Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Sofia -- you may be too young to remember when the Republicans were declared dead. It was far worse -- and much more prolonged -- than seeing the Dems out of power for three years. How long did the Republican malaise go on? Almost twenty years. And those were the days when there were decent Republicans.

I'm new to this discussion thread, but I can do you an offer on a used Prime Minister we can spare over here. Only 6 years in the job, camera friendly, land-slide elections, family man, church-goer - anyone interested?

AND he can speak correct English !

Welcome, Graham! That's a most generous offer. A used prime minister would certainly be preferable to a totalitarian weirdo, but unfortunately the latter is glued to his office by corruption and greed. Your army, navy and the RAF (particularly during the absence of all American military on imperial duties) accompanied perhaps by the forces of Canada and Mexico would be most welcome. After that, Blair, if you wish.

Soros trains big bucks on 2004 election
Republicans have had Scaiffe for years, seeding conservative causes and advancing the interests of the Right. International financier George Soros will finally offer some balance on the left.
Soros has pulled together a coalition of labor, environmental, and women's organizations and will help fund a $75 million effort to oust Bush. The money will be spent in 17 states: Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and West Virginia.
I'm disappointed to see Louisiana and Colorado missing, and am puzzled at the inclusion of Maine and Michigan, but why quibble? $75 million is not the kind of number we're used to seeing on the Dem side, and it should be an important piece of the "defeat Bush" puzzle.
We can't lose this election because of money. There is too much at stake, and we must be competitive. We can't match Bush, but dammit, I want us to come close.

Bush Team Kept Airing Iraq Allegation
Officials Made Uranium Assertions Before and After President's Speech
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 8, 2003; Page A10

Since last month, presidential aides have said a questionable allegation, that Iraq had tried to buy African uranium for nuclear weapons, made it into President Bush's State of the Union address because of miscommunication between the CIA and Bush's staff.

But by the time the president gave the speech, on Jan. 28, that same allegation was already part of an administration campaign to win domestic and international support for invading Iraq. In January alone, it was included in two official documents sent out by the White House and in speeches and writings by the president's four most senior national security officials.

The White House has acknowledged that it was a mistake to have included the uranium allegation in the State of the Union address. But an examination of how it originated, how it was repeated in January and by whom suggests that the administration was determined to keep the idea before the public as it built its case for war, even though the claim had been excised from a presidential speech the previous October through the direct intervention of CIA Director George J. Tenet.

Dan Bartlett, White House director of communications, said yesterday that the inclusion of the allegation in the president's State of the Union address "made people below feel comfortable using it as well." He said that there was "strategic coordination" and that "we talk broadly about what points to make," but he added: "I don't know of any specific talking points to say that this is supposed to be used."

The allegation appeared in a draft of a speech Bush was to give Oct. 7 to outline the threat that he said Saddam Hussein posed to the United States. In that draft, an unnamed White House speechwriter wrote, "The [Iraqi] regime has been caught attempting to purchase substantial amounts of uranium oxide from sources in Africa."

The statement the Iraqis "had been caught" was described as "over the top" by a senior administration official familiar with the sketchy intelligence on which the statement had been based. Tenet succeeded in having it stricken the day the speech was given on the grounds that intelligence did not support it.

The CIA arranged to have a similar allegation deleted from a speech that John D. Negroponte, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was to give Dec. 20 before the U.N. Security Council.

Yet in the days before and after the president's State of the Union address, the allegation was repeated by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz and in at least two documents sent out by the White House.

The first of those documents was a legislatively required report to Congress on Jan. 20 on matters "relevant to the authorization for use of military force against Iraq." It referred to Iraq as having failed to report to the United Nations "attempts to acquire uranium and the means to enrich it." The second document, a report distributed to the public Jan. 23 covering Iraq's weapons concealment activities, highlighted Baghdad's failure to explain "efforts to procure uranium from abroad for its nuclear weapons program."

The same day, the op-ed page of the New York Times included a piece by Rice that said Iraq's Dec. 7 declaration of its weapons of mass destruction to the U.N. Security Council "fails to account for or explain Iraq's efforts to get uranium from abroad." In a speech that same day before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Wolfowitz said: "There is no mention [in the declaration] of Iraqi efforts to procure uranium from abroad."

Three days later, Powell, in a speech before the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, asked: "Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?"

And the day after the State of the Union address, Rumsfeld opened a news conference by saying of Hussein: "His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon; it was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

When it came to the State of the Union speech, the White House has said that it was an unnamed speechwriter who reviewed a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq and perhaps a British intelligence dossier and came up with the 16-word sentence that Bush delivered: "The British government has learned Saddam Hussein has recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The NIE, dated Oct. 2, 2002, carried only four paragraphs on the subject, on page 25 of the 90-page document, according to unclassified excerpts released last month.

