Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

This article details the Bush administration's use of manipulation and cooked intelligence in pushing for an Iraq invasion. Surely they cannot pull this off without a full scale 4t-style backlash:


Misleading the Nation to War

By Sam Parry
October 15, 2002

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/101502a.html






This article catches the comments of Washington insider William Seidman at a Grand Rapids event making it clear that oil is playing a substantial role in the Iraq BS:


Wall Street/Washington insider spills the dirty secret of Iraq war

?Getting control of that oil will make a vast difference?

By Bill Vann
16 October 2002

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/oil-o16.shtml

"Meanwhile, another danger looms--that Bush's policies will transform anti-Americanism into the world's common language of protest, what journalist Fareed Zakaria has called the emerging "default ideology of opposition."
Both prospects carry grave dangers for the United States and for individual Americans, at home and abroad."

I'm coming to believe that in some insane, boneheaded, reptile-brained way, the Bush administration is doing its damnedest to initiate the Fourth Turning, although I seriously doubt that the people at the top levels have ever heard of it.
Could this be the product of that fundamentalist Christian desire to
cause the Rapture and the Second Coming? If individuals in the administration have this as part of their religious belief structure it would have to have an influence on them, whether consciously or unconsciously.
Now that I've written this out, the reptile brain theory is making much more sense as an explanation for current events. Eat, sleep, kill......Its all very simple that way.

This highlights the casual 3T attitude of the Bush High Command, but it does not change the fact that they are actively attempting to start a 4T war:

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

This highlights the casual 3T attitude of the Bush High Command, but it does not change the fact that they are actively attempting to start a 4T war...

Are any of you on the left growing tired of this sophistry? If for no other reason than such a brutal contortion of anything even slightly resembling the theory of the authors of The Fourth Turning.

I mean, come on, folks, it just doesn't get any worse than this! :wink:

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

This highlights the casual 3T attitude of the Bush High Command, but it does not change the fact that they are actively attempting to start a 4T war:

IMHO Mr. Patton has an a knack for staying on topic.

Or, if 9/11 wasn't the catalyst, one can expect the turning to end in 2003, making it an average 20 year turning (the average depends on whether or not 9/11 was the catalyst, if not then it is 20, if it is then its 19). So, the 4T would be 2003-2022. People born in 2002 will turn 20 in 2022, making them New Silents.
So:
IF WE BE 4T: Millies: 1982?-1998 New Silent: 1999-
IF WE BE 3T: Millies: 1982?-2001 New Silent: 2002-

So, I'm pretty sure that I'm no longer in the youngest generation.

What we have here is proof that the Millies can do math.

Good work kid.

And yes, this X-man is back after a needed break. :wink:

Originally Posted by Earthshine

And yes, this X-man is back after a needed break. :wink:

Hey, Earthshine. Good to see you back here at T4T!! :-)

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Originally Posted by Earthshine

And yes, this X-man is back after a needed break. :wink:

Hey, Earthshine. Good to see you back here at T4T!! :-)

Thanks Kiff. Nice to BE back.

Pat Buchanan argues that the news from North Korea exposes the "hollowness" of the Bush [sic] Doctrine:


... "Now, let's be clear, we aren't suggesting the U.S. go to war," the Journal assured us. But why isn't the Journal, wild for war on Iraq, wild for war on North Korea? After all, Pyongyang is a charter member of the Axis of Evil. It may have plutonium bombs. It is a terrorist state that has dynamited airliners, blown up half the South Korean cabinet, sent agents to murder its president, kidnapped Japanese citizens and sold missiles to state sponsors of terror.

Surely, this is a prime candidate for pre-emptive war. Will the Journal hawks explain to us why Saddam, with no nukes and a few decrepit rockets, is a mortal peril, but the sex-and-movies maniac Kim Jong Il, with a matched pair of plutonium bombs, is the kind of fellow we can do business with?

