement of screener who arrived at Abu Ghraib in September 2003, indicating that prisoners at Asamiya Palace in Baghdad had been beaten, burned and subjected to electric shocks.

Subsequent internal documents record prisoners being stripped, made to walk into walls blindfolded, punched, kicked, dragged about the room, observed to have bruises and burn marks on their backs, and having their jaws deliberately broken. Still other reports document further incidents classified by the military itself as probable murders committed by US interrogators.

The book also reveals an extraordinary original transcript of a Dept. of the Army Inspector General interview with Lieutenant General Randall Marc Schmidt. Lt. Gen. Schmidt had interfaced with MG Geoffrey Miller on the one hand -- the most brutal overseer of such abuses, the one who was sent to "Gitmo-ize" other prisons -- and the honorable JAG military lawyers on the other hand, over the abuses under investigation at that time. [Lt. Gen. Schmidt advised MG Miller of his rights under Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice at that time -- in other words, those involved know something serious is at stake, p. a-16].

The transcript of this internal document reveals Lt. Gen. Schmidt's own words that it was his understanding that the directives to commit these acts, many of which are apparently war crimes, came right from the top.

The interview was not primarily intended to be a public document:

"An Inspector General" notes the document, "is an impartial fact-finder for the Directing Authority Testimony taken by an IG and reports based on that testimony may be used for official purposes. Access is normally restricted to persons who clearly need the information to perform their official duties. [italics mine]. In some cases, disclosure to other persons may be required by law or regulation or may be directed by proper authority." As in the case, clearly, here -- though the immense implications of this privately taken testimony have not reverberated fully yet in a public forum: "I thought the Secretary of Defense in good faith was approving techniques," testified Lt. Gen. Schmidt. "In good faith after talking to him twice. I know that -- and these weren't interrogations or interviews of him. This was our hour and forty-five minutes and then another hour and fifteen kind of thing were [sic] we sat in there and had these discussions with him."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/what-is-probably-in-the-m_b_76708.html

comment #74

jeffmcm says ...

Come on, Christian! How are we going to know if you love America if you keep posting downer stuff like that.

DZ: On the same note, I don't believe you. You are not a trustworthy or honest character.

comment #75

le corbeau says ...

Jeffmcm, you assume that I say "economic boom" to mean "not a week, let alone a month or a quarter, of downturn." I of course don't mean anything so simplistic. The overall trend is as I showed-- an extraordinary period of economic growth, beneficial throughout society.

comment #76

jeffmcm says ...

Mgmax, okay, but your terms were still unnecessarily vague. You said 'unprecedented economic boom' even though it was quite precedented, primarily in the sustained boom from the end of WWII to the inflation/oil shock recessions of the 70s. And if you're going to go that far back, why not to the 1920s? The industrial boom of the 19th century? Hell, the world economy has been in a period of more-or-less sustained growth since the 1500s.
But you can't pin that credit on Reagan.

comment #77

le corbeau says ...

But you can't pin that credit on Reagan.

Jeffmcm, do try not to be D.Z.-reductive. Honestly, giving Reagan some credit where credit is due is not worshiping him blindly or being a stooge for the coming fascism, even if it seems that way to binary types like Spoondozer.

comment #78

jeffmcm says ...

I don't know what else would have happened about 25 years ago to launch the glorious economic boom you were speaking of. Better to keep it simple and talk about Alexander Hamilton and the economic policies that set the country on its path.

comment #79

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Like Quentin Tarantino!"

Well, he and the CIA do get off on torture...

"The point is, even when the economy has downturned during that time, it's been fundamentally strong-- and recovered within a relatively short time. Unlike, say, in the 1930s-- or the 1970s."

Yes, Harding and Nixon were awful at managing the economy.

"Honestly, giving Reagan some credit where credit is due"

He does get credit: Credit for the Savings and Loan bail-out; credit for shipping our manufacturing jobs to El Salvador; and credit for the Japanese kicking our ass in electronics and cars, that is...

comment #80

jeffmcm says ...

SHUT UP!

comment #81

jeffmcm says ...

