Allocation of Wealth

On his radio show this morning Glenn Beck played a clip of Iowa Senator Tom Harkin talking about wealth allocation.

“First of all, I want to disagree with those who say we have a spending problem. Everyone keeps saying we have a spending problem,” he said during a discussion on the Budget Control Act of 2011 (which includes the across-the-board spending cuts known as “sequestration”) .

“And when they talk about that, it’s like there’s an assumption that somehow we as a nation are broke,” he added.

Sen. Harkin, who sits on the Appropriations Committee, continued:

Well look at it this way, we’re the richest nation in the history of the world. We are now the richest nation in the world.

We have the highest per capita income of any major nation. That kind of begs the question, doesn’t it? If we’re so rich, why are we so broke? Is it a spending problem?

No, it’s because we have a misallocation of capital, a misallocation of wealth.

It sounded like a great topic for a thread, because, IMO, an understanding of how wealth is allocated represents one of the fundamental differences between Conservatives and Liberals.

So, just exactly how should wealth be allocated?  Should it be the responsibility of government to allocate wealth, as President Obama has maintained?  In a society where the government is the final arbiter of wealth allocation, who is better off, the average citizen or those in charge of allocating the wealth?  Is there, or has there ever been, a society where government allocation of wealth has resulted in a high level of freedom and prosperity?  Are there ANY SOCIALISTS SUCCESS STORIES? 

Since the advent of LBJ’s Great Society and the War on Poverty, trillions of dollars of wealth have been re-allocated, and yet the poverty rate is the same as it was 3 decades ago, and only a couple percentage points lower than it was a half century ago.  It reminds me of one of my favorite Winston Churchill quotes:

“The vice of capitalism is that there is an unequal share of the blessings; the virtue of socialism is that there is an equal share of the misery.”

The other day Watson mentioned that capitalism has been very good to him, and yet he supports a system and a president whose ultimate goal is to destroy capitalism.  That seems to me to be a major disconnect.  Perhaps Watson can explain the rationale behind his position.

 

Advertisements

40 thoughts on “Allocation of Wealth

  1. Amazona February 15, 2013 / 3:10 pm

    The very premise that it is in any way the concern of the government, regarding the allocation of wealth, lies at the heart of Leftist ideology.

    It is the belief that government should control everything that lets people accept the concept that it can, and should, control who has what.

    The political system in which government makes these decisions has been tried, over and over, and every time it has been tried it has failed. The failures range from simple financial disaster, as we see in Europe and what is looming over our heads right now, to overt oppression and tyranny and even the deaths of millions in efforts to retain power.

    Even in the English monarchy our forefathers left and fought against, the Crown did not try to redistribute wealth. It took what it wanted to finance its wars and schemes, and the support of royalty, but it did not make decisions that these citizens deserved to have what those citizens earned.

    Our earliest settlers tried a communistic form of government and when it failed and the people were starving they realized it would not work and moved to a system in which people owned property, worked as they wished, and kept what they earned.

    The role of our federal government is clearly laid out in our foundational documents. It is to protect the citizens. Period. There is nothing there about making value judgments on what those citizens do or do not do, aside from the Constitutional protections designed to let them live as they choose, and assume the consequences of their choices and actions.

    Aside from its blatant Leftism, Harkin’s message manages to completely ignore the REASON wealth is unequally distributed. It is a tenet of the hard Left that what one man owns he took from another, but in reality we know that this is simply not so. When I made more than other women in the shop where we made down clothing, it was because I worked harder and faster and developed techniques that allowed me to complete more work than those who didn’t exert themselves, but what I made was not taken from them. I earned it.

    Our new company routinely gets contracts that have been bid on by other companies in the same field. This is because we do a better job and are dependable. We seldom have the lowest bid, but our clients know our work is excellent, is done on time, and we can be counted on to come in on short notice to help them out when they are in a bind. We earn that money. A Leftist would complain that the work should be spread out evenly among all the companies, and then payment should be equalized as well, no matter which companies do inferior work, which put in 18-hour days to get projects finished when the clients need them finished, etc.

    • neocon01 February 15, 2013 / 3:15 pm

      Good grief these people are not only LIARS but STUPID as well.
      like 1/2 half the population.

