Success for whom? Success for the neocons will be the nice, fat addition to their bank accounts engineere by having gotten the US into this war in the first place. That's assured. In fact, their incompetence just guarantees more profits. Isn't the US a great country, or what?

Success for the US will be avoiding a Saigon-like departure from Vietnam. That's not quite so assured yet. The prospects become even dimmer when one considers that the neocons still refuse to reconsider their force level requirements. Of course, that just helps to guarantee the fattening of their bank accounts. Damn, what was I thinking?

The drums of war Part 2...Iran. (That didn't take long after the election).

I'm just curious just what Army they will be using? Would it be the same one that is bogged down in Iraq? I feel a draft.

Jr. can't do anything against Iran unless he gets the Ok from China since they are supplying the money.

Here's the scary part. Bush has never let reality, facts nor rationale stop him from doing what he wants to do. Because of this he puts the whole Nation in jeopardy.

Success will be whatever Bush says it is. And the Media will trumpet it.

The news today has former SecState Powell graciously setting the stage for his replacement to lie us into an Iranian war (or at least give Israel the go ahead) to rid the Iranians of something we think they may want but probably don't have based on intelligence that has, judging from recent history, been a load of camel corn. Powell's motive for this blurt of fancy is hard to figure. Dumped by Bush for not being sufficiently pro-War in Iraq, he now implicitly calls for military action against Iran as he slinks out the State door. Curious. Is there actual, real, evidence today that there wasn't before the election? Or is he just lying for Bush again, in one final wistful try to resurect his standing with W.

I don't think and invasion of Iran or even a selective bombing of nuclear sites is in the cards. The US doesn't have the ground forces necessary to simultaneously occupy Iraq while at the same time mounting a serious offensive against Iran. Now that Europe has successfully signed an accord with Iran, the EU as well as Russia and China would likely do more than simply protest a substantial US military attack on Iran. Air strikes, by either the US or Israel would almost certainly lead to retaliatory conventionally armed missiles and increased Iranian-sponsored terrorism.

Bush's plan to increase taxes:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58554-2004Nov17.html

Bragan, the US doesn't have ground forces necessary to *occupy* Iraq, period, much less invade someone else. Discredited liar that he is, I'm sure Powell knows we can't mount a ground invasion of Iran. In fact, given the size of their country and size of their military, I don't know if we'd be successful even with the army at full strength. The fact that an attack on Iran would be foolhardy for many reasons won't enter into the PNAC Cheney/Bush thinking......haven't we allready established that?? Unless Iran suddenly turns into a country full of white Christians, they'll be a Bush target.

Lets get some numbers straight. 40% of the US national debt is owned by Foreign countries. Japan is by far the largest.

Link to countries.

Good summary.

I think Powell is reflecting the likely role of "bad cop" that the US will play to encourage the Iranians to continue to cooperate with Europe, the good cop.

The Bush crew knocked over Iraq because they could. They realized that 1) despite the rhetoric about WMD that Iraq was a relative pushover and 2) that they had US public opinion in their favor and just enough international support (or lack of resistance). I believe that Bush's close advisers realize that Iran would not be a pushover and that the interantional support (most importantly from Blair) would be lacking and the resistance would be much greater this time around.

What irritates me is that I grew up with the spectre of nuclear war and a now it seems that it's restarting thanks to our unilateral behavior (e.g. Mr. Putin's new toys). Is nobody in the U.S. outraged by the fact that now China, India, etc. will all start cranking out new nukes? Or (cynically) perhaps it's all part of a plan to boost the profits of the military industrial fat boys.

RE: Bush's plan regarding taxes...

One guy working on both the tax re-org and the Social Security privatization is Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. He's on the House Ways and Means Committee.

He spent some Q&A time on last saturday's Moneytalk program, where Larry Kudlow was guest hosting for Bob Brinker. Ryan is an extremely bright guy, and had some fantastic comments on both tax reform and privatization of Social Security.

Check out the link above, and you can see some of Ryan's ideas.

Muck,
His social security plan won't work because it depends on cutting spending and Bush has no plans to cut spending. Truth is, we can't afford any of these costly reforms.

"The Bush crew knocked over Iraq because they could".
I'd say the jury is still out on that.

despite the rhetoric about WMD that Iraq was a relative pushover

I'd say the jury's still out on THAT one too...

