Women Warriors

Where to begin?

Joe you can tax the rich at 100% and it won’t be enough. This leninist class warfare isn’t even effective as a political tool anymore and never was successful as economics. 1st You tax the rich more they simply declare less income and pay less in taxes. 2nd investing is solar and wind is an economic loser because they’re far to expensive and unreliable. 3rd the very last thing we need and we know this from the 30′s and the last two years is more govt mgt of the economy. They suck at it. 4th the military has broad public support on a number of levels beside the obvious security issues. The military is a major employer and developer of young talent as well as of technology and systems.

The bottom line is you are not going to get your way because the people will not support tax increases or more govt spending. It’s going to take a while but we are going to shrink govt back to near 20% of GDP and eliminate a lot of govt waste such as funding for NPR and the FCC and allow the private sector more freedom to invest and expand. The idea of the FCC regulating the internet is repulsive. It’s fortunate for the country your ideology is embraced by fewer each day. It will never be fully extinct but it will never be a strong influence. We are in the age of Reagan. Just the thought of 70% tax rates shocks the sensibilities of the under 55 crowd. What could they have been thinking?

It’s interesting to look back just a year or two ago and consider the opinion of so many liberal economist that as soon as people saw how good a job the govt could do stimulating the economy and providing services they would embrace the tax increases necessary to keep the ‘investment’ going. Didn’t quite work out that way. You had your shot and Obama blew it.

BTW: I’d love to hear comments on Amtrak naming the refurbished station in Wilmington after the enforcer of the stimulus program, Joe Biden. They were only $5.7M over budget. It is repulsive to me to name anything after a career politician. Is any group more pampered than Senators?

IIRC, it was not the “macho boys” over at the Pentagon who were itching for a fight in Iraq, but, rather, the testosterone-challenged Neocons, SecDef, et al.
.
While we’re at it, In the future, let’s try to avoid references to estrogen/testosterone when it comes to matters of war & peace, implying, as they do, that important decisions are being made based on hormones, not rational thought.
.
And, hopefully, rational thought has brought us to the conclusion that attacking Libya is in our national interest, not just those of Exxon and BP, and if Exxon and BP stand to profit from our military intervention, that you and your colleagues will follow the money.
.
Lastly: Thanks (not!) for the link to Mr Shepard’s piece. I’ll go wash my eyes with bleach now.

The military has always been leery of supporting liberal Presidents in any type of entaglement. Clinton and Obama both had anti-war pasts and democrats talked 100x’s more often about Abu Grahib than the heroic acts of the soldiers. Colin Powell and Mad Maddy had many points of disagreement in this regard.

attacking Libya is in our national interest, not just those of Exxon and BP

***********************************************************

This is so old time religion. Why on earth would you think Exxon profits more or less from war? Exxon ALWAYS makes money and they make more when the path is predictable and they can invest rationally. Best case scenario for Big Oil and ANY big business is a robust global economy driving demand higher.

I, for one, am not surprised that it was women who seemed most intent on preventing a massacre in benghazi.

Rdw–I’d settle for the Clinton tax rates, which caused, as you may recall, the Great Depression of the 1990s…and also budget surpluses. I’d also subtract stupid wars like Iraq and the need to built un-needed weapons systems and to position US troops in incredibly dangerous places like, say, Germany. And then I’d add a transaction tax on derivatives trading and ask that hedge fund managers pay taxes at the normal, rather than the capital gains rate. I think that would be sane–and also plenty to balance the budget and pay for our long-term development needs.

Thanks for the response,

I do recall the great depression of the 90′s as well as how it all ended. Bill did many thing that were sharp and smart but raising taxes wasn’t one of them. As you well know he inherited an economy already well into a solid recovery and he slowed it down. That’s part of the reason the elections of 94 went so poorly. By far the more consequential economic decision was the deal engineer between Greenspan, Clinton and Newt to hold the line on spending increases as well as NAFTA and Welfare reform which all had very positive effects. Of course all of the spending cuts came out of defense mad possible by the collapse of the USSR. Going to assign credit to Clinton for that one?