      • neocon01 February 15, 2013 / 3:20 pm

        Perhaps Watson can explain the rationale behind his position.

        like he was for it before he was against it……. LOL

      • neocon01 February 15, 2013 / 3:24 pm

        REALLY??? I mean WTF???
        and we wonder with LOONS like these why we are in such deep SHIITE?

        No, it’s because we have a misallocation of capital, a misallocation of wealth.

        Or

  2. GMB February 15, 2013 / 3:36 pm

    Wealth is allocated? Damn I thought it was created. Poor pitiful me. Who decides what my allocation is? Please for the love of our Allmighty tell me it is not my friend Thomas. If it is, I will never see another dollar in my lifetime.

    😦

    • neocon01 February 15, 2013 / 3:49 pm

      GMB

      not to worry, ole bmitch will fly in on his VACUUM powered aircraft and save the day. He will allocate you an IOU for your SS, medicare, taxes, and 401K after he has stolen them…….Oh Wait that has already been done!!

      • GMB February 15, 2013 / 9:23 pm

        I’ll get even less from mr. empathetic vacuum bomber boy. Doesn’t really matter to me. Won’t take any ss or medicare. Church will take of that if my kids can’t.

        401k? lol Not a single person in my community has one of those that I know of. That’s why we have so many kids. 🙂

        Now if I could get rid of those taxes that maintain piglosis salary.

    • Amazona February 15, 2013 / 4:43 pm

      GMB, Harkin feels pretty comfortable making this comment because he assumes that the “allocators” will all be Dems. If the allocation were to shift away from Leftist agendas and goals toward things the Left hates, such as funding charter schools to give students a choice that does not include teachers unions, or funding adoption while banning abortion, or any other arena that is counter to how he thinks this wealth ought to be allocated he would be singing a different tune.

  3. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) February 15, 2013 / 4:00 pm

    Perhaps Watson can explain the rationale behind his position.

    I haven’t observed Watson as long as most of you, but I can tell you exactly what he’ll say (and save him the trouble of commenting). Based on his past comments he’ll say that he doesn’t accept the premise that Obama wants to destroy capitalism.

    • neocon01 February 15, 2013 / 4:13 pm

      JR
      neither did marx, mao, pol, fidel, che….looks like bathouse barry is in “good” company.

    • watsonthethird February 15, 2013 / 4:24 pm

      lol. Yes, Babcock, you are right. I think it’s idiotic to claim that President Obama wants to destroy capitalism, although that is what you hear from Glenn Beck. I don’t make it a habit of listening to Glenn Beck, but doesn’t he claim a directly line from Woodrow Wilson to Barack Obama?

      Oh, and note to sensitive Amazona: My deepest apologies for Spook calling me out by name to respond. I know you hate it when that happens. Thanks to your insightful commentary in the last thread, I now realize that when people ask me direct questions, like Spook did above, it is delusional to think that they were referring to me. Could you please talk to your friend Spook and advise him to stop naming me by name so that you don’t so easily get confused? Thank you.

      Anyway, back to making money. Isn’t capitalism great?

      • Amazona February 15, 2013 / 4:38 pm

        Spook addresses comments to me, too, and when someone else chimes in I don’t get all clingy and possessive and whine “Go away! GO AWAY!! He was talking to MEEEEEE! . Ditto for when he or any of us for that matter address a comment to any other specific poster.

        It’s a party line, cupcake, and if you want a really cozy private heart-to-heart with anyone here you are going to have to set it up off-blog. On the blog, it’s open to whoever wants to chime in. We don’t have private chat rooms here.

        As for Barry wanting to get rid of capitalism, it’s hard to know just WHAT he wants but it for darned sure is not a federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power, as set out so clearly in the Constitution, and it for darned sure isn’t an expansion of the free market system, and it for darned sure isn’t a system which incentivizes initiative and productivity.

        At this point limited, government-controlled, semi-capitalism is necessary to feed the beast, and I think he is OK with that as long as he has trillions to buy votes, retain power, and “fundamentally transform” the nation into something much closer to the Marxist ideals he admits to finding so attractive throughout his life.

