Saturday, April 25, 2009

The Actualities on CIA Interrogations

Dick Cheney's daughter absolutely flays the NBC twit-ette on all the questions.

Take-away: ignore the headlines and the half-truths of the Obamamamamama-ites. They are the enemies of the United States and (now) of US intel operations worldwide.

Get the whole story and THEN make a judgment.

HT: PowerLine

20 comments:

J. Strupp said...

Who do you refer to when you use the word "they" in the sentence, "They are the enemies of the United States and (now) of US intel operations worldwide? Can you be more specific?

TerryN said...

Pretty damn clear to me.

Deekaman said...

The enemy now runs the government. That should be clear. This is no accident. Anyone who bows and kisses a foreign King, anyone who becomes friends with our foreign enemies, anyone who is willing to make nice with our enemies immediately after they say the most hateful things about this country and anyone who undermines the national security is the enemy.

My oath to protect and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic did not stop at my honorable discharge.

John Foust said...

You mean like Bush kissed and bowed to a foreign king?

Deekaman said...

Good. When in doubt, change toe subject to, "But Bush".

There is a significant difference between showing respect and paying homage. Feel free to look up videos of both.

Dad29 said...

Strupp, the sentence was constructed clearly. The antecedents of "they" are in the sentence!

Go ahead. Take another look.

Andy K. said...

John,
In other cultures, respect/friendship is often shown through kissing on the cheek (even with men).

Kissing a sovereign's RING, however, is always a sign of subordination.

J. Strupp said...

Almost sounds like Deekaman is ready to take up arms to reclaim the government from the enemy. Maybe I read his statement wrong though.

Dad29, I guess I'm still not exactly sure who you refer to. Is "they" in reference to anyone who believes that the previous administration advocated torture to interrogate terrorists?

Deekaman said...

J. Call it what you like.

"...it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government..."

Dad29 said...

OK, I will spell it out.

Obama, his advisers, and whoever ELSE decided to release top-secret interrogation documents

ARE THE ENEMIES!

Clear enough?

J. Strupp said...

Clear.

Deekaman. Why would you make assinine statements that prove Napolitano correct?

Deekaman said...

Strupp believes the current course is sufficient to protect our liberties? The hazards here are far greater than those dreamed up by the Left when Bush was President. There was no attempt by government to take over the economy. Enemies were not allowed to threaten us as they pleased, with our President then making nice with them.

"Ooooo...torture and wiretaps!" Please. Spare me. Far worse is happening right now.

J. Strupp said...

Actually. I didn't say anything about our current course. All I'm saying is that you are talking about rebellion of democratically elected officials in the name of protecting our liberties. You are, in fact, proving the nonsense Napolitano had to apologize for this week.

"There was no attempt by government to take over the economy."

That's for sure. The previous administration did a fantastic job of letting unhindered, un-regulated free-market capitalism lead the way. I really am going to miss the fruits of financial deregulation and the massive asset bubbles created as a result.

Deekaman said...

strupp: The only thing worse is government control. Now I'm sure you believe in government control, otherwise, you wouldn't defend it. But the results of government control have ended up in disaster everywhere they've been tried. The current "plan" (yes, started by 'Bush-the Devil') will only prolong the economic downturn. Infrastructure, education and energy will do nothing to stimulate this economy in the near term.

So while you don't like free-market capitalism, I'd argue that the current government control is worse.

J. Strupp said...

I'm all for regulated, free market capitalism Deek. It worked exceptionally well for the better part of 50 years (post WWII-1982). Then we got the idea that financial deregulation and tax cuts for the top 1% would change the world. It did. It set the stage much like the run up in asset prices during the 1920's. And we get to find out once again how that all ended. No matter. We are on are way back to government regulated capitalism once again which will be a good thing if done correctly. We need to make banking boring again, break up the investment banking industry and let them invest at their own peril, freeing the taxpayer of the worries of "too big to fail". Raise taxes on the rich (maybe a whole whopping 3-5% increase, gasp), re-invent our health care system, energy policy, etc. Sorry if I'm making your ears bleed.

"Infrastructure, education and energy will do nothing to stimulate this economy in the near term."

Yes it will. Especially short term. I would actually argue that our government isn't spending enough money given our current crisis. Government won't completely offset the collapse in private investment and consumption, but it can keep a hell of a lot of people employed and corporations productive that would otherwise be sitting idle.

As for the deficit, as I've said before, one crisis at a time.

Dad29 said...