The first of those paragraphs said: "Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake." Support for that characterization was an item saying "a foreign government service reported" that Niger was planning to send several tons of "pure uranium" to Iraq and that, as of early 2001, the two countries "reportedly were still working out arrangements" for as much as 500 tons. A second item said: "Reports indicate Iraq also has sought uranium ore from Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo."

According to the intelligence official, the "vigorously" language was "quoted verbatim out of a [Defense Intelligence Agency] paper," along with other paragraphs relating to Niger, Somalia and Congo.

The CIA, which had its doubts about the intelligence, did not include the uranium item in the NIE's "key judgments," nor even as one of six elements supporting the key judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, Tenet said in written answers to questions posed by The Washington Post. He added that the four paragraphs, which had originated from the Defense Intelligence Agency, were kept in the NIE for "completeness."

Tenet, in a statement July 11, described the CIA as having only "fragmentary intelligence" related to what he termed "allegations" of Hussein's efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa.

The British dossier, published Sept. 24, said in its executive summary: "We judge that Iraq . . . sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil nuclear power program that could require it." It did not say the British had "learned" anything about Iraq and uranium. Support for that judgment was the single statement, "There is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The CIA suggested that the judgment be removed, but the British maintained then, as they do today, that they have their own source, which has not been disclosed.

Two congressional committees, the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and the inspectors general of the CIA, the State Department and the Pentagon are all investigating how the material got into the president's speech.

There is one congressional query into how other administration officials came to repeat the allegation.

At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing July 9, Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) asked Rumsfeld to supply information for the committee record on why he, on Jan. 29, and the president, the day earlier, had made this "very significant statement" at the same time "the intelligence community knew in the depths of their agency that this was not true."

Nothing had been supplied as of Wednesday, a committee aide said

Nice news about Soros, Au. I'm guessing, but I think the calculations about which states to target has to do with pencil-sharpening. $75 million is a lot of bucks but it may be chickenfeed when it comes to paying off the media.

I'm still fascinated by the small individual contributions. Like many older people, I can't afford to lay big bucks on a candidate or a cause, but I'm finding that frequent small (even tiny!) contributions, as with the Dean campaign, add up to quite a lot.

Tartarin and Thomas--

Thomas did get the jist of my point. It's not about being in power--it's about what you stand for. Whether you agree or not with the policies or platform of the GOP, most people know what they are. Nobody, including the Democrats, know what few undeniable tenets construct the Democrat goals for this country. They have devolved into a rag tag amalgam of carpers. Most people who vote do so because something is important to them. Some of these people are one-issue voters. The GOP has carved out some issues that almost none of us disagree with. The GOP has a plan and an identity.

This is where the Dems falter. You can't sustain a political party with the one goal of bashing the party in power. "Take down Bush"...and then what? Out of the frying pan, and into the fire means something to most thoughtful people. At some point, you have to have viable, tested alternatives. No one trusts the Dems with national security. And, for good reason. The GOP is a headstrong, rigid bunch. The Dems are wishy-washy and float their ideas in the polling winds. Neither is perfect, but at least with the GOP, you know what you're gonna get... Certainly, it can be argued that Bush has gone over the top on a couple of items--but if you remember, the public and the Congress was with him IN HIGH NUMBERS. If someone is to successfully challenge him on his military decisions-- they will be scrutinized for their votes on Iraq, and their policy toward terrorism. Nobody looks good enough to take Bush's place.

Sofia -- What you're describing is the Fox version of what the Democrats are doing at this point. Please read the transcript of Gore's speech yesterday, which he delivered to acclaim. The nine declared candidates will differ in big and small ways, but it has becoming clear (thanks in part to Howard Dean) that the Dems sure know who they are. That's why we're all so cheerful, even as we know we're up against a rich and corrupt machine in 2004: we know who we are and what we have to fight for, even if we don't win.

Bush and the Republicans are getting a bashing not for lack of anything else to say but because they deserve it. The fact that Bush has supporters doesn't, of course, mean he's any good. It means they stand to maintain something: power.

YOU don't like the looks of anyone proposing to take Bush's place and that's okay with me. But your vision is narrow, personal, limited. There are a lot of people who disagree with you and they are, before your very eyes and even in these discussions on A2K, coming together, working together, contributing together, roaring right by you while you're standing on the sidewalk.... carping!!

I was disappointed to see Thomas trot out the canard of 'tax cuts for the rich'. The fact is that the progressive character of the table of income tax rates was (likely carefully) calculated to INCREASE the progressive character of the income tax, not to decrease it. The portion of income taxes collected from higher incomes under the revised tax tables will be greater than before.