      • Retired Spook February 15, 2013 / 8:00 pm

        I think it’s idiotic to claim that President Obama wants to destroy capitalism

        Well then Watson, what do you think he was referring to when he proclaimed right before the 2008 election that “we are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”? He was either referring to transforming the United States from a representative republic to a socialist democracy or from a free market capitalist economy to a state capitalist economy. I don’t see any other possibilities. If you do, please enlighten us.

        BTW, I addressed you specifically because you sound like a reasonably intelligent guy who I keep thinking will eventually participate in a meaningful way. Every once in a while you’re like the blind squirrel who occasionally finds an acorn, but, for the most part, you’re just a disappointment. If you were a college professor or a social worker or a government employee, I could understand where you’re coming from, but when you say things like “capitalism has been good to [you]” and you think that Obama and his pals represent the best way forward, that’s just a total 180 degree disconnect to me. And the worst part is you don’t seem to be able to explain it.

      • Cluster February 15, 2013 / 8:04 pm

        Obama is not trying to do away with capitalism, he’s just “fundamentally transforming” it.

      • M. Noonan February 15, 2013 / 8:13 pm

        Beck gets it a bit wrong if he draws the line from Wilson to Obama – the correct line is Theodore Roosevelt to Obama…when Roosevelt decreed that he could do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, our Republic’s goose was, in a sense, cooked. All we’ve done since then is just go further and further down the route of dissolution in constitutional government. A few brake taps were done by Coolidge and Reagan but, really, its been all down hill from there.

      • watsonthethird February 15, 2013 / 9:00 pm

        Sorry to be such a consistent disappointment, Spook. It’s actually kind of hard to have any meaningful discussion here. I’ve tried several times, including the last thread. But you see what happens. And based on your response above, it’s really hard for me to accept that you are sincere in wanting my opinion.

        I don’t necessarily think President Obama “and his pals” are the best way forward, but they have beaten the alternatives the last two elections. Sorry if the majority of the American people agree with me.

        As for “we are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” it was a campaign slogan, Spook. You and Glenn Beck attribute some deep, dark meaning to it that is so sinister, it eluded the majority of Americans. To folks like you, Obama is both stupid (can’t talk without a teleprompter) and yet so incredibly intelligent and conniving as to be able to perpetrate the greatest fraud on the America people ever. It’s just over-the-top nonsense.

        What I think he meant is, for example, a return to a more sane tax policy–a return to Clinton era tax rates. Or that we as a nation need to do something about the issues of health care. You may actually recall that it wasn’t only President Obama arguing for health care reform. So was Senator McCain. Or that we need to get out of Iraq, finally. Stuff like that. These are nudges back toward more liberal positions after years of more conservative ones. But you conclude that he’s a sinister Marxist, fascist, communist, socialist who will take away your guns, take away your money and property, and take away your rights and give it away to the undeserving poor people who never worked a day in their life. That’s really your biggest fear. Someone will get something for nothing on your back. Look, we can disagree on policy without concluding that President Obama is bent on intentionally destroying America. That’s just absurd, and if that’s what you truly believe, then there really isn’t much common ground to be had.

        While I felt that George Bush’s complete lack of a plan for occupied Iraq was unconscionable, I never thought it was his intention to have American soldiers killed for years in the aftermath. While the economy collapsed on his watch, I never felt like it was something he did on purpose. While more than 3000 Americans died at the hands of terrorists on his watch, I never for a minute thought that it was because he was in cahoots with them. You really have been listening to too much Glenn Beck. Broaden your reading, for God sakes.

        Anyway, I hope the satisfies you. Given that you think I’m just a “blind squirrel,” it’s beyond me why you felt moved to directly asked me to comment. Must be for the sport of it, I guess.

        Oh, and Little Amy, my sincerest apologies for not pointing out that Spook sometimes addresses you in his posts.

      • Cluster February 15, 2013 / 9:18 pm

        Sorry to be such a consistent disappointment, Spook. – Watson

        I’ve come to terms with it. But thanks anyway.