As far as subtacting out stupid wars like Iraq let the record show you were one of many who supported it and while expensive is not the cause of the current recession/deficit. When GWB lowered marginal tax rates in 2003 we had 15 consecutative quarters of double digit growth in tax revenues and the deficit in 2007 was less than 1.5% of GDP or about 1/10 current projections for 2011.

I agree we can at least freeze if not cut defense spending but we’re not getting savings from moving troops out of Germany. Thank’s to Schroeders ‘help’ in Iraq GWB already moved the troops out.

As far as increasing capital gains taxes you’ve got to be kidding. As Charlie Gibson explained to Obama every time we raise capital gains rates we get LOWER revenue. That’s everytime. Also true is every time we lower capital gain tax rates we get MORE revenue. As far as taxing derivatives or hedge funds there will be dozens of ways to beat Uncle Sam. There always is. There always will be. I don’t disagree with you it should be done but it’s not going to provide a magical new source of funding.

As far as long term development needs not if you are talking about government directed development but if so that’s another battle Reagan won and Obama has assisted in. Confidence in govt is near all time lows. The stimulus was a debacle. What Obama outsourced it to Pelosi and Reid I’ll never understand, Spending such large amounts of money always has some stimulative effect. This was exceptionally poorly designed.

You concern yourself with Newsbusters? Really?

There is nothing that gets liberal juices flowing more than the prospect of military action in a situation where the US has absolutely no national interest. It seems that it is okay to send young Americans into harms way as long as there is no possibility of benefit to be derived by the United States.

All the billionaires in the world combined possess about $4.5 trillion dollars. If they were to confiscate every penny, it would fund Obama’s spending for about 14 months.
.
Then what? Do they come for the millionaires? How long before they get to you?

How about the irony of the Bush bashers adopting GWBs freedom agenda. Is there a single aspect of GWBs national security and defense policy that Obama hasn’t copied? Of course GWB believed in it and spoke of it frequently.

Another great irony is how such an inarticulate and stupid a man was able to communicate his beliefs and policies while so brilliant a mind and tongue as Obama leaves us so clueless.

I guess he’s just over our little heads.

Joe Klein@1.1,
.
Did the savings produced by Republican welfare reform and the so called peace dividend slip your mind, Joe?

“This may be a first in American history, a welcome one I might add–although I remain extremely skeptical about military action and heartened that the President seems intent on letting other countries take the lead.”

.
Well not exactly. In matriarchal tribes of Native Americans, it was the women who would or would not call for battle. It was afterwards you saw the braves come out in war paint to dance and give war hoops once the matriarchal head gave her blessing to the war with their enemy.
.
http://www.pbs.org/indiancountry/challenges/families2.html
.
Learn your history Mr Klein.
.
But, I am confident women can also wield any military weapon requested of them, including their own brain. Women I also believe have a 6th sense genetically bred into them that knows danger very well. They are able to determine quickly from their maternal instincts when their child may face harm, and then act on that instinct swiftly and with a furry most men would cringe from.
.
Yes, your testosterone filled comment was egregious, and I hope women call you out on it.

rdw and paulejb are so right. Klein, not so much. The glorious “Clinton” years were a direct result of what many now, especially the Tea Party are calling for. DEEP cuts to spending by our State and Federal governments.
.
Getting as many people off the government dole resulted in taxes being paid by real workers and not someone sitting behind a government desk or receiving welfare to spend at the local Walmart.
.
If you want to advocate for this to happen again Mr Klein, I will voluntarily ask to have my taxes increased to help pay off our debt. But, not until you first agree to cut the massive spending now going on with Washington. As soon as liberals begin to call for the same cuts, scale back government to 1995/1996 levels, then you can raise my taxes.

It’s hugely encouraging to me that Obama with all of his smarts and eloquence and huge majorities in Congress could not pass a 1% tax increase even on just millionaires.

