The Obama Tax Plan

This is the definitive Obama guide. It’s the most comprehensive thing your can imagine, from family to tax proposals. Read and weep.

http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm

Re: “And, when the economy tanks, Obama will blame us … just like Carter did.”

Or the way Republicans blamed Bill Clinton for everything that has gone wrong under George W. Bush?

Carter addressed the nation on the “economic malaise,” which btw, was a 14% inflation rate. He specifically blamed the American public for “not doing enough” and that we must take “responsibility” for the economic condition (at the time, a recession with a high inflation rate). His considered solution was to raise taxes, “to curb recessionary trends and not to exacerbate inflationary pressures.”

Bottom line, Carter blamed us for a tanking economy. He had no economic policy.

Raising taxes and having government doll out that money for needs is actually more efficent than having corporations do them. This is fairly obvious. A governmental system has Budget X dollars and their objective is to see that Y citizens receive Z number of dollars. They can be straight-forward in the dolling out and the satisfying of NEEDS (see: NOT DESIRES. Healthcare, insurance safety nets, etc). Whereas corporations might have a Budget of X dollars. Their objective however is to make more dollars, not actually provide healthcare or see toward the fulfilling of needs. They’re objective is to fufill the DESIRES of the shareholders, not the NEEDS of the stakeholders.

Government is useful. Its high time people stop being dogmatic and short sighted about its uses. It works where the market cannot.

If there is vast excess of wealth, cut it and apply it to portions of society that require it to flourish — thus increasing the ‘net worth’ of the society. It is society that grants the money. Society can take it away. Don’t like it? Live on an island by yourself and masturbate to Ayn Rand.

If there is vast excess of wealth, cut it and apply it to portions of society that require it to flourish — thus increasing the ‘net worth’ of the society. It is society that grants the money. Society can take it away. Don’t like it? Live on an island by yourself and masturbate to Ayn Rand.

I have a better idea, Calm Eye. Instead of the US capitalists’ capitulating to support your sorry ass, why don’t you move?

Venezula is calling…. DOH! They’re in deep dodo with your ideas. But you’ll be happy…

While your post is chock full of clueless commentary, these are the gems that I selected:

- A president who says “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

“I am truly not that concerned about him.”
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Sweet, another Leftist troll who likes to parrot those blatantly dishonest talking points.

Robert, do you have any idea what the remainder of those quotes contain?

Any idea at all?

Didn’t think so.

We need to reinstate government by, for and of the people.

Who, pray tell, do you plan to vote for in Nov?

I would love to see the numbers on average tax obligations from state to state, city to city. NYC is probably amongst the highest. Add to that cost of housing, utilities, etc. $160,000 sounds like a lot until you shadow it against the cost of living in NYC.

Hi All,
Note that the article referred to in Above the Law does an analysis of a $280k income. The net increase taxes appears to be 20k. To say that a increase in taxes of less than 8 percent of gross income not necessary is to ignore the 9 trillion dollars of debt we have at this time. The money has been spent and it is time to start paying the bill. For all of us in the top 1 percent to suffer a 7 percent increase in income taxes seems a very small price to pay. Check the article out and you will note that the amounts used assume a income of $280k.
Humbly, M.

The Revolution has begun folks- call him Marxist, call him Socialist, call him whatever you want as you cringe in fear of losing your enormous wealth. You and yours have ridden the wealth train for decades now, beginning with Reagan’s lie about “trickle down wealth” and ending with the Bush Policy of “you deserve more”. Guess what folks- there are a WHOLE lot more of us than you and we will change the world, like it or not. Maybe you should move to Mexico. After all, that’s where you sent all of our jobs.

Liam,
That was so beautifully stated. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Why would someone want to threaten a fellow citizen who probably worked their ass off every day of their life to earn the money they have?
And is anyone here aware of what it’s like to ride the “wealth train”? It’s definitely not a Disneyland ride. For a business owner it is a train that spends its first 10-15 years broken down, with its conductor and passengers starving and poor but with enough balls to get up everyday and keep working towards the success they dream for in the future. Finally, their hard work pays off and the train runs smoothly. Unfortunately, the shithead sitting on a bench a few miles down the track (where he has been sitting for those 10-15 years) sees the conductor as a high and mighty greedy anarchist who hates poor people decides that he should get a piece of everything that rich man has. Why? Because that’s fair; right? One person worked day in and day out for 10 years and the other sat on his ass so it’s only right that the hard worker should pay for the shithead’s life of leisure. Why live the American dream? Why work hard and prosper? So you can pay for Bill’s dentist appointment next week and his beer this weekend. That’s why! That’s enough motivation for me!

DO YOU MAKE MORE THAN 250,000/YEAR?

Obama would raise the capital gains tax rate from 15 percent to 20 percent for those Americans making MORE THAN $250,000 PER YEAR.

The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% — the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. A 20% rate is almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986!

Real issues? Well, what would Obama know about real issues? If you can answer that, I would be happy to ‘debate’ anything. Lets try to keep in mind issues like track record, and a proven history of ‘knowing the real issues’.

“I look forward to hear from you”

seriously.. where do these people come from?

Thank you for getting me into the topic, Caoimhin.
And, thank you Liam, for being open to discussion.

First, McCain’s ads that say Obama will raise taxes, are, you could say, 95% untrue, or as Rove already said about McCain, don’t meet “the 100% truth test.”

Why? Because 95% of people will have their taxes cut, while the other 5% will revert to where they were before Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the country. Remember… just a scant 8 years ago, when our country had a balanced budget and the economy was doing great?
If you say that the present Bush economic policies are working, just look around you! It is wrong, however, to blame this plunge into (we hope not) depression on Bush alone. it began with Regan, who started the deregulation, privatization of government functions, and deficit spending that we see today. It was continued by Bush One and even Clinton, who signed supported NAFTA and other ‘free trade’ policies.

In 1929, we had circumstances much like today. While output per man-hour shot up by 32 percent between 1923 and 1929, wages crept up only 8 percent. In 1929, the top 0.1 percent of the population earned as much as the bottom 42 percent. At the same time, taxes on those with an income of more than $1 million were reduced by 70 percent.

What is happening now, was happening then. Wages of the middle class have been falling, meaning that there is less spending. Less spending means businesses manufacture less. The way FDR broke the depression was to implement measures that rebooted the middle class. The times when the economy was growing fastest, when our parents could raise a family on 1 job, coincided with higher taxes on those with the highest incomes.

Returning to the point, why should we want to vote for McCain, a self-professed follower of the ‘free market’ (deregulate, privatize, cut taxes on the richest for ‘trickle down’ effect) for 26 years, who has said for about the last 26 hours that what we need is more regulation? This free market economics is a theory that has never worked!

So, does McCain actually believe what Obama and the Democrats have been saying for years, that more regulation is the answer, completely flip-flopping on his free-market heritage, or is he just saying it to get elected?

ROBERT —
YOUR OBAMA TAX PLAN IS BIAS 95% WILL GET A WHAT? ITS NOT A TAX CUT ITS A WELFARE….OBAMA MAKE IS SOUND GOOD JUST TO GET YOUR VOTE!

Hi Rick,
What is it that you like better about McCain’s tax plan?

In an ideal world, complete cooperation between different countries creates roads paved with gold, leading to a global utopia. But, historically, and in the real world, human nature and nationalism seem to return individual country’s to a goal of self interest and national security. Rogue leaders and unexpected events, such as Putin and Georgia … Iran, atomic bombs, terrorists and Israel … Chavez’s ambitions … Al Quada … Chinese expansion … etc., always seem to upset the international apple cart of idealists. In addition, we should not take for granted our 200+ year experiment of freedom and capitalism, and be so willing to gamble it away for a socialistic notion which stifles the individual innovation and initiative which made this country great … and a standard of living which makes everyone around the world want to live here! And, since many have decided to also make this a partisan political discourse, by assuring us that Obama, the messiah, has all the answers, allow me to respond to that as well. Obama has no experience, or credentials. When given the chance in the senate, Obama did nothing except to show up and vote present 160 times. Despite his flowery speeches, his track record reveals a focus on personal ambition, associations with anti-American racists and terrorists, massive flip flopping, questionable loyalty to political positions and long time friends, a desire for socialism, and forced redistribution of America’s wealth. He casually promises everyone a chicken in every pot, even if it is the chicken that lays America’s golden eggs. Economics 101 … Every farmer knows that even if you get real hungry, you never eat the seed crop. One of the reasons McCain keeps going back to the issue of character is because although Obama makes great speeches, if his character and integrity are questionable, it doesn’t matter how good his plans sound. Policies and promises from an ambitious politician who can’t be trusted, are equivalent to building a utopian sky scrapper on a rotten foundation.
P.S. Today Obama talked about more jobs, something McCain has been insisting on since day one … except Obama wants to raise taxes to the very people who provide jobs, while McCain wants to cut taxes to businesses as a way to promote jobs

To see just how striking the difference in income is between the average American and the top 1%. go to

@Aye Chihuahua:

Uh, the guy asks a question, and doesn’t answer it.