      • Cluster February 15, 2013 / 9:27 pm

        While the economy collapsed on his watch, I never felt like it was something he did on purpose – Watson

        And it was actually something he never did. But we have been over that haven’t we Watson? It is amazing how you get so many things wrong so many times. I personally don’t think you are just a blind squirrel – I happen to think that you are really, really stupid on a whole host issues. You don’t really think things through and repeat your mistakes over and over again. For example, you say that McCain was for health care reform and so was Obama without clarifying the differences in their positions. All of us are for health care reform, we just have very different views on how that reform should be shaped. And Obama beat the alternative? Really? You mean the alternative the media and Obama painted? Or the one that people honestly examined? Because honest examination is a lost art in our current society and you are great example.

      • Amazona February 15, 2013 / 9:47 pm

        “we as a nation need to do something about the issues of health care.”

        What part of the Constitution of the United States of America grants the federal government the authority to “….do something about the issues of health care….” ?

        Conservatives agree that if any state or local government wishes to address issues of health care, it is well within their Constitutional rights to do so. But we assert that among the 17 enumerated duties of the federal government, not only is “health care” not included, no aspect of charity is.

        “You may actually recall that it wasn’t only President Obama arguing for health care reform. So was Senator McCain.”

        And Senator McCain was wrong, too, as well as being pretty much despised by conservatives. His name is hardly one to invoke here.

        “While the economy collapsed on his watch, I never felt like it was something he did on purpose. ”

        However, did you examine the real reasons the economy collapsed on his watch? That is, continue peeling off the layers of the onion, down to the reason all these people were in houses they would never be able to afford once the adjustable rate mortgages went up?

        Not only was the collapse not “something he did on purpose”, it was not something he did at all. He was just in office when the house of cards collapsed, as so many had predicted it would when all those people who were given loans everyone knew they could never repay suddenly bailed on them, leaving lenders in the ditch, cutting off the building industry at the knees as the inventory of existing homes skyrocketed.

        It is a Leftist canard that Bush had absolutely no plan for the occupation of Iraq.

        President Obama’s vision for the “fundamentally transformed” America of his dreams is so radically different from that envisioned by the Founders and put into practice for more than 100 years, with such astounding success, before the principles started to be discarded in favor of Leftist schemes, that the two simply cannot coexist.

        The Obama dream cannot come true without such a dramatic revision of our very rule of law and the principles upon which it is based that for all intents and purposes he DOES want to destroy America—that is, dismantle the system he hates so he can implement the system he loves. If you can see a way to have both large and small government at the same time, you would do us a favor by explaining it to us.

        I suggest that you study Obama’s own words. He wrote a book called Dreams FROM My Father. Not Dreams OF My Father, which would have been about his father’s dreams, but Dreams FROM My Father, which clearly states that these are his own dreams which he got from his father. When you understand what his father’s dreams were, and that Obama got those dreams from him, you will have a clearer understanding of what he wants for this country.

        No apologies needed. I know that Spook has addressed all of us by name at one time or another, including me. We all do.

      • watsonthethird February 15, 2013 / 10:12 pm

        In response to my comment that the economy collapsed on George W. Bush’s watch, Cluster said, “And it was actually something he never did.”

        Custer, you live in a delusional world. Of course it collapsed in 2008. Everyone knows it. Even John McCain knew it when he announced he was suspending his campaign. Remember? Oh, right. I must be lying.

      • watsonthethird February 15, 2013 / 10:23 pm

        Amazona said, “What part of the Constitution of the United States of America grants the federal government the authority to “….do something about the issues of health care….” ?”

        The Supreme Court had their say, Amazona. I realize that you don’t think today’s judges are qualified to rule on constitutional issues, but that’s the system we have. I do respect your point of view; I just think its wrong.

        However, did you examine the real reasons the economy collapsed on his watch? That is, continue peeling off the layers of the onion, down to the reason all these people were in houses they would never be able to afford once the adjustable rate mortgages went up?

        Yes, I have. And while I believe President Bush must share some of the blame, that is not the same as saying he intentionally set out to destroy the American economy.

        “It is a Leftist canard that Bush had absolutely no plan for the occupation of Iraq.

        No. It’s not a canard. It was probably the greatest failing of the Bush administration. Unconscionable in my view, given that he sent American soldiers into harms way. There are lots of books about. Fiasco is one. Try reading about it some time. And I’m not even talking about the reasons we invaded.