I see this as a significant rejection of liberalism and a key turning point in American politics. Tax rates were 70% in 1980 and contrary to what Joe might suggest, he, the entire MSM and the liberal political establishment including the Ivy League supported those rates and condemned Reagan as an extremist rube.

Some time ago before the elections Joe did a tour and his last stop was at a wealthy vinter near SF. A retired lawyer who ran a winery for fun. This uber wealthy man spoke lovingly of the days of 70% tax rates. The blowback was so significant Joe wrote a corrective post saying he wasn’t even thinking of or suggesting we’d go back to 70%.

Just the fact Joe won’t suggest going past Clintonian levels describes the totality of Reagan’s ideological victory

Well it looks as though Obama has advanced Reagan’s ideology by proven the ineptitude of big government and how not to stimulate an economy.

The fact Obama could not sell even a 1% tax increase speaks to his own incompetence and the passing of an era.

rdw56@7.1,
.
I see no evidence that Bush opponents are adopting his “freedom agenda.” In fact, they seem to have adopted a policy of malign neglect. Everything that the Obama administration is finally forced to do turns out to be a day late and a dollar short.

One of those “women warriors,” Hillary Clinton testified before Congress that the no-fly zones over Iraq and Serbia had little effect. So why will this one work any better?

Well they certainly can’t use the same language or appear in any way to be like GWB but in effect they’re trying, weakly, but trying to protect the rebels and eventually remove Qaddafi. Actually someone did use the term regime change. That had to hurt.

Because Hillary says it will?

rdw56@7.3,
.
A no-fly zone announced a few weeks ago before Gaddafi got his act together would probably have forced him to flee into exile. But while the world dithered, Gaddafi mounted a counterattack and is now on the verge of victory.
.
In any event, the rush to charge Gaddafi with war crimes has created a situation that gives him no way out. He is a cornered rat and will respond as one.

newfreedom@10.1,
.
Tell Hillary that Gaddafi’s forces have entered Benghazi. What can be done about that from the air?

rdw56@1,
.
Why would anyone be surprised that a train station named for the Senator from Amtrak has cost overruns? The so called Sheriff of the “stimulus,” is the poster boy for excess spending.
.
An even better story is that the Barack Hussein Obama Elementary School of Asbury Park NJ is closing it’s doors because of lack of enrollment.

We’ve been tangled up in Iraq and Afghanistan the better part of this decade and Exxon’s profits are up 250% in the same space, including a record year in 2008 when gas prices were +$4/gal.
.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/10/30/exxon-profits-250/ (link)
.
That “old time religion” has zapped our pocketbooks while keeping Big Oil’s collection plates full.

Right…other than WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam – the most significant military engagements of the 20th century – the military has always been leery.

I believe that Joe was being snarky when he referenced the “the Great Depression of the 1990s”, considerably one of the best decades of post-WWII expansion in this country’s history and a stark contrast to the 1980′s and 2000′s in that it saw real growth in wages while simultaneously reducing the Budget Deficit to nearly zero.

I believe that Joe was being snarky when he referenced the “the Great Depression of the 1990s

Duh!

Bil Oils plates are always full.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has nothing to do with the price of Oil. Afghanistan doesn’t prodiuce Oil and Iraq’s reduction was marginal.

Paul,

you’ll get no argument from me. I’m just enjoying liberals twist themselves into knots supporting this action based on regime change after trashing Iraq on regime change. I especially like the fact Obama didn’t bother with Congress. He gers his authority from the UN.

I have no idea who the GOP candidate will be but they’ll have a ton of material to work with.

kbang…@1.6,
.
The 1990′s — The lull in the storm between the end of the Evil Empire and the rise of radical Islam. We were living in a fools paradise presided over by the Fool-in-Chief.

kbang…@3.1,
.
In each case in the 20th century, the US military was woefully unprepared for war. It was the soldiers and sailors who paid for that lack of preparation with their lives.
.
From Belleau Wood to Pearl Harbor and from the Chosin Reservoir to Khe Sahn it is the bravery of the American servicemen that turned the tide.

rdw56@7.5,
.
It is Obama’s first venture into the brave new world of the One World Government. Obviously there is no place there for the US Congress or the Constitution of the United States.