The tax cuts that will expire are those on the top few percent of income range, and maybe some others.

Whatever expires, must be replaced by a new tax plan.

If you make under $250,000, under Obama’s plan, which would replace the current plan, you will receive more tax savings than under McCain. That is a plain basic fact. Obama does want to raise taxes - on people making over $250,000.

Our choice is simple. There are 2 world views being expressed.

Do you believe that the top 5 percent or so of the population who have about 95% of the wealth, should pay LESS taxes, and DEregulate business? (McCain’s plan, generally the Republican Solution which has been the direction we have been on since Reagan)
——————————–OR——————————————————-
Do you believe that it would be better for our country if the top group of people paid MORE taxes and increase regulation? (Obama’s Plan, the generally the Democratic solution, in effect from FDR in 1932 through Reagan’s election)

This is the basic argument of our times. Do some research, make your decision and vote the way that makes the most sense to you.
What we don’t need is to obfuscate the question with lies or half truths.

McCain’s ads are half-truths - which makes them lies. Yes, Obama will raise taxes, but the question is - who is paying those taxes?

@Aye Chihuahua:

First, we have a basic difference in opinion, which in some ways comes down to world view. We can cite those who hold our world view all day long.
I believe that it is a better world when income disparities between rich and poor are less, and taxes, which must be paid in one way or another, are used in ways that push the economy in directions that are beneficial to the greatest number of people, and to the greatest good of our country.

If you cut the taxes on those that spend 100% of their income each year they increase spending in this country, right now. If you cut taxes on those that have excess income, they invest - but where? China? Japan? The Euro? Oil Futures? Real Estate Stocks or Real Estate? If you had a million (or 100 million or a billion) to invest right now where would you put your money. You would be most likely, searching for the next bubble, like real estate (was), which by the way, also bubbled similarly in the mid 1920’s, fed by reduced tax rates in place at that time, like this time.

The WSJ article you cite first bases its conclusions on the general disagreement we have. But, taxes are never accidental, they are not a force of nature like the rain that falls on everyone. so the question is, how to engineer it in a way that works.
I support the general concepts of the tax codes being used to provide more for those who, for whatever reason, find themselves in the lower income brackets. The more they have, the more they buy, and the more it flows money back into the economy. This means more jobs, and more investment in producing products that create jobs.

I understand that this may look like people who don’t deserve are getting things for free, but we could just as easily say the same for the CEO’s with golden parachutes walking away with millions while smaller investors lose money or investors who make millions or billions on dividends and pay less in tax rates than their secretaries. As in Monopoly (the game) without regulation, the rich get richer till they own everything.
I would prefer to see wages rise, but generally those on your side of the issues also are against higher minimum wages and unions. Capitalism is great, but when it goes out of control, it becomes a return to feudalism, and just plain doesn’t work, as we are seeing right now. It is like cell growth, when it repairs and maintains the health of the organism in a balanced fashion, it is good. When it doesn’t work, and and certain groups of cells proliferate unregulated by the immune system, it is called cancer.
The following tables (from the blog of Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman and this table and graph) clearly demonstrates a relationship between wealth differentials and economic stability, and tax rates. The years of greatest growth and stability in our economy

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/images/2007/09/19/krugmanineq.gif

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates-graph.php

The table from the American Enterprise Institute (Brill and Viard) that you included is an example of using a specific, manufactured example. Out of all the possible examples, they chose a family with a 12 year old and a child in college. This is called cherry picking. This article reveals how the article by Brill and Viard that the WSJ article is based on uses very clever and misleading tactics to obfuscate the truth.

Again, you can choose what you believe, and vote for it.

You’re right Charles:
Barry’s Social Security argument is nothing more than a slight of hand from Obama to give to his supporters to use in argument. But again it fails the logic test. If you start refunding Social Security to someone who is not otherwise able to collect, then legally their Social Security contribution balance should be reduced by that amount. Which means they will recieve less conpensation when they do retire. But that IS NOT in the language contained in Obama’s tax plan and the money WILL NOT come from the Social Security trust fund. It will go directly from taxpayers into the General Fund. So it is nothing more than another Obama class warfare lie. Next he may try to boost this argument by saying that there will be no Social Security as we know it in the future, so the poor should be allowed to get their money out now first. Social Security was a irreversible socialist plan and like it or not, it will never go completely away. At most, there will be reduced benefits due to the massive drain on the system as the Baby Boomer population increasingly works through. The problem behind FDR’s Social Security plan was it required continuous growth in population. We had to maintain at least 3 people working for every one recipient. It did not figure on population stabilizations such as “Nuclear Families” of 2, 1, or no children after the “Baby Boom” of the 1940’s & 1950’s. Then again, he would be foolish to make that “poor should get their’s now” argument because it shows the falacies inherent in socialist programs and would scaring those who are hoping to depend on Social Security once they are too old and infirm to work.

Another problem with why Social Security is on hard times now is because when excess funds started accumulating in the trust fund, neither Republicans, nor Democrats were satisfied with leaving it in there for the lean times. Both found different ways to raid it. They robbed Peter to pay Paul. During the Carter years, when Democrats had a 2/3rds majority in Congress, they passed legislation perverting the system by changing the dynamics, allowing people to collect who were not over age 65. These new incentives cut so deeply into the coffers that Social Security payments now are unable to maintain cost of living increases for seniors.

Hence Obama’s recent statement is but another Socialist Dem “red herring” to confuse the issues.

I keep hearing that the “rich” cut-off point is $250k , $200k, $150k…
Under Obama’s plan there won’t be a Social Security cap (currently $102,000).

This means that anyone making over 102K will receive a 7.5% tax increase on income over $102k (your employer also has to match the 7.5%). This is in addition to capitol gains.

Obamas plan is also unlclear about small business tax. Is the $250k gross or net? His plan does not specify. If it is gross, how many of the Obama referenced small busineses that are under $250k can afford to pay any employees? Most of them are home based business and contractors without employees.

The fact the economy is a worry on everyones mind should we really trust what the canidates are telling us about their tax policies. Hanlon has been bashing McCain for the last couple weeks but now he starts an attack on Obama’s tax plan. It also has links to a tax caluclator that would show you how much your family would be effected. Interesting read.

http://www.greenfaucet.com/hanlons-pub/dueling-obama-tax-calculators/91256

@Robert:

What does this have to do with Obama’s tax plan? Are you posting in the wrong thread? blog? Do you know where you live?

@Robert: I apologize.

Clinton left us in a recession and the stock market was tumbling affecting people’s retirement. It’s not just the rich that are invested in the stock market. The Clinton economy wasn’t as rosy as some like to pretend. Manufacturing was leaving during his reign, the mines, textiles and timber took a big hit. He put millions of acres of the west into parks, leaving all those working in the mines, timber and minerals, unemployed.

To compete with workers making $2.00 per hour, we raise taxes on our own business. Smart.

Funny how people don’t seem to realize that the 80/20 rule applies to almost all of life. 20% of American’s pay the taxes that support USA. This is a clear case where Obama is setting up the country for econmic downfall. If Obama increases taxes on that 5% of Americans the buck will be passed on to the other 95% in one of many ways. Jobs will be cut. Benefits taken away to make up the difference. The top 5% will take their money and jobs out of the country. Obama wants to make everyone believe that the top 5% are the ones that will pay the increase but this is no different than higher gas prices leading to higher grocery prices. Small Businesses in the United States cannot afford to pay any extra taxes and remain profitable so that they continue to stimulate our economy.

I think Obama or McCain should propose a federal income tax on all bought items with the exception of food. If it is true in life that the people who make the most money spend the most money then the American people would decide which companies stay in business and which go.
This also means that illegal immigrants, cash businesses, and hard working individuals ALL PAY TAXES no exceptions. If you buy a car it’s taxed, a home it’s taxed, clothes their taxed. The business world is already set up in most businesses for this plan. It would be very easily implemented and no one could evade the system. By supporting this system everyone would benefit. The government could do away with individual audits and concentrate on businesses. Business who offer a good product or service would stay in business, the government could track what businesses are in trouble based on federal income taxes paid monthly or quarterly. It would help the USA head off an economic crisis before it starts by being able to see the spending patterns of the consumer.