        I suggest that you study Obama’s own words. He wrote a book called Dreams FROM My Father.

        I have read it.

      • Cluster February 15, 2013 / 10:36 pm

        Watson,

        This is what I mean by you being bone deep stupid. I didn’t say the economy didn’t collapse. I said it wasn’t because of anything Bush did, and we have been over this countless times.

        The other day you completely ignored the fact that our debt has quadrupled in 10 years, and went on to claim that the economy is doing well because the Dow is high. It’s pretty hard to debate with you when you have zero understanding of fundamentals and core concepts.

        So yes Watson, the economy did collapse. Now tell us why? If you can.

      • Cluster February 15, 2013 / 10:38 pm

        Again Watson with the brain dead comment. So the Supreme Court ruled on health care did they? Would you like to correct that before you are AGAIN shown the errors of your ways?

      • Cluster February 15, 2013 / 10:44 pm

        This comment doesn’t even make sense::

        And while I believe President Bush must share some of the blame, that is not the same as saying he intentionally set out to destroy the American economy.

        How does Bush share the blame? He began warning congress all the way back in 2002 about the actions of Fannie and Freddie. And don’t you find it ironic that you blame Bush for something he warned others against, and yet hold Obama blameless for actual policies he promotes?

      • M. Noonan February 15, 2013 / 10:44 pm

        Watson,

        Fiasco was published in 2006, which means it was written in 2005, and thus really only dealt with matters from 2003 and 2004…its like writing a book about Grant’s Vicksburg campaign in the immediate aftermath of the Yazoo Pass Expedition and judging Grant’s efforts a mismanaged, costly failure. It was, is and always will be absurd to write a book about military campaigns while they are on-going. You don’t know if they have succeeded or failed until they are over…and even then it often times takes years, or even decades, to determine if the effort was really good or bad (for instance, it appeared in May of 1945 that Eisenhower’s European campaign was a stunning success..over the years, however, it has come out that the campaign was badly managed, poorly thought out and barren of long-term, positive strategic results for the United States). It is only now, five years after the end of the campaign in Iraq has led by Bush that we can start to get some retrospective and see how things went – what Bush did right, what he did wrong…and even then we are handicapped by the the two facts that a lot of information is still heavily classified and, also, emotions are still raw over it (hard to actually think about things when you’re approaching them with partisan blinders).

      • watsonthethird February 15, 2013 / 11:16 pm

        Cluster said, “This is what I mean by you being bone deep stupid. I didn’t say the economy didn’t collapse. I said it wasn’t because of anything Bush did, and we have been over this countless times.”

        You are right. I misunderstood what you said. But it doesn’t alter my point the President Bush absolutely shares responsibility. I’ve addressed it here before. Go search the archives. According to you, he was so weak that he could do nothing but whine about it? Really? You’ll never accept that he had any culpability at all, so there’s no point in continuing.

      • watsonthethird February 15, 2013 / 11:26 pm

        Mark said, “Fiasco was published in 2006, which means it was written in 2005, and thus really only dealt with matters from 2003 and 2004.”

        I primarily covers the years 2003-2005. The softcover has a postscript written in 2007. Hint: It didn’t get much better. I didn’t cite Fiasco as a complete analysis of the Iraqi war. It absolutely deals with the failure of the Bush administration following the highly successful invasion by our military. That much was known by 2005 or 2006. Have you read it?

        I kind of like the beginning of the postscript to the softcover edition, which I have in front of me, and which was written in April 2007:

        When I started writing this book in January 2005, I was asked several times by colleagues and others if I really intended to call it Fiasco. Some warned that the word seemed extreme, or at least premature. But by the time the hardcover edition appeared in mid-2006, almost no one questioned the title.

        I wish I could say that this book appeared just at the low point of the U.S. effort in Iraq, and then a rebound began shortly afterward. Unfortunately, the deterioration of the situation not only continued but accelerated in 2006.

        The table was set when the Bush adminisrtation bungled the occupation once the government was toppled. How could they have been so ill-prepared and incompetent, especially with American lives on the line?

