Political Cartoons

That was before Saddam Hussein caused 9/11!

(deleted comment)

From:

If it's a joke, why am I not laughing?

From:

adrunkencadence.livejournal.com

because you've not jaded enough. (that's a good thing - these complacent assholes like their Taco Bell & cheap shoes/pants more than genuine social change. This includes "reforms" on standing government... SSSSHHHHHH - don't tell no one.

(deleted comment)

From:

I don't. It's sarcasm. But 41% (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19375611/site/newsweek/) of Americans apparently do.

From:

That's bizarre. Even the most Republican die-hards on LJ don't seem to believe that. Mind you, the ones on LJ can read and write, so that must make a difference.

From:

sleightgirl.livejournal.com

ha ha! That's funny!

From:

welcome-to-1984.livejournal.com

Beastie Boys ftw!

From:

sleightgirl.livejournal.com

Sorry, I'm confused...wasn't it Osama? I thought the 9/11 commision determined that.

From:

It had to have been Saddam, otherwise why would we have invaded his country? After he caused 9/11 he was going to nuke us with all his WMDs!

Thank goodness we're selling massive amounts of weapons to our good friends the Saudis! They'd never allow their people to do something horrible like 9/11.

From:

Just so you get the record straight. Here are ALL the reasons why America invaded Iraq based off evidence that US and other countries (England, Germany, and France to name a few) had.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

Read and know the truth. These are the facts.

Looks like I am going to have to correct you whenever you get the facts wrong and that looks like a lot of work for me.

(deleted comment)

From:

That's pretty comprehensive.
I know I saw it when you first posted it, but I'd forgotten about your collation of material and sources.
It seems that The UK's Intelligence Services were complicit in the doctoring of the information to fit the policy, and I would guess doing so under instruction from Tony Blair.
The UK's Intelligence Services are comic book anyway, yet somehow still less dodgy than the US intelligence community, and let's face it: it would be just as bad were we French with Greenpeace in the crosshairs....

From:

My point is that WMDS are not the only stated reason why America went into Iraq. Not sure what that huge post has to do with that point. There were several stated reasons why America went to war and they are all in the Wiki (a source I have accepted from others) site I have citied.

From:

True, but even the Wiki article you quote states:
Throughout the runup to the invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration's central rationale for military action was that Saddam Hussein's government was actively developing weapons of mass destruction that could be used to threaten the United States. As Secretary of State Powell summarized in his February 5, 2003 presentation to the U.N. Security Council, "the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction."[16] Despite the Bush Administration's consistent assertion that Iraqi weapons programs justified an invasion, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz later cast doubt on the Administration's conviction behind this rationale, saying in a May 2003 interview: "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue - weapons of mass destruction - because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
The contention of some folk in this debate is that really, it didn't matter what the Causus Belli was, we were going to war anyway. Which is what you're tacitly admitting. There was a pre-existing desire for this administration to go to war in Iraq. And despite opposition, they essentially selectively edited and spun whatever was needed in order to convince the ordinary voting folk that they were in the right, and doing the right thing.
Believe me, in the UK, there would have been a completely different response if the ordinary public had known there were no WMD's.
Those of us who were concerned about such things, and with the middle-east in general, knew better, as did anyone who believed the UN weapons inspectors that the Intelligence Services did so much to discredit.

I pity Colin Powell. A decorated war hero, the highest ranking serviceman, an otherwise honourable man, sent to lie for his country, perhaps unknowingly. Sir Henry Wooton's phrase about diplomats springs to mind.

From:

My point, which is proven, was that WMDs were not the only reason for invading Iraq. I did not say any of the reasons were good or bad, legitimate or not legitimate. Do not put words in my mouth. That is another debate for another time.

From:

Apologies, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

From:

Thank you and apology accepted.

From:

yes-justice.livejournal.com

I pity Colin Powell

That fucker is getting a fat ass in a leather chair. Meanwhile Iraqi girls get their feet blown off. No tears for Colin. He picked his friends and made a pretty penny.