We truly are a nation of stupid stupid people if we truly believe that 5% of Americans are going to be affected by a tax increase. We will all pay in some way shape or form. The top 5% didn’t get there because of burning money for the politicians to spend. Mark my words this tax increase will hurt everyone down to those making minimum wage.

@Robert:

These poor rich people who will cut back on business because of a 3% increase in their income taxes (not even the taxes on their businesses, which under Obama will get a 3,000 credit per new employee)

The tax impact on business will be much greater than you claim.

Furthermore, how many say $40,000 per year jobs will be added as a result of that $3,000 tax credit? Not many in my estimation. Especially when you consider that a $40K per year employee probably earns more like $65K by the time the business owner pays payroll taxes and benefits for that person.

Socking It to Small Business

The Obama plan is an incentive to hire fewer workers.

Barack Obama declared last week that his economic plan begins with “one word that’s on everyone’s mind and it’s spelled J-O-B-S.” This raises the stubborn question that Senator Obama has never satisfactorily answered: How do you create more jobs when you want to levy higher tax rates on the small business owners who are the nation’s primary employers?

Loyal Democrats have howled over the claim that small businesses will get soaked by the Obama tax plan, so we thought we would seek an authority they might trust on the issue: Democratic Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus of Montana. Here is what Mr. Baucus wrote in a joint press release with Iowa Republican Charles Grassley on August 20, 2001, when they supported the income tax rate cuts that Mr. Obama wants to repeal:

“. . . when the new tax relief law is fully phased in, entrepreneurs and small businesses — owners of sole proprietorships, partnerships, S corporations, and farms — will receive 80 percent of the tax relief associated with reducing the top income tax rates of 36 percent to 33 percent and 39.6 percent to 35 percent.”

Then they continued with a useful economics tutorial:

“Experts agree that lower taxes increase a business’ cash flow, which helps with liquidity constraints during an economic slowdown and could increase the demand for investment and labor.”

Twelve Senate Democrats voted for those same tax cuts. And just to be clear on one point: An increase in “the demand for investment and labor” translates into an increase in J-O-B-S. So if lowering these tax rates creates jobs, then it stands to reason that raising these taxes will mean fewer jobs. From 2003 to 2007 with the lower tax rates in place, the U.S. economy added eight million jobs, or about 125,000 per month. The Small Business Administration says small business wrote the paychecks for up to 80% of new jobs in 2005, for example.

Mr. Obama’s tax increase would hit the bottom line of small businesses in three direct ways. First, because 85% of small business owners are taxed at the personal income tax rate, any moderately successful business with an income above as little as $165,000 a year could face a higher tax liability. That’s the income level at which the 33% income tax bracket now phases in for individuals, and Mr. Obama would raise that tax rate for those businesses to 36%.

Second, the Obama plan phases out tax deductions (the so-called PEP and Pease provisions), thus raising tax rates imposed on this group by another 1.5 percentage points. Finally, Mr. Obama would require many small business owners to pay as much as a four-percentage-point payroll tax surcharge on net income above $250,000. All of this would bring the federal marginal small business tax rate up to nearly 45%, while big business would continue to pay the 35% corporate tax rate.

Mr. Obama responds that more than nine of 10 small businesses would not pay these higher taxes. Last Thursday he scoffed in response to the debate over Joe the Plumber, saying that not too many plumbers “make more than $250,000 a year.” He’s right that most of the 35 million small businesses in America have a net income of less than $250,000, hire only a few workers, and stay in business for less than four years.

However, the point is that it is the most successful small- and medium-sized businesses that create most of the new jobs in our dynamic society. And they are precisely the businesses that will be slammed by Mr. Obama’s tax increase. Joe the Plumber would get hit if he expanded his business and hired 10 to 15 other plumbers. An analysis by the Senate Finance Committee found that of the filers in the highest two tax brackets, three out of four are small business owners. A typical firm with a net income of $500,000 would see its tax burden rise to $166,000 a year under the Obama plan from $146,000 today.

According to a Gallup survey conducted for the National Federation of Independent Business last December and January, only 10% of all businesses that hire between one and nine employees would pay the Obama tax. But 19.5% of employers with 10 to 19 employees would be socked by the tax. And 50% of businesses with 20 to 249 workers would pay the tax. The Obama plan is an incentive to hire fewer workers.

For many months Mr. Obama and his band of economists have claimed that taxes don’t matter much to growth or job creation. But only last week Mr. Obama effectively admitted that even he doesn’t believe this. His latest “stimulus” proposal includes a $3,000 refundable tax credit for businesses that hire new workers in 2009 or 2010.

So what sense does it make to offer targeted and temporary tax relief for some small businesses, while raising taxes by far more and permanently on others? Raising marginal tax rates on farmers, ranchers, sole proprietors and small business owners is no way to stimulate the economy — and it’s certainly no way to create J-O-B-S.

Lower taxes = Business Growth = More Hiring

There ya go, Folks… As Sky55110/RAP aka CRAP says:

Who’s tax plan truly saves you Money? for me it is Obama!!!!

Truly indicative of the “ME ME ME” generation. A hallmark of the new JFK revamped infamous phrase..

Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country can do *for you*!

Congrat, CRAP. In 12 words, you have summarized the socialist progressive DNC. That could be a new record.

Now Mata… Don’t pick on CRAP… After all, that’s quite an admission that his/her/it’s vote can be bought.

But is that the “REAL AMERICAN” spirit?

I think not!

MataHarley -
If a person making enough to benefit from Obama’s tax plan (I would bet that would include you) will want to vote for Obama, that’s greed?

What about the patriotism of, say, Haliburtan, Cheney’s company, making huge profits on no bid contracts in Iraq and New Orleans, and moving to Dubai to avoid taxes? Who will the owners of that company be voting for… Obama, who will be far more likely to crack down on that kind of crap? Of course not.

Those people are the base of the Republican party, which manages to convince people like Joe the Pumber (NOT!) that it is him whose success they care about.

If it makes me GREEDY for voting in my self interest, (which I also believe to be the interest of the country) what are you for voting against yours?

MataHarley:
Almost too many points to ponder here.

First this from CNN Money

“McCain has entrepreneurs spooked about tax hikes, but fewer than 2% of small business owners would pay more under Obama’s plan….
“The Small Business Administration estimates that there were 6 million small businesses in 2005, as measured by those with fewer than 500 employees and with staff on the payroll other than the owner.
Who pays?

Even using the broad definition of small business that McCain likes, very few owners would see their own taxes rise.

That’s because the lion’s share of taxable income comes from a small number of wealthy businesses. Out of 34.7 million filers with business income on Schedules C, E or F, 479,000 filers fall into the top two brackets, according to an analysis of projected 2009 filings by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

The other 34.3 million - or 98.6% - would be unaffected by Obama’s proposed rate hike.

That includes Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher

The bottom line: McCain’s claim only works by using an overly broad definition of what counts as a “small business” - and even with that definition, fewer than 2% of business owners would be hit by Obama’s proposed rate increase. For those who are affected, the increase would be levied only on a part of their earnings, not all of them.

2nd point - social security payroll tax increases
The figures you were citing were old - based on an earlier statement, from 2007, I think -
Obama’s latest plan is as follows from the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan educational organization.

“Under current law, income up to $102,000 a year is taxed for Social Security. Obama would create a “doughnut hole” by not imposing new Social Security taxes on income between $102,000 and $250,000. His aides said income exceeding $250,000 would be taxed at a rate of 2 percent to 4 percent, rather than the 6 percent tax that people pay toward Social Security on income below the $102,000 cutoff, which is matched by their employer’s paying a 6 percent tax. Employers would probably pay an additional tax, but the total tax paid by both employee and employer would not exceed 4 percent of the amount of income earned over $250,000.”

In your posted table, the individual would not have an increase in SS tax.
Will Obama increase in payroll taxes? Yes. But again, it is on the highest executive class, (and not at near the cost your source indicated) and not on the average worker who is the backbone of production of goods and services, and who makes up the vast majority of employees.

3rd point
On spending, lets look at a non-partisan site instead of your inflated partisan CATO number. It offers a very in-depth analysis based on non-partisan sources.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which has analyzed the two candidates’ spending plans shows that BOTH are looking at deficits in the following, similar amounts. Note that McCain has a higher top deficit spending than Obama, who has actually pinned down his policies more clearly than McCain, based on the spread of possibilities.

Deficit spending of the 2 candidates, based on their plans. Through 2013

Senator McCain - $229 billion to - $400 billion Deficit
Senator Obama - $262 billion to - $316 billion Deficit

But all that leaves out discussion of the meta point, which I will address in another post.

Robert, it’s baffling why you want to be a one trick pony, so to speak. You keep speaking of the Obama tax cuts as if that were the entire economic plan. So let me make an analogy that, while simplistic, might establish that we are speaking of two different things.