The previous administration did a fantastic job of letting unhindered, un-regulated free-market capitalism lead the wayGet off the simplistic "it's BUUSSSHHHHHHHH!!!" track, Strupp. I don't think you have that simple a mind.

The asset-bubble problem got going full-tilt back in 1985 (?) when Dow took a 500-point drop in 1 day. Greenspan poured cash into the system like a madman; and the bubble moved--

First over to the "dotcoms," then to housing. And the housing bubble was not just "BUUUUUSSSSHHHHH", either; Greenspan continued to pour cash into the fire, Congress AND Bush pushed hard for "home ownership for EVERYONE,"--etc., etc.

Yes, Bush's Boyzzz FU'd a few calls. But you will note that Clinton did not force Greenspan to pull cash out of the system, and Clinton was also a "housing pusher."

Which leads to the widespread discontent and surly attitude from a lot of folks. We have an elected Gummint which has acted irresponsibly and with complete and utter disregard for financial facts (interest costs a LOT over time.)

That's led to the current, very deep recession--

So to "cure" the debt-generated recession, the Genius Lightworker proposes what?

MORE DEBT!!

He's wrong, Strupp. You know it, Deek knows it, and I know it.

J. Strupp said...

I agree completely with the first half of your response. You'll get no objection from me regarding Greenspan's policies and their long term impact on the global economy which we are experienceing today. Also, I'm not simply blaming Bush for this crisis either (I believe that I did say this crisis has it's roots in the 1980's). Every administration since then is somewhat responsible, some more than others (like GWB).

However, I would argue that financial deregulation, coupled with Greenspan's monetary policy and, finally, dispurportionate tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans during the 80's was the foundation for the nightmare we are experiencing today. All three issues had one common thread among them. They assumed that unhindered, unregualted free market capitalism is the most perfect economic ideology and that government played no positive role in intervention. As we now see, unregulated free market capitalism breeds currency speculation, wild asset bubbles, ponzy schemes, financial panics, low or flat real wage increases among middle class citizens, massive wealth accumulation among the wealthiest 1% and relative global economic instability (long run). Again, capitalism is, by far, the best economic model the world has ever created, but to assume that totally laissez faire capitalism is in our nation's interest was proven terribly wrong in the 1920's and, now, in September of 2008.

As for debt-financed economic stimulus. I find it completely appropriate (and necessary) only when the Fed. funds rate is up against the zero bound and EFFECTIVE interest rates are very negative. Right now, they would be somewhere in the -6% range I believe. But the stimulus has to be BIG to show any signs of working. You can't go in half assed as we just did a few months ago.

Dad29 said...

OK. Too much M3, ineffective (or non-existent) regulation are problems.

How in Hell does "tax cuts for the rich" contribute to the Bubble?

I think you're confusing some things here. "Tax cuts" MAY allow for more wealth accumulation--but the GWB tax cuts were significant for people earning between $50K-$100K (married/joint) with children (the last being very important.)

But "disproportionate"? Nope.

That's what tax LOOPHOLES are for, and that's what the ultra-rich have. Generation-skipping trusts, and other devices that I can't even name, are responsible for preserving and enhancing wealth--e.g., the Kennedy family fortune. Or the Heinz/Kerry fortune.

As to Keynesian solutions: while the effective interest rate may be -6%, you assume:

1) growth in national income MORE than sufficient to overcome the stated bond rate and

2) growth of national income derived from growth in Federal and State payrolls.

Both are questionable. There is research indicating that Gummint spending only returns 1.3x, NOT 3.0x its nominal value--and 1.3x is NOT sufficient for a tax/reg burden now approaching 55% of GDP.

SOME spending, yes, directed into private-sector manufacturing (auto, airplanes, even defense such as tanks, jets...or NASA.)

But not the Doyle/Obama Gummint employees.

Sorry.

J. Strupp said...

...traveling this afternoon. I'll get back later tonight with a response...

J .Strupp said...

I need to spell check.

"How in Hell does "tax cuts for the rich" contribute to the Bubble?"

It didn't. What I should have said is that top tax cuts (The Tax Reform Act of 1986 in particular) have led to an accumulation of income generated wealth among the top 1% not seen since the 1920's with little or no growth in real wages trickling down the food chain. The tax cuts, while marginally beneficial for the middle class (in the case of GWB's cuts), have been wildly disporportionate in comparison with the highest income levels.

As for the effectiveness of the Obama/Doyle government stimulus/spending package, there's no question that the money can and should have been used more productively (more of a focus on energy infrastructure immediately comes to mind).

There's always a concern that government will create jobs not worth having.