[snip]

This crisis has exposed the hollowness of the Bush Doctrine. Kim Jong Il and Saddam have observed that if you have nuclear weapons, the Bush folks will negotiate with you and bribe you. If you do not, they will threaten you. The Bush Doctrine of threatening pre-emptive war on non-nuclear rogue states may be the most powerful incentive for nuclear proliferation since Stalin learned Truman had the bomb.


Buchanan predicts the following logical outcome:


...The technology for the atom bomb is 57 years old. Eight nations have them. The technology for ballistic missiles is 58 years old. Dozens of nations have them. As proliferation takes place ? aided by North Korea, Pakistan, China and Russia ? this brief era of American global hegemony will come to a rapid close.

Americans will conclude that only our own vital interests justify risking a nuclear exchange with a rogue regime. We will give up the American Empire. Olsen is right. Fortress America is our future. North Korea has concentrated the mind wonderfully.


He is looking for so-called 4T-style "isolationism" in our future. Seems like wishful thinking though given the moral bankruptcy of our leadership and its stranglehold on power. Full column here:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29377

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Buchanan predicts the following logical outcome:


...The technology for the atom bomb is 57 years old. Eight nations have them. The technology for ballistic missiles is 58 years old. Dozens of nations have them. As proliferation takes place ? aided by North Korea, Pakistan, China and Russia ? this brief era of American global hegemony will come to a rapid close.

Americans will conclude that only our own vital interests justify risking a nuclear exchange with a rogue regime. We will give up the American Empire. Olsen is right. Fortress America is our future. North Korea has concentrated the mind wonderfully.


He is looking for so-called 4T-style "isolationism" in our future. Seems like wishful thinking though given the moral bankruptcy of our leadership and its stranglehold on power.

I do not see Buchanan's neo-isolationism, the US as a wealthy state surrounded by impoverished autocratic government with nukes. I also don't see Dubya's neo-imperialism, the powerful nations preventing poor and impoverished areas of the globe from developing weapons of mass destruction and the means (perhaps terrorist) of delivery.

When Tony Blair came into power, he spoke of a "Third Way," originally an alternative to both capitalist imperialism and authoritarian communism. Clinton recently elaborated. Egypt's Al Ahram reported favorably on Clinton's speech, (See http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2002/608/op3.htm ) in what might be a manifesto for the anti-authoritarian anti neo-imperialist Third Way.

Al-Ahram was pleased by the speech overall, but raised an abstract but real concern.

However, the traditional problem raised by a world government is the one that German philosopher Kant put forward, namely, how to reconcile one global, central authority, that will necessarily be totalitarian in one form or other, with democracy, accountability, transparency. How to ensure that social structures based on the idea of a 'network' take precedence over those based on the idea of a 'pyramid', an interactive command system rather than from top to bottom? This problem was not sufficiently addressed by Clinton in his otherwise thought-provoking speech.

First off, I'm BA-A-A-ACK! We finally had to get a new, and hopefully better, computer, as the other one proved to be a classic case of fubar.

Second, I can see us at least trying a brand of neo-isolationism after the current administration leaves office, whether of the 'Fortress America' variety, or the 'let's stop bothering them' flavor. However, I don't see it working in the long run. For one thing, our many sworn enemies won't let it work, once it no longer serves their purposes to do so.

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

First off, I'm BA-A-A-ACK! We finally had to get a new, and hopefully better, computer, as the other one proved to be a classic case of fubar.

Second, I can see us at least trying a brand of neo-isolationism after the current administration leaves office, whether of the 'Fortress America' variety, or the 'let's stop bothering them' flavor. However, I don't see it working in the long run. For one thing, our many sworn enemies won't let it work, once it no longer serves their purposes to do so.

What does the BAR stand for in FUBAR, again? I used to know that, but I can't remember those 3 letters.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

What does the BAR stand for in FUBAR, again? I used to know that, but I can't remember those 3 letters.

Beyond All Recognition.