I’m a vendor, running a sale on a box of Cheerios. I’m guaranteeing you that I’ll sell you the cheerios for 30% off. But in the fine print, in order to get that 30% off, you are also required to buy milk, berries, natural sugar, orange juice, eggs and some pork sausage.

Am I legitimate is saying you are getting 30% off on your cheerios? As Palin would say, “you betcha”. Are you taking on more debt, and paying more out of pocket to get that 30% off on your cheerios? Absolutely.

This is the problem with Obama’s tax plan. I never have, and never will address only that ever morphing threshold of wealth that Obama can’t seem to set. Because it’s not just about that cut, but the other tax increases he’s proposing to cover the money lost.

And only one of those many increases is on the SS tax because Obama is removing the cap. So you are incorrect when you said:

In your posted table, the individual would not have an increase in SS tax.

Had you clicked on the link and read the article, you would know that the first year MBA investment banker got his $280K income from a $105K salary (subject to SS taxes), PLUS $175K bonus money (also subject to SS taxes because of the cap removal).

Then you ignore the increase in costs the employer has for that cap removal as well.

Despite all the cash that Obama tries to steal here and there, the numbers for his “wants” don’t add up to all that he can steal or scalpel out of the budget.

Now, INRE Panetta’s US Budget Watch document. The difference between that analysis and the Tax Policy Center analysis (which forms the basis of my $4.3 trillion post linked) is that Panetta’s group used the candidate’s website for their primary data to scrutinize. The Tax Policy Center - which *is* a non partisan organization - got more indepth figures and details on the individual government departments proposed directly from the campaign advisors. Fact is, the candidate’s sites and their supplied PDFs are relatively generic.

Also in dispute from Obama’s website presentations are what they “claim” to be able to spend or save, vs what the economists say is more realistic. Take for example that Panetta’s group just accepted Obama’s proclaimed $77 bil in closing tax loopholes and shelters. The Tax Policy Center’s analysis looks at his figure and says that’s just not realistic.

And this is the johnny-come-lately-to-the-battlefield info from the economists that don’t apparently have Obama stardust in their eyes that are speaking out loudly enough for even CBS to hear. Wow… where were they months ago?

Summarily, Obama’s eyes are bigger than we, the taxpayers’, wallets. Obama himself has already been called on it enough… evidently in private since the media chooses to ignore his “fuzzy math”… and his campaign has already drawn up a plan to spring on his faithful to “lower expectations” on his campaign promises.

In other words, give me your vote today, but understand when I can’t do what I promised. This is “change we can believe in”? Hang, this is politics as usual, as far as I’m concerned.

While you demonstrated a glimpse of sensibility on economic issues… albeit ignored the Obama spending not included in the analyses you choose to cite… you’ve totally lost it on the visiting Kenyan pastor to the Wasilla church. Hey, wonder if he knows the Obama family, eh?

This is not her regular pastor. Having an African pastor with their cultural beliefs bestow a blessing on the Alaskan Governor is hardly in the category of sitting in the pews of a Black Theology church doctrine for two decades, and never hear the racial hate it incites.

This is so beyond the scope of the sane, that it’s not worth these few sentences I have posted. You have, however, managed to discredit your voice here thoroughly with your not so nuanced suggestion of impropriety and scandal. So I’d say this is my last cyber conversation with you.

There we go again, another moonbat. WOW! Robert, you are the 34th, I believe. Welcome to the moonbat party!

Robert says

Mata - show me a single long term example where these policies have been successful for more than 20 years or so. (Other than times when populations have been decimated, or huge new frontiers are opened.) It is the cancer stage of capitalism, where it gets top heavy and collapses under its own weight.

I don’t know how many financial and government structures in history you think that mimic the US of A, Robert. We are unique, and that is why our historic growth and rise to power is so notable in history.

So let’s compare it to the only comparable… ourselves. And its been going and morphing now over 230 years.

It used to be more profitable. Tarifs and protectionism in a different era (global trade was not feasible due to physical transport and communication restraints then….) kept the federal coffers full.

We didn’t have national debt until the New Deal and the government started not only it’s expansion into welfare programs for domestic issues, but it’s uncontrollable growth and tenacles in administrative heavy departments. Even at that, the times when it got out of control was also the times we cut the taxes and reduced the Congressional budget allowance to correct. They are like spoiled rich kids, spending every penny and more of daddy’s money.

So the simple solution is as logical as the nose on your face. You cut the spending of Congress, and give back the taxes to the job creators so they can grow and expand.

Now why don’t you give us an example of a successful socialist economy… one that keeps us in the style and power that the world has grown accustomed to us having so we can bail their sorry asses out of trouble worldwide?

Well, Michael… you may have waited a long time to weigh in, but you were well worth the wait. Welcome, and thank you for your oh so admirable perspective.

@Robert:

So What if that is the case? I’m not debating the truth of who spends and collects more during their term (I haven’t done the research, nor do I care to). You’re in favor of a party and their candidate tearing down a particular class in the name of more income? If that’s your objection then so be it, but raise taxes on everyone, not just the wealthy.

All facts and preferences aside, past and present, you’re okay with Obama completely turning, what we know as America, upside down? You’re okay with others being penalized for the laziness of others? People who are fortunate enough to have and want to help out the less fortunate should have that right, but they should not be forced to. If you donate money to a particular charity because your views align with theirs, then that’s something you would feel good about, but what if you don’t agree with the charity that government is going to MAKE you contribute to?

It should not be the governments concern to see after everyone’s well being, especially those that don’t contribute to its success. Likewise, it should not be in the governments ability to institute bills that would negatively affect our well being. What would all the people crying out for Obama’s help do if there were no government and we were all left to make it on our own, you know, the way things used to be?

You really want us to become a welfare nation, where there is no real incentive to work? If you could live in this country, do nothing and be taken care of, what’s the point? So maybe I won’t have the really nice things in life, but I know all my needs will be taken care of even if I decide not to contribute to the economy. You want the hard workers to pick up the slack for everyone else?

Maybe Obama will reduce the deficit, but not with out taking more of your and my money, and just who’s going to benefit from that?

First, Robert, you might want to have a recent look at the economy of your Socialist-Demo Euro examples. For some reason, you think the rest of the world… most especially those with a govt model you favor… are escaping this global economy.

Secondly, you cite small countries, a far cry short of our massive population. This is like pointing to a successful hippy commune with socialist policies for their community, and expecting it to work for the nation.

There is nothing wrong with the capitalist model. It does require a distinct balance between not enuf, and too much regulation…. a balance that has been tilted by idiots in Congress for decades. However economic woes are not cured by throwing your hands up, and putting it all in the hands of the government. And most especially the hands of one man in particular….

Speaking of, how about them tax cuts for banks Paulson quietly slipped past the eager beaver Congress while they were battling about the bailout? Funny thing is, after shoving this down an unwilling nation’s throats, they might start realizing they have just placed an inordinate amount of power in the government, and most especially into that of a single officer’s hands (Treas Secy… the job *I* want…. :0)

Also hilarious is they wonder if the Treasury had the authority to do this…. yet they did not cry foul when Clinton’s Treasury Secy rewrote the compliance regulations for the CRA - quietly, behind closed doors in order to escape any chance of these changes failing in a new, incoming GOP Congress. Where was the outrage then? By either party?

Guess it’s all how you look at it, Robert. But all I can say is this… Leaving out your claim that Obama is not Marxist/socialist - something time will tell - his cure for every ailment is government. He believes government creates jobs, not the private sector. And yes… it can. But it’s the socialist government that creates jobs by expanding control and departments. Like this federal animal isn’t overbloated enough?

Government solutions are a losing proposition … a guaranteed path to, if not abject failure, absolute mediocrity. The US will no longer dominate the global economy. Without our economy, our military will no longer remain superior. Both voids will be filled by another.

Perhaps you think mediocrity is more “equitable”. Yet it is those Socialist-Dem Euro nations who depend upon the US for security. And the world revolved around the great US marketplace… not your Euro socialist models.

We have ample history to show that when you want something done right, and with the most efficiency and profit, you don’t give it to government, but the free market. We have just as much history proving that those in government grow corrupt with power… and oh, BTW, aren’t too bright for long term vision…. and it seems those in the Treasury Dept and Congress are about to give you a late, but very important re’education.

Expect to fight me tooth and nail on moving this nation into any more socialism than we already have, Robert. I will not go there but by kicking screaming biting fighting every political step of the way.

Robert,

I am not saying we should be Denmark. I am stating that Democratic Socialism is not a prescription for disaster, as is hyped by the right. You may be right, that their systems would not work for us, but that is just a guess, on your part, based on - What?.

