TPS

Apparently the Bush Administration has fueled insurgencies in more than Iraq... Insurgents everywhere

I'm always amazed when I agree with a former Reagan Adviser.... P.C. Roberts

Apparently a Wall Street Journal reporter' personal letters about the situation in Iraq doesn't paint a pretty picture. I don't think Bush has a choice; he's got to hold his line until after the election. Another headline today has Rumsfeld saying we won't leave until after the election. I'm sure the Bush lemmings will continue to believe it is a "catastrophic success...." A Wall Street Journalist's view of Iraq

I realize what you wrote. I posted that because I didn't think the WSJ would contradict itself from the previous day. It's certainly conceivable that the range of forecasts was what you heard, but the typical focus is on the "consensus" forecast, not the range. Hope you're feeling better....

This if from the first line in the WSJ article this morning: "Employers added 96,000 jobs to their payrolls in September, fewer than economists forecast for the last employment report before Election Day. "

There doesn't have to be any implication that it's Bush's fault; the fact is that voters are very sensitive to economic performance, and they typically tie that to whoever has been in office when it comes to election time.

As I recall, I was posting a lot about Scott Ritter's assertions that Saddam was not a threat and the inspections were working. Because Ritter opposed this administration, and was one of the few people calling them on their faulty intelligence, the right-wing attack machine went after him. Find some personal failing and put it in public to discredit him. What a crock! It's like saying none of you have credibility because you all masturbate.... Turns out he was dead on.

How does your second paragraph square with the first? How does a representative republic stop them from blowing up themselves in the name of Allah?

I thought the reason Edwards focused on the coalition figures was because he was comparing the first war with this war. How many countries joined us in Gulf War 1 vs. the current war? The point made was that we had a real coalition in GW1, with significant troops and funding from the coalition. Edwards was making the point that this administration couldn't get the same level of commitment for this war. Surely one wouldn't inlcude the Iraqis as part of that coalition for comparative purposes, would they? If so, where were they at the start of the war....?

You should know better Kelly, they moved them to Syria; remember?

More incompetence at FBI

Hmmm...I thought it was the media who was fixated on the number(s). As for anyone who tries to make their death a liberal vs. conservative issue, a big F__K OFF!!

You get the NRA emails eh?

A wire?

I can't believe how the refs hosed GW!!! I wonder if he'll get an apology from the commission?

That would probably be the intellectual highlight of Bush's comments...

Cheney speech 1992 This at a time when we knew he had WMDs.

The parties will pay attention when more and more people start sending them a message by voting for alternatives.

Libertarians? I'll be honest, I've only heard him on one issue, so I'll have to read up on him at their web site, but I'm leaning toward voting for him.

Would it make you happier if I called it the recession of 1981/82 as a way to identify it? I certainly wouldn't want to get it mixed up with the Bush 1 recession or the Bush 2 recession..

That's the point isn't it? Actually, of all of the comments so far, I agree mostly with chef's: presidents have less to do with overall economic growth than people give them credit or blame for. My original post with the data was an attempt to show that point. Can anyone remember any significant economic policy Carter enacted? Just as Clinton was the beneficiary of long term positive economic changes, Carter was in office at the start of long term negative economic changes (deindustrialization) and another OPEC embargo. The right wants to give credit to Reagan for an economy that was relatively average on the one hand, but they won't blame either Bushes for terrible economic performance on the other. They blame Carter for poor performance on the one hand, but won't give Clinton credit on the other. Which is it? Can a president make a significant impact on the economy or not? I would say that policies enacted by administrations have a greater impact on the distribution of income than income growth in general. Tomorrow I'll post some data to this effect. As far as remembering the past, I did just fine during Carter's term.

Got me.

Geez, I can't fight those kinds of arguments: memories of 6 and 8 year olds. how'd you do during Reagan's recession in 1981 and 82, when unemployment was over 10%? Can you remember that?

What would you say are the most important economic statistics when measuring economic performance?

Maybe you are mixing your memories with Reagan's term. Yes, after the second OPEC oil embargo (Carter's fault?) inflation and interest rates increased, especially toward the end of 1979 and into 1980. However, UP never was never higher than 7.8% under Carter, whereas it hit over 11% under Reagan. As for GDP, those are real growth rate figures. That means even though inflation was relatively high (I don't believe it reached double digits), most people's incomes kept pace, and even grew faster than prices. No, it wasn't like the 1960s or 1990s, but when you compare most statistics that we use to measure how well the economy performed, Carter ranks in the middle with Reagan. The difference is there was a lower average UP rate under Carter, but a lower average inflation rate under REagan. Real GDP growth was about the same, as I posted.