Vietnam – the most significant military engagements of the 20th century – the military has always been leery.

**************************************************

It is since Vietnam and because of Vietnam the great distrust exists. The treatment of the Vietnam Vet was horrid thanks in part to scumbags like John Kerry smearing them with baseless accusations.

We have the famous Powell Doctrine as the result. Which is to say don’t go in without overwhelming power and political support as well as clearly defined, achievable objectives. This because liberal politicans will shred the Generals. Thus the wisdom of GWB getting a congressional resolution forcing Congress to take specific positions before so they can’t weasel out after. Thus we have all of these people like Hllary and Kerry who became unelectable for being for it before they were against it.

It is Obama’s first venture into the brave new world of the One World Government

*******************************************************

It is a delicious truism in politics that sometimes if you want to take an institution lower you need someone who supports that institution to do it.

I do believe liberals will in the end by agonized over Obama’s failed Presidency and shocked at his biggest weaknesses. I think he’s Ted Baxter, the airhead anchor on the old Mary tyler Moore sitcom. Was it the Lou Grant show?

Obama has not be able to sell a single issue as President. If anything he’s lost support for all of them. His Cairo speech was cartoonishly bad. Directed toward a muslim audience he seemed unaware Jews might be listening and so butchered jewish history his polling support in Israel dropped below 10%.

He has at a minimum lost a generations worth of support on the idea of govt stimulus as sound economic policy and he has zero support for tax increases.

Serious thinking liberals have to be distraught. They’ve already lost all ideological wars on national security and defense in terms of very aggressive counter insurgency. The Powell doctrine has been reduced to a politcal doctrine only. The position of the US military regarding wars is now to put a hyper aggressive killing machine in position and support them.

Look for a potentially huge victory for conservatism in the healthcare appeals process. There is a VG chance this SCOTUS won’tjust reject Obamacare but will roll back the commerce clause back to the1940′s greatly limiting federal power.

The Reagan Revolution could not have happened without the inept Carter. Look for Obama to ensure all of his policies are enduring.

Joe, maybe the action was taken because Hillary is post menopausal. It could be “that time of the month” for Powers and Rice.
Stupid.

“And for those who say we should be funding major infrastructure projects here, rather than in Egypt–a new electric power grid, a gps air traffic control system, solar, wind, clean coal and a new generation of mini-nuclear power stations in non-earthquake zones–I say, Amen! We should do both! Let’s raise taxes on the wealthy–or redirect funds from the defense budget–to pay for it! Because if we don’t, we won’t have the economic power to buy the military hardware that makes the wingers so happy–and more important, we won’t have the economic power to sustain the solid middle class that is necessary for prosperity.” — Joe Klein
.
Amen. I could not agree with this more, nor would I change a word.

What exactly do whack job, hysterical leftists/feminists like Joe Klein, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power know about the United States military or the art of warfare, and other than Obamao, who is stupid enough to turn to them for their “expertise” on war?

The treatment of the Vietnam Vet was horrid thanks in part to scumbags like John Kerry smearing them with baseless accusations.
.
Funny, I don’t remember John Kerry having much to do with the adverse opinion of the public during Vietnam.
.
As for “baseless accusations”… Me Lai. May have been an aberration in conduct but baseless… hardly.
.
Seems that a number of the press were actually involved in in-person coverage and they had to deal with military press briefings called the “Five O’clock Follies” (for good reason).
.
The spin campaign became so obvious that they even lost “Uncle Walter” Cronkite, a news anchor whose word was actually universally trusted during that time (a foreign concept, I know)
.
The scorekeeping and artificial bodycounts became ridiculous. Right after we declared them essentially defeated, the “non-existent” Viet Cong (the ones we had killed “on-paper” several times over) mounted an offensive in nearly all of the major cities.
.
That wasn’t Kerry… that was due to a leadership more worried about the PR offensive than recognizing the problems with the one in the host country itself.