PS: Harding had been dead for seven years by the time the 1930s started, you fucking idiot. Nobody minds that you're not very smart and have bizarre, insular tastes. But please, for the love of god, stop inflicting your total ignorance on the rest of us with your brand of nonchalant arrogance that only a William F. Buckley or a Noam Chomsky is entitled to possess. You're an anime geek who lives in West Hollywood. Start acting like one.

comment #82

le corbeau says ...

Harding is a very underrated president. Certainly far more racially progressive than any of his predecessors, especially the odious Wilson. Coolidge even better economically, perhaps.

As for Nixon vs. Reagan, you don't seem to realize that Nixon was the model of an interventionist, statist president, like most Democrats want, and the economy sucked as a result, while Reagan kicked off our modern boom (or Paul Volcker did) by rejecting all of that (and breaking strikes to halt spiraling wage demands so other anti-inflation measures could work).

comment #83

christian says ...

"and breaking strikes to halt spiraling wage demands so other anti-inflation measures could work)."

The Wonderful World of Right Wing Fantasy.

A founder of SAG breaking strikes. Another Reagan joke.

comment #84

le corbeau says ...

Care to make a case why breaking strikes (which indisputably happened, under both Reagan here and Thatcher in England) and halting inflation (which also indisputably happened shortly thereafter) are completely unrelated phenomena, Christian? Mere sneering is no substitute for reasoned, informed discourse.

You are probably too young to remember the mid to late 70s, but inflation more than anything is what kept the economy from growing and contributed to the general misery and malaise of those times. No one could buy a house because they'd pay 18% for the loan; few new jobs were created because employers were hesitant to increase an already-growing payroll cost. Inflation is tremendously corrosive and the hard medicine Reagan (and Volcker; primarily Volcker, Reagan having the sense to stay out of his way) administered produced a grim recession for 2-3 years and a boom that has lasted for more than 20 more.

If you care to answer that in a learned fashion, go right ahead.

comment #85

SpinDozer says ...

'Care to make a case why breaking strikes...and halting inflation are completely unrelated phenomena...?

Deficit spending?

comment #86

christian says ...

I was around in the mid to late 70's and what it comes down to is this: because of Reagan's knee-jerk conservative rampant fear/hatred of unions (except the one that helped him) he fired thousands of hard-working professionals who had valid grievances against th monopolistic FAA.

Not that you care about the working folk (and based on the labor support Reagan initially receivd, they didn't understand how little Reagan cared about them), but the ATC complained of dangerous working conditions and too many hours --which leads to air disaster for you and me.

How did Reagan "help inflation" by firing thousands who lost their jobs for life so less experienced, i.e., cheaper labor, could be hired? I'm sure the WSJ can provide some facts.

But here's the truth from one of those radicals that Reagan "banned":

Ron Taylor was fired by President Reagan 23 years ago. He's still trying to get his job back.

Taylor, 57, of Stuart, Fla., was one of more than 11,000 air-traffic controllers fired by Reagan after they went on strike for higher wages and fewer hours on the stress-filled job. In 1993, President Clinton ended the "ban for life" Reagan had imposed on former members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Association, but Taylor and thousands of others weren't rehired.

"When they talk about Reagan as compassionate, I just don't know what they are talking about," says Taylor, president of PATCO, which continues legal action to get members' jobs back.

"Reagan banned us for life," Taylor says. "Even murderers are eligible for parole. We thought we, as labor, had a friend in the White House."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-06-10-taylor-vignette_x.htm

comment #87

christian says ...

Oh and today Greenspan contradicts Mgmax:

Greenspan said it's too soon to say whether a recession is coming, "but the odds are clearly rising."

"We're getting close to stall speed" in economic growth, he said. "And we are far more vulnerable at levels where growth is so slow than we would be otherwise.

"Indeed ... somebody who has an immune system which is not working very well is subject to all sorts of diseases, and the economy at this level of growth is subject to all sorts of potential shocks."

comment #88

le corbeau says ...

Wow, the fact that we might have a recession soon contradicts the last 25 years of growth?