      • Retired Spook February 16, 2013 / 12:09 am

        And based on your response above, it’s really hard for me to accept that you are sincere in wanting my opinion.

        Well, I really was hoping, Watson — naivete on my part I guess. After going back and reading a bunch of your recent comments I realize you aren’t capable of formulating an opinion based on reasoned analysis. You don’t appear to be able to even perform reasoned and impartial analysis. I’m sorry I wasted so much time on you, because it’s time I’ll never get back. It won’t happen again.

      • Amazona February 16, 2013 / 12:33 am

        The economy melted down because of things done prior to Bush taking office, yet the wattle claims he is responsible for it. Bush tried to warn us of the impeding financial disaster and the wattle calls this “WHINING about it”.

        In other words nothing will interfere with the wattle’s firmly established BDS.

        Gee, maybe Bush should have said he INHERITED the problem—that is a word that resonates with the Lefty lemmings.

        You know, although Bush DID inherit the mess, he never did whine about it, never did whimper about how unfair it was to be blamed by the Left for what the Left did. He pointed out the problem, he explained the problem, he warned us about the problem, he asked Congress to do something to head off the collapse, but he always acted like a man, never sniveling about what he INHERITED, like his successor did.

        And the sniveling successor didn’t even have the integrity to admit just what he had INHERITED, which was a Dem mess from start to finish, the inevitable outcome of a series of Dem social engineering experiments that were doomed to failure because they rested upon bizarre unsound economic policies. No, the Sniveler-in-Chief was also the Liar-in-Chief, blaming Bush for the stupidity of Carter and Clinton and Dem Congresses, and the actions of his own beloved Leftist community agitator group, ACORN.

        The wattle has proved to us, yet again, that even when he poses as someone with an interest in discussing politics he is really nothing more than a wannabe blog vandal and speed bump, dishonest on so many levels and ignorant as well but never lacking in the spite and malice it takes to search out strangers on the internet and harass them because they hold to opposing political views.

      • Amazona February 16, 2013 / 12:51 am

        Now the wattle is posturing as a military expert, second-guessing the Iraq strategy. Of course he has to lie to do it, but that’s no problem for someone as inherently dishonest as he.

        Yeah, the effete little twit who has never served in the military,never been in combat, never been exposed to anything outside the little bubble of rabidly radical Leftist hate, passes judgment on the president and furthermore claims that the president acted unilaterally, that whatever happened in Iraq was solely the decision of the president.

        How utterly utterly stupid. In other words, how utterly utterly wattle.

        From the get-go, President Bush acted on the advice of his military advisers. From the inception of the war, when he got vote after vote from our Congress and the U.N., to the coalition of many nations fighting in Iraq, to the decisions made in the field and at the Pentagon, he acted in concert with the finest military minds of the day.

        And his Iraq strategy was not “arcane”—that is, it was not secretive, it was not mysterious, it was not known or knowable only to the initiated. It was clearly laid out.

        It was flawed, but it was a good idea. And that was to keep our presence at the smallest possible level, to avoid the appearance of an “occupation” and support the concept that we were there to advise and support the Iraqis in taking back their own nation. It was a good plan, based on sound psychology and the war experience of many seasoned military flag officers. It just so happened that the influx of rabble from other countries made that strategy unworkable, but it is a blatant lie to claim there was no strategy.

        Even I am familiar with the adage that no plan ever survives contact with the enemy. Reasonable people understand this. Unreasonable people like the wattle simply don’t care.

        The wattle’s ignorance oozes through every post. So he found a book trashing the way Bush handled the war. He is undoubtedly unaware that there were books trashing the way Churchill handled the war, the way Eisenhower handled the war. the way Truman handled the war, etc. There are always people crawling out of the woodwork to attack those who have the courage to step up and do what they think has to be done even though they know they will be savaged for it later.

        And if the wattle actually did read Dreams FROM My Father and still claims that Obama has no interest in destroying the historical foundation of the United States he is either stupid or a liar, or as we have seen so often in his case, both.

      • Amazona February 16, 2013 / 12:53 am

        ” How could they have been so ill-prepared and incompetent, especially with American lives on the line?”