If you’ll notice, I said Euro-democratic socialism here, if not a “prescription for disaster”, as you say, is a prescription for mediocrity… as evidenced by the comparison from the US to Euro nations. Are they the most wealthy? The most powerful military? The ones with the consumer market coveted by the world?

The two times in our history when your ‘free market model’ held sway in this country were the 1920’s and now - Reagan onwards. We all see the results. You still haven’t been able to name a successful system that works under the principles and rules, or lack thereof, that you support.

There are no role models comparable to the US economic/free market structure. There are, however, ample models for all degrees of socialist to communism. And we do know their success rate… and the expansion of that “gap in wealth”.

To say that high taxes decreases initiative is just plain not true.
From about 1951-the mid 60’s we had the highest GDP in our history, over 3%, and:
Taxes were 91% on income totals above 400,000 (2-3 million today’s dollars)
and …
Taxes were 75% on income between 100,000 (1 million today’s dollars) to 400,000

Ah yes… the good ol’ days when we were an industrial giant… as opposed to today when we are a service and retail giant. Wages were low, OSHA and EPA demands virtually non-existent. Needless to say, the cost of doing business then, compared to today, is like night and day.

I am not saying, as you state, (nor is Obama, if I may speak for him) that the private sector isn’t where our strength comes from, just that it needs to be well regulated.

Free markets do not solve problems- corporations fiduciary responsibility is to make money. The unregulated banking industries quickly devolved to what is nothing more than gambling and Ponzi schemes with their derivative and hedge fund trading.

It’s nice you choose to speak for Obama, but that isn’t what drips from the lips, Robert. Government will create jobs, government will solve the problems… government, as you rightly point out in your second paragraph, *is* the problem (where have I heard that before….)

The problem with the words regulation and deregulation is that are merely a base line. i.e. it was regulation that demanded the removal of perceived redlining, creating the risky loans onslaught of demand. Prior to that, banks did not lend if they did not see the criteria need take that risk. Is that good regulation?

The “deregulation” many want to scream about is securitization… which as been working quite well to provide growth for local banks just fine since the 70s…. until, of course, they started selling bad product on the secondary markets. So what’s the real problem? The secondary market? Or selling bad product on the secondary market, caused by regulation?

That said, of course I think that capitalism is a balance of wise, but non-intrusive regulation that stimulates growth. Our problem is the plethora of bad regulations… or, as you might like to see it, the lack of regulating bad regulations. Confusing, eh? But basically true.

The present fairly free market for insurance companies is a major reason our healthcare is low quality and high cost, compared to the rest of the more affluent world.

Not quite… trial lawyers, HMOs… many things affect our costs. You might want to wander over to the prescription drugs thread for more in depth conversations on this subject.

The top 1% of individuals keeping so much of their disposable income does nothing to help the strength of our nation. Do you think our military is stronger when the wealthiest are paying lower taxes?

You miss the problem. Obama’s spending plans do not fit into the taxable income burdened by the wealthy, *and* the middle class. It is the classic “eyes bigger than the stomach” connundrum.

The facts could not be clearer – if you have a philosophical disagreement with a more egalitarian system, that’s fine, but to if you want to say that you support the unregulated, free market, supply-side economic approaches because they work, then you are on thin ice – thin to the point that you are trying to walk on water.

Creative phrasing, but no where did I suggest what you said I did. I’ll try repeating it… all by itself… it case you just glossed over it.

Mata #76: There is nothing wrong with the capitalist model. It does require a distinct balance between not enuf, and too much regulation…. a balance that has been tilted by idiots in Congress for decades.

Got it now?