You know, I'm sorry for individuals who get screwed. I really am. But I'd be sorry for two frickin' generations of Americans if an economy like we had from about 1973 to 1983 had persisted ever since. I realize you probably think of the tycoon in Monopoly when you think of people who talk like me, but I'm not living off an inheritance, I don't have a III behind my name and an ancestral summer home in the Hamptons, I'm a working stiff, I went to a state school, I bought a house in a crappy neighborhood and rode the wave of urban renewal into a yuppie one, what I have my wife and I earned the old-fashioned way. I am grateful not because I was born at third base and thought I hit a triple, but because even in the shitty job market of 1984 I found a first job paying $12,000 a year and steadily worked that up to more and more. (Not always that steadily-- being a freelance stay at home dad, I didn't make much more than that $12,000 in the year after 9/11.) I am very conscious of what it takes to get somewhere-- and that it really can be done in America. So I don't take the idea of screwing that up lightly, nor do I dismiss it scornfully.

comment #89

jeffmcm says ...

Mgmax, you've got to stop saying that we've had uninterruped growth for the last 25 years. It is absolutely not true. We had a nice boom under Reagan , then another one through most of the 90s that slowed when the dot-com bubble burst, now we're in a third one right now that is in the midst of slowing thanks to the housing market.

comment #90

le corbeau says ...

I've never said we had 25 years of uninterrupted growth. Find me where I said that.

What I've implied-- and I'm scarcely alone in this-- is that the period from Reagan's election on is reasonably regarded as an era (call it the Reagan era if you like) in which similar policies have resulted in an overall period-- with some significant downturns-- of high economic growth, inflation under control, a tech boom, tax cuts, the decline of organized labor, Alan Greenspan running the world, etc. etc. Even Clinton bemoaned at one point that he was so hemmed in by the Reagan-defined view of economics and policy that "we're basically Eisenhower Republicans." Can it be subdivided further into smaller timespans, some of which were rather rough? Absolutely. FDR's term can be divided into multiple timespans too, 1942 was very different from 1933, and 1937 was somewhere in between. Still, I have no problem seeing 1929 to 1980 as, fundamentally, one cohesive FDR-shaped era (including the time of his predecessor Hoover, which faced the same problems, often in much more similar ways than the common notion of history recognizes).

Anyway, really, you're trying to put words in my mouth I wouldn't say. I don't worship Reagan, I don't have blinders about the last 25 years and think they were exclusively rosy. But on the whole, most of America has benefited a great deal from the "Reagan era," and no small part of the rest of the world has too, and you don't have to be a rich bastard for that to have been true for you. Just make sure you put the maximum in your 401k.

comment #91

jeffmcm says ...

"...the last 25 years of growth?"

Otherwise I don't disagree with you, but your brush just seems a little overly broad.

...and the idea that I have a 401k... ha. I expect to be working until the day I drop dead at whatever we have instead of computers fifty years from now.

comment #92

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Harding is a very underrated president. Certainly far more racially progressive than any of his predecessors, especially the odious Wilson."

That must be why he was ashamed to admit his black
heritage.

"Coolidge even better economically, perhaps."

Yes, his quotas targeting specific minority groups from coming into the country were clearly beneficial to oppressed rich white males...

"As for Nixon vs. Reagan, you don't seem to realize that Nixon was the model of an interventionist, statist president, like most Democrats want,"

He certainly showed those greedy, price-gouging, oil companies a thing or too!

"while Reagan kicked off our modern boom (or Paul Volcker did)"

Yes, every economy should be based on a nuclear weapons stockpile, because we need those more than clothes not made in China.

"by rejecting all of that (and breaking strikes to halt spiraling wage demands"

Yes, making our wages lower than their actual value was pure genius. Why, if most of us could afford to buy houses with the money we should be making, there's no telling how bad it would be for the economy!

"so other anti-inflation measures could work)"

The only anti-inflation measure he seemed to be able to come up with was bombing Lebanon and Grenada...Well, that, and subsidizing faceless corporations...