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

First off, I'm BA-A-A-ACK! We finally had to get a new, and hopefully better, computer, as the other one proved to be a classic case of fubar.

Hey, welcome back. :-) And congratulations on the new computer. :-)

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Hours after the Senate votes to authorize action in Iraq, former U. S. president Jimmy Carter is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

How's that for irony?

The following quotes are from today's Washington Post and New York Times:

One of the proudest achievements of the Clinton administration was the Agreed Framework with North Korea. Clinton assured us that it froze the North Korean nuclear program. North Korea gave us a piece of paper promising to freeze; we gave North Korea 500,000 tons of free oil every year and set about building -- also for free -- two huge $2 billion nuclear power plants that supposedly could be used only to produce electricity. Japan and South Korea were induced to give tons of foreign aid as well, Clinton being the committed multilateralist, even in extortion.

It turns out the North Koreans took the loot and lied. Surprise! All the while they were enriching uranium. --Charles Krauthammer (The Clinton Paper Chase)


"It was kind of like a miracle," breathed Jimmy Carter about his supposed conversion of the North Korean leader from lion to lamb on live TV. Ignoring the protests from realists in this space and all over about appeasement and lack of verification, the Clinton administration embraced Carter's "miracle." After all, hadn't the North Koreans agreed to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, headed by the sternly unfoolable Hans Blix?

As we now know, the Carter-Clinton crowd was taken to the cleaners by a totalitarian regime that snatched our payoff and secretly kept on building nukes. When confronted this month with indisputable evidence of years of double-crossing us and the world, the Communist North headed by Kim's dictator son said, in effect, "Sure we did ? and your nosiness means that the deal is now nullified." --William Safire (Hicks Nix Blix Fix)


So just days after former U. S. president Jimmy Carter is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, we find that he is among the most dangerously dupped in modern history.

How's that for irony? Thanks, Jimmy and Billy!

?and Billy Jeff left The Mumbler with a trillion-trillion-dollar surplus without the threat of war. Now we have a trillion-trillion-dollar deficit, and The Mumbler wants to wage WWIII against the evil doer who tried to kill his daddy. Oh, but we do have our ?faith-based initiative,? and our Pledge, and our self-righteous songs. So how?s that for irony, all you God-Bless-Americans?

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

?and Billy Jeff left The Mumbler with a trillion-trillion-dollar surplus without the threat of war. Now we have a trillion-trillion-dollar deficit, and The Mumbler wants to wage WWIII against the evil doer who tried to kill his daddy. Oh, but we do have our ?faith-based initiative,? and our Pledge, and our self-righteous songs. So how?s that for irony, all you God-Bless-Americans?

Nice to hear from ya, Croak. By the way, the deficit stands at "159 bllion", not the "trillion-trillion-dollar" beast of which you claim. But what's a few billion/trillion, huh?

Your post reminds of the the Clinton game, Croak, which still is; distort, distort, muddy the water, obfuscate, and when ya have to just lie. Which, as one of Clinton's fellow travelers pointed out, Clinton is "unusually good" at. Boy, that Clinton must of really learned a thing or two in Moscow during his Vietnam era visit there, huh? "Down with America!" Go, go, Ho, Ho! :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

?and Billy Jeff left The Mumbler with a trillion-trillion-dollar surplus without the threat of war. Now we have a trillion-trillion-dollar deficit, and The Mumbler wants to wage WWIII against the evil doer who tried to kill his daddy. Oh, but we do have our ?faith-based initiative,? and our Pledge, and our self-righteous songs. So how?s that for irony, all you God-Bless-Americans?

Nice to hear from ya, Croak. By the way, the deficit stands at "159 bllion", not the "trillion-trillion-dollar" beast of which you claim. But what's a few billion/trillion, huh?