Robert said: Well Mata, my brain is starting to hurt- we can go round forever, but we can certainly end on a note of agreement, sort of.

~~~

We will just draw the line in very different places. Time will tell what will happen. The pendulum has swung too far to one side, and new forces will now run the show. Who knows what they will do.

“Sort of” is a good starting point, Robert… and in this political climate, downright civil. And yes.. the pendulum has swung. In what direction is hard to say, given the history. The trick is to get it balanced again.

And yes, time will tell, and who knows what they will do. All any of us on either side of an issue can do is wait and see.

Ain’t America great, Robert? LOL

ADDED: BTW, I really ought to archive that comment. It is pertinent to just about everything in the battles of our always divided country. And, ya know, I wouldn’t have it any other way…. divided, I mean. We keep each other’s “in’s” honest that way.

I hasten to say just kidding, in case anyone might take me seriously.

I would never give you half to fly.

Robert;
I and many veterans like me fought for your right to protest. But you burn a flag improperly as a symbol of your hatred for our country in our presence and we’ll be going round and round. That is a deep dishonor to our country and an insult to the memory of the fine people who died to protect you. It’s not free speech, them’s fightin’ words. That’s why our military members earn the right to have our flag draped over our coffins when we are finally put to rest. You try the same thing in another country with their flag and you would be arrested and/or deported. You might not get such a rise in temper from me if you hung a politician in effigy, but to show disrespect to our flag is like a kick in the groin to America’s service members. I don’t care if you think you are being sarcastic or witty. It is not a laughing matter. What’s next, a joke about rape? If you’re so daring, why not find some black panthers and tell them some racist KKK jokes or go to a synagogue and joke about the holocaust? You have just earned my eternal disgust.

Rocky - I apologize if I offended you.

For the record I have never burned a flag, and don’t intend to. I understand that many see the flag as representing everything that is great about our country and associate it with all who have fought and died and sacrificed in innumerable ways to have what we have here in our country. All that is very real and true.

When I think of the sacrifices of individual soldiers, sacrifices made in good faith and trust in what the flag stands for, I don’t know if I could make those sacrifices, and I am glad that neither I nor my son have been put in the position where that was needed. Those kinds of sacrifices are amazing, heroic and often tragic. That is the human side of the flag.

The flag stands for them, but also and originally for the constitution, and the incredible system of government that was created, new and from the creativity and vision of Washington, Jefferson and so many others; those too are associations that I get from the flag.

But, when you take what Bush and Chaney did, taking all of that incredible history and trust in the flag and what it stands for, and not only created from whole cloth (irony intended) the story that 9/11 was hatched in Iraq, and that Iraq has WMD’s, and beyond that sees fit to say that if you don’t go along with their view of what is going on, you are a traitor, and against the flag, that is worse, to me, than burning the flag.
When hundreds of thousands die as a result of that lie, traitorously I submit, wrapped in the flag, and thousands of American soldiers, with faith in that flag as their inspiration, die or are maimed for life to support those lies, that is worse than burning the flag.
I expect you will have a very different take on why we got into the war, and I do not wish to get into another unending argument, but does my view make me unpatriotic, as the Bush/Chaney rhetoric has often been implied? Or does it make me more patriotic. To me I am defending the flag against an insidious threat, far far worse than some angry individual that wants to burn it. Better to burn the flag than to blow up buildings with people in them.

If you look at it from the perspective of people on the other side the flag becomes a very different symbol. To some devout Muslims in Saudi Arabia, seeing US bases on in their country feels like a degradation of their sacred symbol, as much as you feel about the burning of the flag. If you were a devout Christian who came from generations of Americans who fought and died for their country, and a Muslim country was putting their bases in Florida, Texas and California, and flew a Muslim flag above the American flag, how would you feel?

If you lived in a South American or Middle Eastern country and saw your government continually influenced if not overthrown by people who represented another country how would the flag of that country make you feel? (In the Middle East, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, we are just another in a very long line of nations that have invaded them.)

Too often we have supported dictators who would do our bidding, rather than take the high and hard road of putting our foreign policy at the same level of integrity as we would hope to hold ourselves to, such as upholding parts of the law like ‘innocent until proven guilty’ even when we know damn well that he is guilty. Those are the sacrifices we make to freedom.

Do we have good reasons? Sometimes, maybe. But all too often we are saying we want to bring democracy and by the way our oil companies will get the contracts. Democracy at gunpoint is not what we should be after.

I can only speak for myself, but I see the greatness of this country and its reputation as a liberator of the oppressed, earned from the blood and loss of our soldiers, if not the money of our nation given as aid to other countries, being squandered in highly questionable ways.

And, to return from my digression with a point, I understand those that may want to burn the flag, for those very reasons. To them and to those who feel pain and regret for them, it is a symbol of being oppressed, whether that is our intention or not.

To me that is the cost of free speech, that someone can trample on what we believe at the the center of our hearts, and walk away, because ultimately, like Washington treating the British POWs with respect or treating German POWs with respect after what they did to our prisoners, like those actions of sacrifice of our own personal passions in deference to the larger ideal, like following the Commandments when, damn, your neighbor’s wife sure is hot, those things eventually bring a respect of the ideals that you are trying to defend.

Peace, justice and democracy are best spread by being peaceful, just and democratic. Your allowing of others the freedom to do that which offends you terribly, and you abhor, but which at the end of the day truly hurts no one, makes you an exemplar of the values that you are willing to die for.

Robert said:

I understand that many see the flag as representing everything that is great about our country and associate it with all who have fought and died and sacrificed in innumerable ways to have what we have here in our country. All that is very real and true.

Just out of curiosity Robert, is that how you see the flag too?

And please point out to me where the Bush Administration said 9/11 originated in Iraq. Show me the quotes of Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld or Rice who blamed 9/11 on Saddam.

Either that or stop LYING, because that’s what you are doing.

@MataHarley:

Mata, you said

I don’t know about any of you, but it sure gets tiresome listing to the same ol, same ol BS that flies in the face of fact with the Pentagon Iraq Perspectives Report IV, plus the Harmony and ISG docs….

Gee, I thought, this contradicts everything that I had ever heard about the lack of connection between Saddam and Al Quaida. So, I looked it up.

Here is an ABC news piece on the Iraq Perspectives Report

Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda
“Based on the analysis of some 600,000 official Iraqi documents seized by US forces after the invasion and thousands of hours of interrogations of former officials in Saddam’s government now in US custody, the government report is the first official acknowledgment from the US military that there is no evidence Saddam had ties to al Qaeda.”

And in case that is not enough for you, this is from the report itself
While the study found that Saddam did support some terrorist activity in the Middle East
” This study found no “smoking gun” (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda.”

Also there is this briefing on 9/21/2001

Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel
“Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter. “

Was I glad when Saddam was taken down? Of course. Was he a despicable scoundrel? Sure! Was he a supporter of terrorists. Yup.

But that is not the point. The case was very specifically made and repeated over, and over and over for years that there was a connection between 9/11 attackers, Al Qaeda, and your own source says that is not true.

BTW, this is not linking Saddam to 911. It is linking Saddam to al Zawahiri since 1993, and other jihad groups that affilate with AQ. It also suggests Saddam’s hand in “Blackhawk Down” Somalia 1993… where Bin Laden trained the fighters who mutilated our soldiers. Coincidence that Saddam ordered assaults on the US in Somalia, that he knows and dealt with Zawahiri, and Bin Laden ends up training the Somalies?

But no… Saddam didn’t have any contact with jihad movements…. right.

Read the dang report. Have a little healthy curiousity, would you? If you are only just now “looking it up”, you are way overdue…

All,

First, I am not impugning either soldiers or the military. Quite the opposite. They were and are doing their duty to the commander-in-chief, and their country. To nobly defend the country in this way, when needed and called upon is vital to a nation. There was a huge desire to avenge and defend against another 9/11 and many who wanted to do something. Their patriotic desire and willingness to lay down their lives was squandered in Iraq, by the skirting of the truth by Bush/Cheney et al.
Mata- your point is taken, Saddam was a bad guy, up to stuff that was no good and harmful to US interests. But you are arguing a different point than the one I was making, which is that there was deliberate and repeated deception by Bush et al, in the form of cherry-picking of intelligence, making statements that may, or may not have a particle of truth into “overwhelming evidence”, (below, and Colin Powell’s unfortunate and discredited revelation of ‘proof’ of WMD’s for examples.)

To be as charitable as I can, maybe we can call it an attempt to lead, us where they thought, out of the best of intentions for this country, we should be going, not to mislead? Whatever, the result was a false understanding in the minds of Americans, like 70% in 2005 who believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Bush or at least Cheney and his staff would read raw intelligence data (which is often refuted or in later analysis) to find the evidence they needed.

The decision was made to go into Iraq and then the ‘reasons’ were found. It was Bush’s intention before he became president to invade Iraq if he ever got the chance.

Look at this from re: Paul O’Neil, treasury secretary who was in the meetings before 9/11:

Not only did O’Neill give Suskind his time, he gave him 19,000 internal documents.

“Everything’s there: Memoranda to the President, handwritten “thank you” notes, 100-page documents. Stuff that’s sensitive,” says Suskind, adding that in some cases, it included transcripts of private, high-level National Security Council meetings. “You don’t get higher than that.”
And what happened at President Bush’s very first National Security Council meeting is one of O’Neill’s most startling revelations.
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic “A” 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”
As treasury secretary, O’Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as “Why Saddam?” and “Why now?” were never asked.
“It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’” says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”
And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.
He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’” adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.

CHENEY CLAIM: “There’s overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there.” - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04

You are right, Mata et al I was mistaken- he never did say that Saddam planned 9/11 - I guess I, like a majority of Americans (70% in 2005), heard in that and other statements like it, the unspoken association not explicitly stated that he hoped for us to hear - for that was surely the implication, as 9/11 was mentioned frequently in the same speeches and even sentences with Iraq.

But even these claims like Cheney’s are disputed by many facts.

FACT: According to documents, “Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to be wary of joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle U.S. troops. The document provides another piece of evidence challenging the Bush administration contention of close cooperation between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda terrorists.” [NY Times, 1/15/04]

FACT: “CIA interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Saddam.” [NY Times, 1/15/04]

FACT: “Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no ’smoking gun’ proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.’I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,’ Powell said.” [NY Times, 1/9/04]

FACT: “Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.” [National Journal, 8/9/03]

FACT: Declassified documents “undercut Bush administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda.” [LA Times, 7/19/03].

FACT: “The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.” [NY Times, 6/27/03]

FACT: “U.S. allies have found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.’We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda,’ said Europe’s top investigator. ‘If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.’” [LA Times, 11/4/02]

I am speaking of a tragedy here- troops - honest, loyal, brave, trusting American men and women who were put out on a poorly conceived, poorly planned, poorly executed fool’s errand. I am glad that it is looking like something good can be salvaged from this at this point - but to me it doesn’t make it excusable.

The decision was made to go into Iraq and then the ‘reasons’ were found. It was Bush’s intention before he became president to invade Iraq if he ever got the chance.

I read a few pages from your link to The Fall of the House of Bush. Interesting stuff. Thanks for the link. I don’t think highly of Craig Unger’s credibility, however.

As far as the alarmism in O’Neill’s account to the partisan Suskind,

Here’s another point of view and account:

Did President Bush and his advisers come into office intent on launching a war in Iraq?

*
IN FACT: The question of how to deal with Iraq was a key national security issue inherited from the Clinton administration.

The collapse of the weapons inspections; the corruption, circumvention, and undermining of the economic and import controls; and the challenge to the no-fly-zone patrols—all tended to undo the Security Council’s containment policy for Iraq, the most important UN peacekeeping initiative of the 1990s. Governments and observers around the world debated how to respond—but few argued that the Iraqi regime’s threat to peace and order was insignificant. Saddam was far from a spent force. And he was acting as if time were on his side. By the time the Bush Administration was preparing to take office, the incoming officials knew they would soon have to shore up the Clinton Administration’s policy of containment, or replace it. (p. 198)

Members of the National Security Council and other senior officials spent many hours evaluating and debating options for dealing with Iraq. Our understanding was that President Bush wanted his advisers to devise every sensible way to resolve our Iraq problems short of war. At the Deputies level, we had grappled for months with whether regime change in Iraq was a necessary goal of U.S. policy — and, if so, whether it might be achievable without war. (p. 221)

The goals of regime change and avoiding war were not necessarily inconsistent. They were reconciled in the Administration’s “ultimatum strategy,” which called for a coalition military buildup to persuade Saddam that he had only two options: Face a war with us that would result in his death or imprisonment, or avert war by leaving Iraq with his sons and a small number of his top lieutenants to enjoy amnesty in permanent exile. It never seemed likely that Saddam would bow to the ultimatum, but President Bush took seriously his duty to exhaust all reasonable means short of war. The Defense Department also took this responsibility seriously: As late as March 2003, my office was working on an “action plan” for the ultimatum strategy, including a list of the candidate countries for asylum and a draft UN resolution. (pp. 303-4)

Chapter 3 in Feith’s book talks about the Camp David war strategy discussions. About how broad to engage in this war. Pg 48:

As the September 13 National Security Council meeting demonstrated, Iraq was on the minds of many Administration officials- as it had been even before George W. Bush became President. At the time, it was a common assumption among government officials that a global war on terrorism would, at some point, involve some kind of showdown with Iraq- a known sponsor of terrorists who had defied UN sanctions since the mid-1990’s and had been launching attacks on U.S. and British air patrols almost daily for more than a year.

This may puzzle readers today- in 2008- because much of the current controversy about the Iraq war has focused on narrow questions such as whether Saddam Hussein supported al Qaida. That question was naturally asked after 9/11, but our deliberations over Iraq were far more extensive than that. By definition, any comprehensive counterterrorism strategy would have to deal with the threats posed by Saddam, as it would have to address threats from any regime that both supported terrorism and sought weapons of mass destruction. In formulating its third option, Rice’s staff was raising a narrower question still: whether the President should make action against the Saddam Hussein regime part of the initial U.S. response to 9/11.

~~~

Rumsfeld insisted that the United States should “do something that has three, four, five moves behind it.” He wanted our government to plan for a “sustained, broad campaign” that would surprise people and include economic, political, and other moves, not just military action. Reiterating that the threat we faced was from a global terrorist network, not just one organization, he told us: “Don’t over-elevate the importance of al Qaida.”

I shared Rumsfeld’s view. As we saw it, 9/11 did not mean simply that the United States had an al Qaida problem. We had a terrorism problem. A strategic response to 9/11 would have to take account of the threat from other terrorist groups- Jemaah Islamiya in Southeast Asia, Lebanese Hezbollah, various Africa-based groups- and state sponsors beyond Afghanistan, especially those that pursued weapons of mass destruction. We would need to determine what action- military or otherwise- to take against which targets, and on what timetable.

~~~

Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and I all thought that U.S. military action should aim chiefly to disrupt those who might be plotting the next big attack against us. Of greatest concern was a terrorist attack using biological or nuclear weapons. We neede actions that would affect the terrorist network as extensively as possible.

Rodman and I proposed in our memo that “the immediate priority targets for initial action” should be al Qaida, the Taliban, and Iraq. Iraq was on this list, we noted, because Saddam Hussein’s regime posed a “threat of WMD terrorism,” and was systematically undermining the ten-year-old efforts of the United States and the United Nations to counter the dangers of his regime. Among terrorist-supporting states with records of pursuing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, only Iraq had been subjected to prolonged, multinational diplomatic pressure, yet Saddam remained defiant and securely in power- and hostile to the United States. The experience of 9/11 sharpened the concern about anti-U.S. terrorism from any quarter, not just al Qaida.

~~~

At the Camp David strategy sessions, Rumsfeld’s remarks generally tracked the ideas in our memo. He left it to Wolfowitz, however, to present the case for action against Saddam Hussein. The President decided to initiate U.S. military action in Afghanistan, but to defer such action against Iraq.

as 9/11 was mentioned frequently in the same speeches and even sentences with Iraq.

Besides this being addressed in my post, the link in mentioning 9/11 and Iraq in the same speech isn’t that Iraq attacked us; it’s that the Administration, in the attempt to prevent the next terror attack, was engaging a broader war against international terrorism; not narrowly focusing on a law enforcement approach of “revenge/retaliation” against Osama bin Laden and his merry men.

The war planners didn’t even see the need to directly link Iraq to the attacks of 9/11:

Don’t we need a link to 9/11?

*No: This isn’t about revenge or retaliation, but about self-defense.

*A link to 9/11 would just emphasize what we already know - that the
current Iraqi regime is extremely hostile to us and is willing to cooperate
with international terrorism.

Scott:

Iraq and 911 are not the same battle anymore than Iraq and the Khobar Towers attacks were the same battle, but they are the same Jihad; the same war

FACT: According to documents, “Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to be wary of joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle U.S. troops. The document provides another piece of evidence challenging the Bush administration contention of close cooperation between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda terrorists.” [NY Times, 1/15/04]

And yet pre and post-war documents indicate that even if Saddam didn’t trust religious fanatics, he was not opposed to working with them to achieve common short term goals.

Note also how Baathists in post-war occupied Iraq worked hand-in-hand with Islamic holy warriors to foment violence and chaos.

FACT: “CIA interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Saddam.” [NY Times, 1/15/04]

Counter Fact (one of many…just too lazy to do a thorough job, here- again, go directly to Iraqi Perspectives Project):

The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent “emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials.” At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, “Iraq sought Sudan’s assistance to establish links to al Qaeda.” The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, “bin Laden wanted to expand his organization’s capabilities through ties with Iraq.”

The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that “al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors.”

One such confirmation came in a postwar interview with one of Saddam Hussein’s henchmen. As the memo details:

4. According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting–the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.

A decisive moment in the budding relationship came in 1993, when bin Laden faced internal resistance to his cooperation with Saddam.

5. A CIA report from a contact with good access, some of whose reporting has been corroborated, said that certain elements in the “Islamic Army” of bin Laden were against the secular regime of Saddam. Overriding the internal factional strife that was developing, bin Laden came to an “understanding” with Saddam that the Islamic Army would no longer support anti-Saddam activities. According to sensitive reporting released in U.S. court documents during the African Embassy trial, in 1993 bin Laden reached an “understanding” with Saddam under which he (bin Laden) forbade al Qaeda operations to be mounted against the Iraqi leader.

Another facilitator of the relationship during the mid-1990s was Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim (a.k.a. Abu Hajer al-Iraqi). Abu Hajer, now in a New York prison, was described in court proceedings related to the August 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as bin Laden’s “best friend.” According to CIA reporting dating back to the Clinton administration, bin Laden trusted him to serve as a liaison with Saddam’s regime and tasked him with procurement of weapons of mass destruction for al Qaeda. FBI reporting in the memo reveals that Abu Hajer “visited Iraq in early 1995″ and “had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence. Sometime before mid-1995 he went on an al Qaeda mission to discuss unspecified cooperation with the Iraqi government.”

Some of the reporting about the relationship throughout the mid-1990s comes from a source who had intimate knowledge of bin Laden and his dealings. This source, according to CIA analysis, offered “the most credible information” on cooperation between bin Laden and Iraq.

This source’s reports read almost like a diary. Specific dates of when bin Laden flew to various cities are included, as well as names of individuals he met. The source did not offer information on the substantive talks during the meetings. . . . There are not a great many reports in general on the relationship between bin Laden and Iraq because of the secrecy surrounding it. But when this source with close access provided a “window” into bin Laden’s activities, bin Laden is seen as heavily involved with Iraq (and Iran).

Reporting from the early 1990s remains somewhat sketchy, though multiple sources place Hassan al-Turabi and Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden’s current No. 2, at the center of the relationship. The reporting gets much more specific in the mid-1990s:

8. Reporting from a well placed source disclosed that bin Laden was receiving training on bomb making from the IIS’s [Iraqi Intelligence Service] principal technical expert on making sophisticated explosives, Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed. Brigadier Salim was observed at bin Laden’s farm in Khartoum in Sept.-Oct. 1995 and again in July 1996, in the company of the Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti.

9 . . . Bin Laden visited Doha, Qatar (17-19 Jan. 1996), staying at the residence of a member of the Qatari ruling family. He discussed the successful movement of explosives into Saudi Arabia, and operations targeted against U.S. and U.K. interests in Dammam, Dharan, and Khobar, using clandestine al Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia. Upon his return, bin Laden met with Hijazi and Turabi, among others.

And later more reporting, from the same “well placed” source:

10. The Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti, met privately with bin Laden at his farm in Sudan in July 1996. Tikriti used an Iraqi delegation traveling to Khartoum to discuss bilateral cooperation as his “cover” for his own entry into Sudan to meet with bin Laden and Hassan al-Turabi. The Iraqi intelligence chief and two other IIS officers met at bin Laden’s farm and discussed bin Laden’s request for IIS technical assistance in: a) making letter and parcel bombs; b) making bombs which could be placed on aircraft and detonated by changes in barometric pressure; and c) making false passport [sic]. Bin Laden specifically requested that [Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed], Iraqi intelligence’s premier explosives maker–especially skilled in making car bombs–remain with him in Sudan. The Iraqi intelligence chief instructed Salim to remain in Sudan with bin Laden as long as required.

The analysis of those events follows:

The time of the visit from the IIS director was a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing. The bombing came on the third anniversary of a U.S. [Tomahawk missile] strike on IIS HQ (retaliation for the attempted assassination of former President Bush in Kuwait) for which Iraqi officials explicitly threatened retaliation.

IN ADDITION TO THE CONTACTS CLUSTERED in the mid-1990s, intelligence reports detail a flurry of activities in early 1998 and again in December 1998. A “former senior Iraqi intelligence officer” reported that “the Iraqi intelligence service station in Pakistan was Baghdad’s point of contact with al Qaeda. He also said bin Laden visited Baghdad in Jan. 1998 and met with Tariq Aziz.”

11. According to sensitive reporting, Saddam personally sent Faruq Hijazi, IIS deputy director and later Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, to meet with bin Laden at least twice, first in Sudan and later in Afghanistan in 1999. . . .

14. According to a sensitive reporting [from] a “regular and reliable source,” [Ayman al] Zawahiri, a senior al Qaeda operative, visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President on 3 February 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz.