From:

Oh, and you remember me stating that this week would see how the economy would turn out...it's going to take a bit longer than a week to work out if we can stabilise the present credit problems...sorry, my bad.

From:

Look at the numbers of the US economy. They are all good. They are all in an upward trend. Thats good.

"Its the economy stupid." -Clinton campaign

From:

As for the economy, it's a bit more volatile than those figures show.

http://business.guardian.co.uk/markets/story/0,,2149744,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

This will have knock-on effects as the sub-prime home loans deficit hits the fan, as must be obvious. Hedge funds are restructuring...it may well all kick in before the election, which will be bad for whoever wins. Else one can but hope it will all be sorted without too much hardship.
Actually, I rather hope it does stabilise....after all, it's my money too.

From:

http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm

All of these point to an upward trend in the US economy.

Also, the stocks are going down right now but if you pulled a graph out for the past year or past two years you would see an overwhelming upward overall trend. Stocks do go up and down its the trends you are looking for. One bad day can be fixed by the one good day.

From:

And because I don't neccessarily believe in just one source when two will do, here's the Reuters feed to Yahoo on the same story:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070816/tuk-uk-markets-britain-stocks-fa6b408_8.html

And given the US markets exposure to the sub-prime market (and also that all the repossessions will be on US turf) it could have effects as yet unseen.
With luck it may not be too big, but there will be a correction.

From:

These are also British stocks. I wonder...does the British stocks have an upward overall trend as well?

From:

These are British stocks: this is our reaction to our hedge fund's exposure to the US sub-prime mortgage problem. Many hedge funds from around the world are involved.
However, the problem on the ground is in the US, as you know. The defaulters are in the US, the repossesions will be in the US, and the hardship will be with the folk who can't afford to pay their mortgages, also in the US. The investors, both internal and external to the US, will attempt to extract as much of their investment as they can.

This has been waiting to happen since June.
You are so right that one month's blip doesn't change the curve on the graph....if we've been seeing the true position of the curve, to which this 'blip' is a pointer. And this is what we wait for now: the extent of the correction, and to see how much our estimations were 'out'.
Fingers crossed, as I said: it's my money too.

From:

I wish you the best then. I do think the upward trend will continue even if there is a dip. Which is good for you too.

From:

Thank you.

From:

"With luck it may not be too big, but there will be a correction."

Yes, with luck. Unfortunately, the financial state of the US gov't is going to make things much more difficult to deal with if the correction is a large one and we slide into a heavy recession. We've already got a massive amount of debt, the deficit is still pretty big, and in times of economic need cutting social programs isn't the solution... but neither is raising taxes.

From:

The Goverment debt isn't the problem here though...which doesn't mean it won't have an effect eventually. It's personal mortgage defaulters. Mind you, that will have a knock-on effect with credit card bankruptcies etc and will lead to more bad debt. NY closed after rallying, but world markets are still down and dropping in cases. My guess is we'll lose at least 10% off the Stock Market, but hopefully not more than 20%. Wall Street may yet find a smaller margin of correction. I hope so.

From:

Try sensible figures, Ninefingers: 3-5% loss. And the FTSE' already rallying. Good.

From:

I'm saying that if worse comes to worse, that the personal debt defaults (and those who invested in the housing market, plus the high risk hedge fund difficulties) cause a contraction, that the US in in bad financial shape to deal with it. You're spot on about the correction happening, I just believe that the economic problems are much much bigger than what we're seeing right now on the surface and they will have big impacts on the rest of the economy.

From:

There are huge amounts of debt in the system, and a lot of them don't appear to be anchored - a pass the parcel routine has left no-one knowing whose holding the ticket. The Fed has come in to help too, there's something afoot.
However, I wonder about the war-chest for next year. I know defence spending is ringfenced, but...

(deleted comment)

From: