so much anger...

[epeemike81]

I guess it'd depend on whether the gas tax increase were a fixed amount or a percentage. I'm not sure which it is. Currently I think it's a fixed amount.

I'm still confused about why Kerry has made repeated calls for the Bush Administration to lower the price of gas ( as by not adding to the strategic reserve ) while simultaneously calling for raising the price via tax increases. That is, if he's really not just playing a double game.

here's a thought: situations change. While I would be in favor of higher gas prices (via tax, not OPEC profit) to the tune of four-fold or so, Kerry was voting for a much more modest raise. at the time he was voting, the price was nowhere near where it is now. now that it's higher, he feels a different policy is necessary.

a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. haven't I heard that somewhere recently???

-m

[Inquartata]

The problem is that it isn't only on matters of policy that this seeming tendency to vacillate reveals itself. The big one, of course, is Vietnam, an issue with little relevance to the problems before us today but which he still seems determined to vest with inordinate significance. I mean, the first half of one of his TV ads is all about what a war hero he was. So, he is boasting of his performance in a bad, ugly, unjust war which he disavowed after he was discharged? Makes little sense to me, and has nothing to do with "nuance" or changing circumstances...unless it's political circumstances.

Although, since I'll probably have to vote for him, perhaps indecisiveness is rather to be hoped for than decried; no doubt it'll enhance the likelihood of his getting nothing much accomplished while in office ( assuming he wins, that is ).

[Tireur]

Well, epeemike never told me why a leftwinger such as himself, suddenly had so much faith in the intelligence community, so.....

Here's quote from someone I'm sure he has faith in:

“If you don’t believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.”

-John Kerry, January 2003

[Maeve_Mari]

Although, since I'll probably have to vote for him, perhaps indecisiveness is rather to be hoped for than decried; no doubt it'll enhance the likelihood of his getting nothing much accomplished while in office ( assuming he wins, that is ).

To me, nothing happening while in office next year is sounding much more palatable to what IS happening in office now!

[epeemike81]

Well, epeemike never told me why a leftwinger such as himself, suddenly had so much faith in the intelligence community, so.....

Here's quote from someone I'm sure he has faith in:

“If you don’t believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.”

-John Kerry, January 2003

I believe that Hussein would have been a threat IF he'd had nuclear weapons. he didn't. even those who were trying to sound alarmist were saying IF he got fissable material, he was less than a year away from having a weapon. well, hell, if I had fissible material it would take ME less than a year to create a bomb. All the infrastructure and time it takes to create a bomb is really just to create fissible material. there was NO WAY he was going to get fissible material. you can build bio/chem labs in relative secret, fission plants? not so much. the one time he tried to build a nuclear plant (which would still put him years from anything), Israel flew in and blew it up. The idea of a Nuclear threat from Iraq is a red herring. btw, why haven't we invaded N. Korea? I can't think of ANYBODY I trust LESS with nuclear weapons?

btw, I didn't respond because, much like the rest of your posts, it struck me as a line meant more to be a one liner than an actual point of debate. to answer it, though, I don't trust there ethics, but I do (and have always) trusted their ability to gather intelligence better than, say, a trial lawyer in NY.

-m

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

As for how to TRULY limit to issue ads, require them to be approved, not challenged, by the FEC. If you make a bi-partisan panel approve them, one of two things will happen, IMO: 1) they'll never approve any ads because one side is always against the issue or 2) they'll approve even ads they're against as long as they're substantive in an effort to raise public debate. (2) is clearly preferable, but I think even (1) is preferable to the misleading ads we allow now.

-m

I can think of a 3rd possibility: The 2 parties on the panel treat each others ads well, but can each and every ad coming from other parties.

Not good.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

To me, nothing happening while in office next year is sounding much more palatable to what IS happening in office now!

Indeed! "Nothing happening" is what passes for a political philosophy for me. That is, I like to see one side in the Executive and the other in control of the Legislature, so that they spend the bulk of their time squabbling with each other instead of molesting us with higher taxes and stupid new laws...

[Schiavona]

Indeed! "Nothing happening" is what passes for a political philosophy for me. That is, I like to see one side in the Executive and the other in control of the Legislature, so that they spend the bulk of their time squabbling with each other instead of molesting us with higher taxes and stupid new laws...

And political pundits wonder why this happens so often.........

[Maeve_Mari]

Indeed! "Nothing happening" is what passes for a political philosophy for me. That is, I like to see one side in the Executive and the other in control of the Legislature, so that they spend the bulk of their time squabbling with each other instead of molesting us with higher taxes and stupid new laws...

GASOLINE $2.29/gallon this morning.
Senseless what has happened and the impact to our economy the way it is going now.

[albemarle]

GASOLINE $2.29/gallon this morning.
Senseless what has happened and the impact to our economy the way it is going now.

Yes, but that increase is probably due to many external factors - although instability in Iraq isn'n going to help...

[Inquartata]

Iraq is pumping more oil than it did for the last ten years, yet the price of crude is still near record nominal highs. The price of gas has more with OPEC quota tightening and demand beginning to outstrip supply in a country which hasn't brought a new refinery on line since the 70's and keeps mandating "boutique" additive blends in order to reduce pollution in its cities.

The former will work itself out as cheating sets in among the OPEC countries and as the high prices spur new exploration and production ( if the prices stay high long enough ). The latter...I'm less sure. We may well have cut our own throats on that one.

[epeemike81]

Iraq is pumping more oil than it did for the last ten years, yet the price of crude is still near record nominal highs. The price of gas has more with OPEC quota tightening and demand beginning to outstrip supply in a country which hasn't brought a new refinery on line since the 70's and keeps mandating "boutique" additive blends in order to reduce pollution in its cities.

The former will work itself out as cheating sets in among the OPEC countries and as the high prices spur new exploration and production ( if the prices stay high long enough ). The latter...I'm less sure. We may well have cut our own throats on that one.

unfortunately, it's not just OPEC sitting on it. their production is peaking. we are about to see the production gap we've been hearing about.

I don't think it's an issue, btw, that we haven't opened new refineries, and I don't think the solution is new "exploration" (gotta love euphamisms...). the real issue is that we haven't invested more money/time/effort in researching energy alternatives.

-m

[Inquartata]

unfortunately, it's not just OPEC sitting on it. their production is peaking. we are about to see the production gap we've been hearing about.

According to the USGS we're at least 3 or 4 decades from any such peak. But advocates of the "use less oil NOW!" position like to move the date up as far as they can in order to fright----er, motivate people to conserve and agitate for alternatives. ( They may not be wrong to do so, but they aren't being entirely honest in their methods, either. )

I don't think it's an issue, btw, that we haven't opened new refineries

The ones we have have been running at capacity for some years now, and demand keeps increasing. Absent new refining capacity supply cannot keep up. That guarantees shortages eventually. Already there've been local ones here and there, where pipelines which can't be shut down for maintenance have failed. It's a sign of things to come.

and I don't think the solution is new "exploration"

Why not? That, along with cheating, is what broke the OPEC stranglehold in the 70's. They raised the price so high that they rewarded competition against them by making exploration and exploitation of harder-to-get reservoirs cost-effective...

the real issue is that we haven't invested more money/time/effort in researching energy alternatives.

-m

That's one issue, to be sure. It's not the only one.

[Tireur]

btw, I didn't respond because, much like the rest of your posts, it struck me as a line meant more to be a one liner than an actual point of debate. to answer it, though, I don't trust there ethics, but I do (and have always) trusted their ability to gather intelligence better than, say, a trial lawyer in NY.-m

The former director of CIA, James Woolsey did testify and here is how the judge summed it up:



"The opinion testimony of the plaintiffs' experts is sufficient to meet plaintiffs' burden that Iraq collaborated in or supported bin Laden/al Qaeda's terrorist acts of September 11. . .

"Their opinions, coupled with their qualifications as experts on this issue, provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al Qaeda and that it did so with knowledge and intent to further al Qaeda's criminal acts."

Judge Baer continued:

"[Former CIA] Director [James] Woolsey reviewed several facts that tended in his view to show Iraq's involvement in acts of terrorism against the United States in general and likely in the events of September 11 specifically.

"First, Director Woolsey described the existence of a highly secure military facility in Iraq where non-Iraqi fundamentalists [e.g., Egyptians and Saudis] are trained in airplane hijacking and other forms of terrorism. Through satellite imagery and the testimony of three Iraqi defectors, [he] demonstrated the existence of this facility, called Salman Pak, which has an airplane but no runway.

"The defectors also stated that these fundamentalists were taught methods of hijacking using utensils or short knives. Plaintiffs contend it is farfetched to believe that Iraqi agents trained fundamentalists in a top-secret facility for any purpose other than to promote terrorism.

"Second, Director Woolsey mentioned a meeting that allegedly occurred in Prague in April 2001 between Mohammad Atta, the apparent leader of the hijackings, and a high-level Iraqi intelligence agent. According to James Woolsey, the evidence indicates that this was an 'operational meeting' because Atta flew to the Czech Republic and then returned to the United States shortly afterwards. The Minister of Interior of the Czech Republic, Stanislav Gross, stated on October 26, 2001:

"'In this moment we can confirm, that during the next stay of Muhammad Atta in the Czech republic there was the contact with the official of the Iraqi Intelligence, Mr. Al Ani, Ahmed Khalin Ibrahim Samir, who was on 22nd April 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities which were not compatible with the diplomatic status . . . '

"Third, Director Woolsey noted that his conclusion was also based on 'contacts,' which refer to interactions between Hussein/Iraq and bin Laden/al Qaeda that are described in a letter from George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, to Senator Bob Graham on October 7, 2002. Director Tenet's carefully worded letter included in substance the same allegations, but with less detail, that Secretary of State Colin Powell made before the U.N. Security Counsel on Feb. 5, 2003, in his remarks about 'the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network. . . .'

"Both Director Tenet and Secretary Powell mentioned 'senior level contacts' between Iraq and al Qaeda going back to the early 1990s [although both acknowledged that part of the interactions in the early to mid-1990s pertained to achieving a mutual non-aggression understanding]; both mentioned that al Qaeda sought to acquire poison gas and training in its use from Iraq; both mentioned that al Qaeda members have been in Iraq, including Baghdad, after September 2001. . . .

"Finally, plaintiffs also place considerable weight on an article that appeared in a regional Iraqi newspaper in July 2001, two months before the disaster of September 11. This article, a paean to bin Laden, mentions that bin Laden 1] 'will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House,' 2] 'is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,' and 3] 'will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs.' See Exs. 16-18, Naeem Abd Muhalhal, America, An Obsession Called Osama Bin Ladin, Al-Nasiriya, July 21, 2001 [original, translation, and certificate of accuracy of translation].


gotta go catch a plane to Boston...