        I thought for a minute the wattle was talking about Benghazi.

      • Amazona February 16, 2013 / 12:57 am

        Yeah, the wattles of the world are out there howling at the moon in their belief that the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of Obamacare.

      • M. Noonan February 16, 2013 / 1:33 am

        Watson,

        No, I didn’t read it – for much the same reason I’ve never read Obama’s two auto-biographies: what is the point when its an on-going project?

        As an example – one of the best histories of the Spanish Civil War was written by Hugh Thomas – who didn’t publish his work until 1961, more than 20 years after the end of the conflict. Pretty much anything written about it before was a partisan bit of hackery designed to either laud one side or the other. Because Thomas wrote 20 years after the event, he could put some genuine perspective on it…essentially honoring both sides for any good they did, condemning either side for any evil it did. And he could put it all in historical perspective as it related to the entirety of the European and global situation. That is the thing about history – it is what we write down about what is over and done with…you can’t write a history of something that is happening for the simple reason you can’t possibly know all that is happening. A history of the Iraq campaign will not be properly written until a lot of documents are declassified, all the major players have written memoirs, some of the Islamists have had a chance to put down their ideas on paper, etc, etc, etc. It was plain and simple stupid to write a book about the Iraq campaign in 2005 – and even more stupid to call it Fiasco when such a value judgement could not possibly have been made about the entirety of the campaign…even that idiot’s paperback postscript just demonstrates his idiocy: no one now doubts it is a fiasco! This just 18 months before Bush turned it in to a victory. Geesh. All the author of Fiasco did was write a bit of partisan hackery – a political document designed to attack Bush, facts be darned.

      • M. Noonan February 16, 2013 / 1:37 am

        Amazona,

        Indeed – General Watson doesn’t seem to understand what a genuine military fiasco looks like. Be worth his while to look in to Anzio, Battle of the Bulge, Gallipoli in order for him to gain a bit of understanding of the matter.

      • neocon01 February 16, 2013 / 12:44 pm

        waspstooge

        How could they have been so ill-prepared and incompetent, especially with American lives on the line?

        ASK the mayore of DC, chi-cago, De troit LA, Miami……..they had MORE killed in EACH city during the same time period than were killed in Iraq.

        all DONK citys was that Bussssh’s fault? um????

  4. Cluster February 15, 2013 / 4:15 pm

    Wealth is like respect. It’s not ALLOCATED – it’s EARNED!!

    • neocon01 February 15, 2013 / 4:24 pm

      Now employment allocation??
      RIIIIGHT PEE WEE

      Obama’s EEOC: We’ll Sue You If You Don’t Hire Criminals

      Newsmax ^ | Friday, 15 Feb 2013 10:52 AM | Jim Meyers

      The Obama administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says it should be a federal crime to refuse to hire ex-convicts — and threatens to sue businesses that don’t employ criminals.
      In April, the EEOC unveiled its “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records,” which declares that “criminal record exclusions have a disparate impact based on race and national origin.”
      The impetus for this “guidance” is that black men are nearly seven times more likely than white men to serve time in prison, and therefore refusals to hire convicts disproportionally impact blacks, according to a Wall Street Journal opinion…

      gee who’d a thought? OH WAIT!!
      I watch the first 48 weekly…….silly me.

      • neocon01 February 15, 2013 / 4:53 pm

        Rut Ro

        Supreme Court to conference on Obama eligibility today
        By Coach Collins, on February 15th, 2013

        by Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer

        Today, February 15, 2013, Attorney Orly Taitz brings her request to move the Obama eligibility challenge from conference to the oral hearing stage at the US Supreme Court.
        She is moving forward in spite of the fact that four African-American Supreme Court clerks refused to allow Taitz to see the signature of Justice Anthony Kennedy who denied her petition originally.
        “But I resubmitted to Justice Roberts, and he sent it to the conference,” Taitz said. (1)

        well if the kenyan does get impeached and convicted one of us might have to hire him according to the EEOC…….

      • Retired Spook February 15, 2013 / 7:49 pm

        well if the kenyan does get impeached and convicted one of us might have to hire him according to the EEOC…….

        ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!! How true.

Comments are closed.