A lot more than you do, you clueless turd.

THe ’90s were not quite the “Golden Era” that we are sometimes guily of claiing they were, but it was when government was essentially solvent, with tax levels that basically met government spending levels. Then, of course, a Democratic President handed over to a REPublican President a government running more or less in balance and the Republicans proceeded to screw it up. They did so, first, by passing tax cuts that were neither needed nor affordable, second, by launching two wars which they refused to pay for and third, by reckless lack of regulation of the financial sector, leading to the greatest recession since their last economic debacle 80 years before. No amount of your misreading of history changes these basic facts. The Republican Party, once an important voice in the goernance of this country, has become a voice of absolutely ruinous policies.

Throughout the Kerry campaign, I was struck by how many Vietnam vets professed admiration and support for John Kerry, a man who had been there, fought the enemy and understood their situation profoundly. Going the other way, it was remarkable how much Kerry himself, who was a pretty stiff campaigner most of the time, lit up in delight whenever he met a fellow veteran. I have often wondered why he could never loosen up with others the way he loosened up with veterans, and thought that if he could have figured out a way to do that, he would have won.

Let’s see – the right wing echo machine starts with wondering what we are doing in Libya, then turns around and complains that he didn’t get involved fast enough. It is fairly obvious that you all don’t care a whit about people of Libya, you are just in it for whatever cheap political points might be in it for your anti-Obama venom. Which is why people are increasingly not taking you right wing blowhards seriously. At the end of the day, you are not serious people, just bitter vessels of venom. I give you credit, though – to the extent that whatever Obama decides to do, you decide it is the wrong course of action, you have given a new, full meaning to the term “reactionaries”.

Actually not, they’re the quintessential elitists, often wrong, never in doubt. Go back and read what each of them said of the surge. Klein and Clinton were especially corrosive and ignorant with one of the comical aspects of their criticisms attacks on the military strategy. Joe and Hillary versus Dr David Patreaus wasn’t exactly Frazier versus Ali. The good General had already lead the most successful sector of the invasion and occupation as well as having rewritten the counter-insurgency policy of the US Military and these two fools were pretending to know as much about military tactics as Petraeus.

Search engines and youtube are killing liberalism.

Fortunately you don’t need to change a word. Yours is the opinion of a small minority, You do have a voice in the MSM but as we see more every day their influence is diminishing continuously. My guess is support for tax increases among the MSM is > 95%. They had zero effect on the discussion.

In each case in the 20th century, the US military was woefully unprepared for war

*************************************************

There’s always going to be a group on each side dedicated toward beating up on the President for the obvious political goal of weakening his standing. The MSM hammered Bush on his golf game. The new media is hammering Obama.

There are at least 3 authentic criticisms of Obama on Libya with the 1st being the total lack of leadership advanced not because he was watching and studing for the most appropriate time but he is a guy unable to make decisions.
There are advantages to having the French and English lead along with the Arab league but Obama did nothing to advance this. He wasn’t working with any of them. GHWB was the clear leader in 1991. He was the guy who made it happen. Obama hasn’t just been invisible he’s been hiding.

A 2nd serious criticism is he didn’t bother getting the support of the Senate and was only concerned about the permission of the UN. American opinion of the UN is in the toilet. Support is a tiny 14%. He is trying to set a protocal that the UN supercedes the USA. He’s got no prayer. That might be widely supported in LA and the Upper West Side but it will not go down well in Ohio. Obama needs Ohio. So is he going to get hammered on this? Oh Yeah. Today, Tomorrow and next November.