Having said that, one must also concede that a basic feature of our Medicare and Social Security systems is that, on an actuarial basis one pays in proportion to his expected future benefit. The tax system that supports this benefit is not progressive at all. Increases in these taxes over the last several decades have indeed skewed our total tax system. However, apart from some calls to reduce the payroll tax, I have heard damn little from Democrats about real reform of Social Security and Medicare. Republicans,. however, have attempted to address this matter directly. Hence my point about the lack of a consistent and coherent world view on the part of Democrats.

Similar arguments can be made with respect to national security.

That's interesting. Do you really believe that the country is safer now than, say, September 12, 2001? I would deny that based on Bush's policy on Iraq, which posed no thread to America's national security, and on North Korea, which does. Not to mention his penny-pinching on homeland security.


Do you? On November 20, 2000 -- did you know that Bush would increase the size of the federal government by more than any president since Johnson? Did you know that his first major action, after a lot of free trade rhetoric during his campaign, would be to erect huge tarriffs on steel, lumber and textiles? Did you know he would pursue a foreign policy of breaking international law and bullying America's friends? I didn't. I have to admit he surprised me there. If by "you know what you're gonna get" you mean "you know which rhetoric you're gonna get, I would agree. But you don't know which actual policy you're going to get with the Republicans anymore than you know it with the Democrats.


Here you're getting at the most frustrating and embarrassing aspect of American politics during the Bush presidency. Almost all the really stupid policies were bipartisan efforts. The PATRIOT act, the Bush tarriffs (which the Democrats wanted even higher), the war on Iraq -- the only prominent exception I can think of is the Democrats' fiscal stimulus package, which unlike the Republicans' would have provided fiscal stimulus to the economy.


Howard Dean does. I'm not saying he's perfect, but he's way better to meet the very low standard you're setting here.

-- Thomas

To ease your disappointment, you may want to pay closer attention to the "income" part of the word "income tax" -- it tends to creep into and out of the language of Republican pundids, depending on what's politically convenient at the moment. When they tell reporters how a rising tide will lift all boats because of all those tax cuts, they leave the "income" part away. When they defend the Bush tax cut against the claim that it's tilted towards the rich, they put the "income" back in, thereby omitting the estate tax which goes mostly to the top percent of the income distribution.

The same moral applies to the proposed cuts in the capital gains tax and the inherinance tax (Not sure how much of them went through in the end). So if you look at the tax cuts in total, they are heavily tilted to the top few percent, and the income tax is one component of the whole that's not. For a more extensive discussion about the blatant gap between reality and sales pitch, I recommend this New York Times Op-Ed by Paul Krugman. He's a Nobel-price-candidate economist, so while you can argue with his politics, his numbers are water-tight.


Indeed they can, and they reveal exactly the same pattern of bait and switch by George Bush and his affiliates.

-- Thomas

Terrific, Thomas -- well done. And glad to see Krugman is among your sources. His relentless presentation of the facts has been balm for many of us while Bush was still riding fairly high. I credit him with taking a bite out of this administration -- a bite out of crime.

au - I think you're referring to a new PAC which has formed, comprised of five groups- Emily's List, Sierra Club, Partnership for America'sFamilies, America Votes, and service Employee's International Union. So far, they have raised 17 million, of which 8 million has been donated by Soros. They look to be a powerful PAC. They are not affiliated with any of the candidates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/o8/08/politics/08PAChtml

And Al Gore asked Moveon.com to arrange the forum for his speech. Moveon.com has grown into a strong group. When you start adding together all the things that are happening, such as the concerted effort around the country by democrats (particularly black democrats) in educating people how to vote (use of the machines, how to read a ballot, etc.), ......well, it starts to look like democrats coming together, doesn't it? I'm still reading statements by republicans about democrats being demoralized, uncoordinated, but it doesn't look like it fro where I sit. It looks more like hopeful whistling. And today the latest polls show Bush at 53% (that's the NY Times/CBS poll), down from 58% in July. But this is only August 8.

I don't understand how anyone can truly believe that the US is achieving success (whatever that means so far as what is happening). There is a report in the NY Times by Michael Gordon about the latest bombing, present the American-led occupation with a new and unprecedented threat. And I wish someone would tell us what "coalition" really means. The whole world is aware of the fact that it is America, with British help.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/08/international/worldspecial/08asse.html?hp

And further. In a conversation with someone from the Council on Foreign Relations last night, I learned their thinking is anything but rosy.

So, reading Sofia, georgeob, and others, I suppose it depends on where we get our information. And about that glass. Mine is half-full, but the republican glass is beginning to look half-empty to me.