Your post reminds of the the Clinton game, Croak, which still is; distort, distort, muddy the water, obfuscate, and when ya have to just lie. Which, as one of Clinton's fellow travelers pointed out, Clinton is "unusually good" at. Boy, that Clinton must of really learned a thing or two in Moscow during his Vietnam era visit there, huh? "Down with America!" Go, go, Ho, Ho! :wink:

But the fact is that the Federal budget was running in surplus in January 2001, when Clinton left office and W. Bush took over. Be it sensible policies, luck, or a combination of the two, facts are facts.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

But the fact is that the Federal budget was running in surplus in January 2001, when Clinton left office and W. Bush took over. Be it sensible policies, luck, or a combination of the two, facts are facts.

Surplus my ass.


(graph uses real number through 2001, projected through 2008). Whay did the debt keep going up if the gov't was collecting revenues in excess of what it owed (the definition of a surplus)?

Let it never be said that accountants at Enron and WorldCom had nothing to learn from the US gov't.

But The Wonk refers to deficit, while you refer to debt. Can you differentiate these apples from the oranges?

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

But The Wonk refers to deficit, while you refer to debt. Can you differentiate these apples from the oranges?

While the debt and the deficit are not the same, Justin is not comparing apples to oranges. His post questions, if the budget was in surplus, why did the debt still RISE. His reference to the direction of change of the debt indicates he understands the terms.

I can't vouch for his graph, but if it is acurrate, his question is logical.

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

But The Wonk refers to deficit, while you refer to debt. Can you differentiate these apples from the oranges?

From Merriam-Webster:

Deficit: an excess of expenditure over revenue

Surplus: the amount that remains when use or need is satisfied

From http://www.house.gov/rules/glossary_fbp.htm

Federal Debt: The total amount of funds borrowed and not yet repaid by the federal government.

If one states that the government had an amount of money beyond what was used or needed (surplus), it is very reasonable to counter with evidence that the government (at that same time) continued to increase the total amount of funds borrowed and not repaid (fed. debt). I hope you can follow the logic.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

What does the BAR stand for in FUBAR, again? I used to know that, but I can't remember those 3 letters.

Beyond All Recognition.

Actually, the meaning I had in mind was 'Beyond All Repair'. But yours is just as good.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

But The Wonk refers to deficit, while you refer to debt. Can you differentiate these apples from the oranges?

From Merriam-Webster:

Deficit: an excess of expenditure over revenue

Surplus: the amount that remains when use or need is satisfied

From http://www.house.gov/rules/glossary_fbp.htm

Federal Debt: The total amount of funds borrowed and not yet repaid by the federal government.

If one states that the government had an amount of money beyond what was used or needed (surplus), it is very reasonable to counter with evidence that the government (at that same time) continued to increase the total amount of funds borrowed and not repaid (fed. debt). I hope you can follow the logic.

I was also hoping to follow your logic, Justin. Thanks, but you are fundamentally confusing debt with deficit. It is entirely possible to have heavy debt without any deficit at all, if your revenues exceed your expenses, which include payments against your debt. That?s how most businesses operate!

BTW, Justin, your anti-voting attitude baffles me. What good can come from that?

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

It is entirely possible to have heavy debt without any deficit at all, if your revenues exceed your expenses, which include payments against your debt. That’s how most businesses operate!

Agreed (of course). It is not possible, however, to have increasing debt -- what the graph shows -- without net liabilities (outlays) being greater than net income. This has very little bearing on the fact that one can hold a debt for quite a while, paying to keep it out of arrears, all the while posting surpluses.
This, in fact, describes my current financial state, as I have a mortgage and a (pitifully small) savings account. Note, however, that if my debt increased over any period, I could not claim to have brought in more money than I spent (again, the definition of a surplus).

BTW, Justin, your anti-voting attitude baffles me. What good can come from that?

What good can come from imposing my will on my fellow men? Click on the link in my sig.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

...What good can come from imposing my will on my fellow men?

Well, thanks, Justin. You make it too easy. I can rest a lot easier now, knowing you won't be imposing your will on me.