A 3rd issue is on his own flank. What is the USAs verted interested. Why was attacking Saddam a crime against nature while attacking Qaddfy a good thing? One has to tie themselves into a pretzel to explain that one and as a conservative it’s fun watching the MSM try. A related issue would be the sensitivities of George Clooney and the rest of the hollywood left. If saving lives is the reason why Libya and not Darfor????

If you look at Obama’s task in 11/2012 versus 11 / 2008 you can figure out for yourself how different this campaign will be. This is no blank slate.

Funny, I don’t remember John Kerry having much to do with the adverse opinion of the public during Vietnam.

********************************************************

Were you out of the country during the 2004 campaign? The most played clip of the entire camopaign by a very wide margin was John Kerry trashing his fellow vets for war crimes his various statements suggested he was a witness too. When pressed if he actually saw any of it for himself and/or had any evidence he admitted he did not.

That’s called a smear, it’s libel. He didn’t run his mouth on some street corner. He was before Congress. He was/is the very definition of a scumbag which is why so many veterans of the war worked so hard to ensure he could not become commander-in-chief. I have to tell you as a conservative is was especially sweet justice and will be savored for quite some time.

I was struck by how many Vietnam vets professed admiration and support for John Kerry, a man who had been there, fought the enemy and understood their situation profoundly

************************************************

Really? So what’s your theory on why the opposition replayed his famous ‘Jengis Kan” testimony 24/7? How many vets you think liked being smear as war criminals? What’s your theory on why Kerry refused then and refuses now to release his war records?

Think because it would prove he scammed his purple hearts to get his tour reduced by 8 months? Or do you think it would prove that idiot who was beating him was smarter than he was and the records would prove it?

Vietnam has been a disaster for liberals and liberalism. The Democrat party took a left wing turn in 1968 that cost them the Presidency and cost them the dominance of the narrative. They got Nixon elected on a law and order campaign and then the best they could do after George McGovern was Jimmy Carter who’s Naval Career gave him the patina of toughness liberals needed so desperately. Carter of course led to Reagan and we’ve never been the same.

In fact the only reason kerry was nominated is he was a Veteran. Pity his circle was so liberal themselves they had no way of evaluating his service. The idea of selling him was a War hero was absolutely brain dead.

To this day liberals are not trusted on foreign police or defense policy. The most liberal President since Wilson has to keep GWBs entire infrastructure in place. Now you are attempting to defend his invasion of Libya. Delicious.

Right after we declared them essentially defeated, the “non-existent” Viet Cong (the ones we had killed “on-paper” several times over) mounted an offensive in nearly all of the major cities.

************************************************

This is merely another narrative you’ve lost control of. We know for example because they’ve told us that the Viet Cong were decimated during the Tet Offensive which was a major military victory the MSM reported as a major defeat. It’s the 2nd most egregious example of agenda reporting I know of. I’d name the NYTs reporting on the USSR during the 30′s as an advanced system when in fact tens of millions were being intentionally starved and executed.

One of the reasons Uncle Walts passing was so quiet was the myth of his honesty and objectivity has been shredded. He watched the SBVs take apart John Kerry and the entire anti-war movement, such as it is. He understood he had become a controversial figure and had no appetite for the notoriety revisiting his coverage would generate. He saw what good it did John Kerry and how poorly the MSM defended him.

It’s so cool that Kerry was defeated because of his dishonesty about that war. The hype has almost totally reversed. In 68 and the next few years the treatment of the Vietnam Vet was horrible. A bestseller ‘stolen valor’ documents much of it and reports on some of the great battles of the war where they fought heroically. Now it’s become politically incorrect to speak ill of veterans and if we know anything about liberals they are PC. There were reports of veterans being cursed and at spit on and these stories have come to partially define the era. That’s not true either. For the simple fact few would have had the balls and almost certainly would have their asses kicked.

BTW: There’s a great clip of George Clooney lamenting the loss of MSM dominance, “When we all had the same set of facts”. You wish George. You did fine there except for the word ‘facts’. Never again.