To clarify: Iraq was a pushover in the sense that Saddam and his army could be easily toppled. The hard part, and the part that the US may not be able to accomplish, is to pick Iraq back up and keep her standing long enough that she can walk on her own.

ga6, revenues are on the rise with the growth in the economy. Even states like CA, are anticipating larger tax revenues than projected.

Paul Ryan mentioned that the social security privitizing would guarantee retirees at minimum, the same level of benefits they have today. So, worse case scenario is a bear market, and it won't affect seniors. Most likely scenario is that private investments outperform by a country mile over the long term, and future tax rates on social security can be cut. Which would be a HUGE tax cut for the middle class and poor, since Social Security taxes are higher than income taxes for most of these folks.

There initially would be a $2 Trillian funding gap, as the transition is made from today's pay as you go system - which is heading towards ruin - to a well-diversified system. The privitized investment opportunities would be similar to what federal employees participate in, and what Calpers does for public workers in California.

There are lots of Democrats who support this kind of idea, too. I think Bill Bradley is one name that comes to mind. This would benefit everyone.

Muck,
Do you really think even if revenue go up that Bush will spend it wisely. He has wasted more money than any President in history and and citizen who trusts him with their tax money is an idiot. He could get rid of NCLB, which is a joke but he would have to admit that it is a mistake which he would never do.

you are doing the same ole same ole "if I stick my fingers in my ears and cover my eyes, the deficit will go away" fantasy.

OK - Let's say Bush won the election (pending any investigation) - he then has the right to pick his cabinet, make other appointments, issue resolutions and proclamations, sign or decline to sign bills, etc., etc., etc.
But does that really allow him to attack, invade occupy, and kill tens of thousands of citizens of a foreign country tht posed no threat to us?
If we do not think he has the right, what are the things we can do about it, if voting does not work?
Of course, we can peacefully march in protest - we can boycott certain targetted corporations, e.g., media outlets, war profiteers, etc.
Does anyone have any other suggestions, e.g., can we withhold federal income taxes? (or would that merely hurt the innocent?)

...can we withhold federal income taxes?

If you can convince your employer to withhold your withholding!

Hopefully, Ga6, he'll return the revenues to the taxpayers and let us decide where to spend them. Let the free markets do their thing, and grow the economy and produce wealth.

There are tons of things the government spends money on that should be axed. My favorite pet peeve is public radio. Let it go private. It can still keep the acronym NPR, just the public becomes private. The government could auction it off and raise some cash for more tax cuts!

Dorothy: What you can do, if you don't like the job Bush is doing, is vote for somebody else in 2008. Even as soon as 2006, you'll be able to vote for candidates in Congress that you believe represent your views.

Muck, He can't return those revenues to the taxpayers. He has already committed them to Iraq and loans from foreign countries.

There are tons of things the government spends money on that should be axed. My favorite pet peeve is public radio

yeah, that'll make a real dent in the deficit. all you need is to find a few thousand "pet peeves" of that size. but i'm sure you have faith that they exist somewhere. (bush supporters got faith up the wazoo, i'm told.)

and it's 95 this month, not 91

benjoya, the rate of deaths in Iraq this month is awful; 91 was what showed last night. More have been added since I posted.

Still, the number is too little to make waves. no outrage til 10000 or 20000 deaths.

so what if some poor guys from small towns died while fighting for freedom and liberty. let them die.

I agree with MuckDog:
If we all would just continue to listen to the Lies of the Powers-that-Be
and watch them on FOX and MSNBC
then their Lies will become Truth
and that Truth will set MuckDog free.

First you said:

Well, Phid, China owns about 2.5% of our debt. Japan around 10%. The Fed's hike only affects short-term rates, not longer-term rates. Long term rates remain near the lows.
Posted by muckdog at November 16, 2004 05:33 PM

Then you say:

Lets get some numbers straight. 40% of the US national debt is owned by Foreign countries. Japan is by far the largest.

So what you have really said is that you’ll spout any crap, regardless of veracity. When you’re called on it, you make it appear as if your crap was actually a golden egg.

Read some economics texts and take a couple of econometrics courses before you start trying to convince people that you even have the slightest clue about what you’re regurgitating.