I'm so glad to hear CFR mentioned in a normal voice, Mamaj. As for the guys with the half-empty glasses, I'm enjoying the wine while they seem to be enjoying the whine.

thomas,

I believe I was entirely accurate and balanced in my description of the Tax cuts. My point is that the proposals of Democrats to reduce payroll taxes were not accompanied by any proposals to reform or curtail costs in the Social Security and Medicare systems - hence the point about inconsistency among Democrats..

Capital gains and dividend tax cuts are intended to improve the efficiency of the processes of capital formation and allocation in the economy. Here again they benefit an increasing number and percentage of Americans, and if Republican plans for the reform od Social Security are implemented, they will benefit all who work - hence the point about consistency among Republicans.

Perhaps you have noted that North Korea has agreed to multilateral talks involving Japan, China, South Korea, Russia, and the United States. This is something which she absolutely refused to do in the '90s while we were paying them off and oiling them with kiss up visits by Madeline Albright. Moreover it enables us to play our most important cards and leverage in this game - the prospect of Japanese rearmament and regional instability. It is the neighboring countries that have the most to lose in this game and our former policy merely insulated them from that responsibility. Finally the United States has quietly organized a coalition of nations and the associated intelligence systems with which to interdict North Korean exports of prohibited items if that becomes required. Our forceful action in Iraq had a great deal to do with all of these achievements.

You also made reference to the Bush administration flouting international law. That of course means flouting what some other nations assert is international law, but not provisions that our sovereign government accepts or has ever accepted. There is nothing at all new in this. In matters ranging from the proposed Law of the Sea to the ICC, small nations attempt to gain advantage over large ones through carefully conceived, but unfair, additions to international law. We and other nations rightly resist them and have done so for many decades. In the end international law is that which sovereign nations accept - nothing more.

I admit I don't get this point. Cutting the payroll tax is a good way to fix the economy's short-term demand side problems, and curtailing Social Security and Medicare costs a good way to fix these systems' long run supply-side problems. We're talking about two different solutions to two different problems. I'm not saying it's necessarily a good thing to do one but not the other, but why is it inconsistent?


I agree with your premise that capital accumulation plays an important role in generating growth in the long run, and that a tax regime which makes this easier is good for long-run growth. But there are several problems with your argument in the context of this discussion, which is about "replacing Bush in 2004" (or not).

1) The Republicans themselves (unlike conservative economists) aren't making this argument. They are saying the current tax cuts are supposed to provide "stimulus and growth" to get the economy going in the short run. It isn't going to do that because a) most of the tax cuts phase in after several years, when interest rates will be up again and any cut in taxes will simply be offset by rate hikes by the Fed. b) The tax cuts are tilted towards the rich, whose propensity to save is greater than their propensity to spend it. (You indicate this yourself). So at the very least, what the Republicans are saying is inconsistent with what they are doing.

2) The percentage of Americans who benefit may be growing, but it's still very small because almost no non-rich Americans pays much in taxes on their savings anyway. They tend to have their savings in tax-deferred accounts such as 401Ks. This tax cut benefits the rich almost exclusively. Even if there is a net benefit to it in long run growth, you can't deny that it comes at the cost of increasing income inequality -- which you appear to be denying, judging by your "disappointment" about my earlier post.

3) As a matter of elementary economics, paying tax cuts by increasing the government debt drives up interest rates, which hurts long run growth, and offsets the benefits of capital accumulation in the private sector.


Sorry, I don't see how. May be my fault.


When it co-founded the UN in 1946, the US committed itself, by contract, to UN rules, several of which it violated. In particular, it violated the strict prohibition against attacking a country that hadn't attacked it. Moreover, by joining the WTO the United States committed itself, by contract, to the rules of this multilateral organization, which it violated in introducing the Bush tarrifs. You are simply incorrect when you're saying these were "not provisions that our sovereign government accepts or has ever accepted."

-- Thomas

Which is why he raised tariffs for products as French as Canadian lumber and Brasilian steel, but nothing that actually came from France (or any other of us European evildoer countries)? Besides, every card-carrying economist, liberal or conservative, agrees these tariffs hurt American interests.


to accomplish .... what?


That would rule out a president who confuses Slovenia with Slovakia.

--T.

Thomas,

I don't believe any nation has accused the United States of violating the UN charter in our action against Iran. Nothing in the Charter says we have to wait to be attacked. Moreover, we avowed we were acting in concert with numerous Security Council resolutions, as we were indeed. Finally we had rights under the agreement which ended the Gulf War for the forcible enforcement of its provisions.

The Tariff issues you cite are no more significant than European restraints of trade in agricultural commodities under various guises, including biological safety concerns. The steel tariff matter was no more significant a violation than was the European favoritism for bananas from former colonies in the Caribbean. These are all a part of the give and take of trade policies. The WTO has its own enforcement procedures. The United States is by a very large margin the donor in most of its trade relations with nations all over the world. We are very far down on the list of violators in this matter.