Then, of course, a Democratic President handed over to a REPublican President a government running more or less in balance

*************************************************************

Ya think?

How about that littler asset bubble. You know when the NASD passed 5,000 and then fell below 1,500?

Think that describes balance? How would you describe the revenues the govt collected from capital gains taxes before the bubble burst and after stocks 70% of their value.

How about the various acounting scandals. Enron, Worldcom ring any bells. They happened on Clintons watch my friend.

How about GDP growth? The economy was dropping consistently after 1999 and entered recession in March of 2001 6 weeks before GWB took office. Clinton inherited a strong recovery and left a recession.

BTW: Clinton for a democrat was VG. He signed trade agreements, welfare reform, cut capital gains and limited spending to some extent. That’s was mostly Reagan’s peace dividend but he was better than GWB and a lot better than Obama obviously.

reckless lack of regulation of the financial sector, leading to the greatest recession since their last economic debacle 80 years before

*************************************************

Actually Bush was blocked on regulating the financial sector by Dodd, Schumer and Barney Frank and it’s the greatest recession since 1981 not the depression. The worst recession before 1981 was in 1938 when FDR finally realized the New Deal wasn’t working and he decided to abandon it. Reagan not only had as severe a recession he had 11% inflation and an oil crises.

You are correct Obama is NOT turning to any of them on their expertise at war. He’s kept GWBs team intact for that purpose.

He will be even more hesitant than Clinton understanding he himself hasn’t a shred of expertise and understanding as President all of the blame if anything goes wrong will attach to him. The others are mere flacks who will always have a finger to point and their sycophants in the MSM to cover for them.

Were you out of the country during the 2004 campaign?
.
Oh, do try to keep up with your OWN comments, rdw.
.
This is what you said: The treatment of the Vietnam Vet was horrid thanks in part to scumbags like John Kerry smearing them with baseless accusations.
.
The 2004 campaign was NOT part of the Vietnam era. 31 years afterward, IIRC. And I said Kerry’s comments had little or no effect on the treatment of the returning vets. I don’t even remember much about his comments during that time.
.
But I DO remember Walter Cronkite’s editorial.
.
The problem was the spin by the DOD and Pentagon about progress being made. They had declared the Viet Cong essentially defeated BEFORE the Tet Offensive. That’s why the offensive (and its span) so damaged their credibility.
.
Yes, Tet was a victory – over an opponent that was already declared to be down for the count. Too many exaggerations about the progress being made at the time to be believed again.
.
Kerry didn’t invent the “Five O’Clock Follies”, rdw. The Pentagon did.

—-”and it’s the greatest recession since 1981 not the depression. The worst recession before 1981 was in 1938 when FDR finally realized the New Deal wasn’t working and he decided to abandon it. Reagan not only had as severe a recession he had 11% inflation and an oil crises”——-Better reread your history on FDR.

If what you’re trying to say here is that that Fed caused recession of 1981-82 was worse than the current recession that started in Dec. of 2007, you’re a total unmitigated fruitcake…and a liar!

And as to raising tax rates on the top 2%ers, that have claimed that bulk of the increased wealth in this country over the past 30 years, finding ways of avoiding them so don’t even bother to raise them. Well, in the 1970s, when the top marginal rates were 70%, the 400 richest Americans earned an average of $40 milion a year(in 2008 dollars) and paid an effective tax rate of 30%. In 2008, the 400 richest Americans earned an average of $400 million a year and paid an effective tax rate of 16.6%.

We now have the greatest concentration of wealth and wealth inequality in the history of the U.S. It’s also worse than any other industrialized nation.

The American people know this. That’s why their top 2 choices in dealing with the National Debt is (1)raise taxes on the people at the top that have been benefitting from repeated tax cuts over the past 30 years(Reagan & Bush II) and (2)cutting defense spending(which has doubled since 1998).

The above ugliness is your modern day Republican Party. All politics, no policy!