"You are probably too young to remember the mid to late 70s, but inflation more than anything is what kept the economy from growing and contributed to the general misery and malaise of those times."

Well, that, and the illegal war in Vietnam...

"administered produced a grim recession for 2-3 years and a boom that has lasted for more than 20 more."

If you don't count two recessions, and two bail-outs, sure.

Mgmax: "Wow, the fact that we might have a recession soon contradicts the last 25 years of growth?"

You don't seem to realize that China's the country which has grown from our 25 years of economic policies, not us.

"Even Clinton bemoaned at one point that he was so hemmed in by the Reagan-defined view of economics and policy that "we're basically Eisenhower Republicans."

Um, Eisenhower actually believed in social services for the needy.

comment #93

jeffmcm says ...

Hey, guess what? I'm here to say that you're lame and so on and soforth.

How is it possible that you aren't sick of yourself?

comment #94

SpinDozer says ...

"A common supply-side interpretation of the 80s goes something like this: "Carter's tax-and-spend policies ruined the economy, and sent America into the worst recession since World War II. Reagan inherited many of those economic problems, but once he cut taxes, America's entrepreneurial spirit was unshackled. We experienced the greatest peacetime expansion in postwar history - the so-called 'Seven Fat Years' from 1983 to 1989. Then George Bush broke his 'Read my lips: no new taxes' pledge, and sent the economy back into recession."

"There are several problems with this story. First, Carter actually began many of the policies that Reagan would later become known for; Carter gave the rich a capital gains tax cut, massively deregulated key industries like trucking and airlines, and even increased defense spending. This was also the period that corporate PACs began compelling Congress to pass pro-business legislation. According to supply-side theory, these actions should have nudged the economy in the right direction, not plunged it into the worst recession in 40 years. Other problems involve timing: Reagan's first tax cuts went into effect in 1982, but this was also the summer that the Federal Reserve Board slashed interest rates and expanded the money supply. Most economists believe the Fed, not Reagan, was responsible for the following recovery. Finally, the recession of 1990 began four months before Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge. The recession began in July 1990; Bush signed his tax increases into law in November 1990."

As you can see, economic growth varies considerably from year to year. This allows political spin doctors to prove anything they want to prove, by choosing the most convenient comparison dates and indulging in clever rhetoric. Economists have a way of getting around this. They arrive at an accurate assessment by measuring potential growth instead of actual growth. The result of such a measurement shows that Reagan did no better or worse than Ford, Carter or Bush. Potential growth under all four presidents remained pretty much the same: about 2.5 percent."

"...the cycle of recessions and recoveries is normal. But they generally follow a long-term trend of growth; therefore, a deep recession is going to be followed by an even steeper recovery. This is why the unusually severe 80-82 recession was followed by such a long recovery. Reagan's fortune with the economy was predetermined by events that occurred even before his first tax cuts."

Just another opinion...

comment #95

SpinDozer says ...

And, of course, Krugman:

"Since the 1920’s there have been four eras of American inequality:

• The Great Compression, 1929-1947: The birth of middle-class America. The real wages of production workers in manufacturing rose 67 percent, while the real income of the richest 1 percent of Americans actually fell 17 percent.

• The Postwar Boom, 1947-1973: An era of widely shared growth. Real wages rose 81 percent, and the income of the richest 1 percent rose 38 percent.

• Stagflation, 1973-1980: Everyone lost ground. Real wages fell 3 percent, and the income of the richest 1 percent fell 4 percent.

• The New Gilded Age, 1980-?: Big gains at the very top, stagnation below. Between 1980 and 2004, real wages in manufacturing fell 1 percent, while the real income of the richest 1 percent — people with incomes of more than $277,000 in 2004 — rose 135 percent.

What’s noticeable is that except during stagflation, when virtually all Americans were hurt by a tenfold increase in oil prices, what happened in each era was what the dominant political tendency of that era wanted to happen."

comment #96

BurmaShave says ...

Whenever I get to the end of a Krugman piece I'm usually so struck by the obviousness of his "insight" that I imagine Borat going "Whaaaaaat?!"