That visit came as the Iraqis intensified their defiance of the U.N. inspection regime, known as UNSCOM, created by the cease-fire agreement following the Gulf War. UNSCOM demanded access to Saddam’s presidential palaces that he refused to provide. As the tensions mounted, President Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on February 18, 1998, and prepared the nation for war. He warned of “an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals” and said “there is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.”

The day after this speech, according to documents unearthed in April 2003 in the Iraqi Intelligence headquarters by journalists Mitch Potter and Inigo Gilmore, Hussein’s intelligence service wrote a memo detailing coming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered by liquid paper that, when revealed, exposed a plan to increase cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to that memo, the IIS agreed to pay for “all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden.” The document set as the goal for the meeting a discussion of “the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him.” The al Qaeda representative, the document went on to suggest, might provide “a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden.”

Four days later, on February 23, 1998, bin Laden issued his now-famous fatwa on the plight of Iraq, published in the Arabic-language daily, al Quds al-Arabi: “For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.” Bin Laden urged his followers to act: “The ruling to kill all Americans and their allies–civilians and military–is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.”

Although war was temporarily averted by a last-minute deal brokered by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, tensions soon rose again. The standoff with Iraq came to a head in December 1998, when President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, a 70-hour bombing campaign that began on December 16 and ended three days later, on December 19, 1998.

According to press reports at the time, Faruq Hijazi, deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, met with bin Laden in Afghanistan on December 21, 1998, to offer bin Laden safe haven in Iraq. CIA reporting in the memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee seems to confirm this meeting and relates two others.

15. A foreign government service reported that an Iraqi delegation, including at least two Iraqi intelligence officers formerly assigned to the Iraqi Embassy in Pakistan, met in late 1998 with bin Laden in Afghanistan.

16. According to CIA reporting, bin Laden and Zawahiri met with two Iraqi intelligence officers in Afghanistan in Dec. 1998.

17. . . . Iraq sent an intelligence officer to Afghanistan to seek closer ties to bin Laden and the Taliban in late 1998. The source reported that the Iraqi regime was trying to broaden its cooperation with al Qaeda. Iraq was looking to recruit Muslim “elements” to sabotage U.S. and U.K. interests. After a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Taliban leader [Mullah] Omar, arrangements were made for a series of meetings between the Iraqi intelligence officer and bin Laden in Pakistan. The source noted Faruq Hijazi was in Afghanistan in late 1998.

18. . . . Faruq Hijazi went to Afghanistan in 1999 along with several other Iraqi officials to meet with bin Laden. The source claimed that Hijazi would have met bin Laden only at Saddam’s explicit direction.

An analysis that follows No. 18 provides additional context and an explanation of these reports:

Reporting entries #4, #11, #15, #16, #17, and #18, from different sources, corroborate each other and provide confirmation of meetings between al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. None of the reports have information on operational details or the purpose of such meetings. The covert nature of the relationship would indicate strict compartmentation [sic] of operations.

Information about connections between al Qaeda and Iraq was so widespread by early 1999 that it made its way into the mainstream press. A January 11, 1999, Newsweek story ran under this headline: “Saddam + Bin Laden?” The story cited an “Arab intelligence source” with knowledge of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. “According to this source, Saddam expected last month’s American and British bombing campaign to go on much longer than it did. The dictator believed that as the attacks continued, indignation would grow in the Muslim world, making his terrorism offensive both harder to trace and more effective. With acts of terror contributing to chaos in the region, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait might feel less inclined to support Washington. Saddam’s long-term strategy, according to several sources, is to bully or cajole Muslim countries into breaking the embargo against Iraq, without waiting for the United Nations to lift if formally.”

INTELLIGENCE REPORTS about the nature of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda from mid-1999 through 2003 are conflicting. One senior Iraqi intelligence officer in U.S. custody, Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah, “said that the last contact between the IIS and al Qaeda was in July 1999. Bin Laden wanted to meet with Saddam, he said. The guidance sent back from Saddam’s office reportedly ordered Iraqi intelligence to refrain from any further contact with bin Laden and al Qaeda. The source opined that Saddam wanted to distance himself from al Qaeda.”

The bulk of reporting on the relationship contradicts this claim. One report states that “in late 1999″ al Qaeda set up a training camp in northern Iraq that “was operational as of 1999.” Other reports suggest that the Iraqi regime contemplated several offers of safe haven to bin Laden throughout 1999.

23. . . . Iraqi officials were carefully considering offering safe haven to bin Laden and his closest collaborators in Nov. 1999. The source indicated the idea was put forward by the presumed head of Iraqi intelligence in Islamabad (Khalid Janaby) who in turn was in frequent contact and had good relations with bin Laden.

Some of the most intriguing intelligence concerns an Iraqi named Ahmed Hikmat Shakir:

24. According to sensitive reporting, a Malaysia-based Iraqi national (Shakir) facilitated the arrival of one of the Sept 11 hijackers for an operational meeting in Kuala Lumpur (Jan 2000). Sensitive reporting indicates Shakir’s travel and contacts link him to a worldwide network of terrorists, including al Qaeda. Shakir worked at the Kuala Lumpur airport–a job he claimed to have obtained through an Iraqi embassy employee.

One of the men at that al Qaeda operational meeting in the Kuala Lumpur Hotel was Tawfiz al Atash, a top bin Laden lieutenant later identified as the mastermind of the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole.

25. Investigation into the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 by al Qaeda revealed no specific Iraqi connections but according to the CIA, “fragmentary evidence points to possible Iraqi involvement.”

26. During a custodial interview, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for CBW-related [Chemical and Biological Weapons] training beginning in Dec 2000. Iraqi intelligence was “encouraged” after the embassy and USS Cole bombings to provide this training.

Read the rest.

FACT: “Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no ’smoking gun’ proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.’I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,’ Powell said.” [NY Times, 1/9/04]

More accurate fact:

It happens again with former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Opponents of the war often point to an impromptu press conference Sec. Powell where he says, “I have not seen a smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection,” but that’s where an opponent will deliberately try and mislead by only providing half of Sec. Powell’s comments. Back on planet Earth, Sec. Powell’s full comments can be examined and rather than being a voice of dissent to the idea of Saddam’s ties to al Qaeda, he explains that the idea of such ties…was not some sort of neocon fiction. He says it was a prudent assessment instead.

“I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist, and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did.” [emphasis added] – Sec. Powell 1/8/04

FACT: “Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.” [National Journal, 8/9/03]

COUNTER FACT: Already cited Silberman-Robb Report and SSCI Report on Iraq Prewar Intelligence; in addition, there were those within the CIA such as Pillar and Drumheller who behaved out of partisan politics over professionalism. What Policy Staffers such as Christina Shelton did, was raise questions regarding evidence ignored and unexamined by an incurious CIA that refused to look outside their own established box when it came to al-Qaeda/Iraq connections. (Re: Pg 264-273, War and Decision, by Douglas Feith)

FACT: Declassified documents “undercut Bush administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda.” [LA Times, 7/19/03].

Would be easier if you could establish a link to the full article.

Here’s a bone.

FACT: “The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.” [NY Times, 6/27/03]

Here’s what else the article says:

Michael Chandler, the chairman of the monitoring group, cautioned that the absence of evidence linking Mr. Hussein to Al Qaeda was not definitive.

”That doesn’t mean to say it doesn’t exist,” Mr. Chandler said, but simply that his team has found no such evidence.

During Security Council testimony in February, before the United States-led war with Iraq, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said that Al Qaeda training camps existed in northeastern Iraq. Mr. Chandler acknowledged Mr. Powell’s findings today and did not contest them, noting that the camps Mr. Powell referred to may have been destroyed by American military strikes.

Regarding camps: Read here. And here. Here.

The Iraqi Perspectives Project is the latest to date as far as I know.

FACT: “U.S. allies have found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.’We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda,’ said Europe’s top investigator. ‘If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.’” [LA Times, 11/4/02]

I find this part of the article amusing in a sad way:

Danielle Pletka, an analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, defended Cheney’s comments, saying he referred only to a “relationship” between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

“Nobody has ever said Saddam directed Al Qaeda in attacks,” Pletka said. “But it is clear that had he decided to do so at any point it would have been easy.”

Members of Congress and some in the intelligence community said Thursday that Cheney’s comments could lead the public to believe there was collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and that that was not supported by the evidence.

In the very same piece, at the top, the author mentions “cast doubt on theories that Iraq and Al Qaeda collaborated.”

If anything, it’s the media itself that contributes to the distortions.

Wordsmith -
You have lived up to your name- maybe you should call yourself WordSmith&WessonSemiAutomatic- I will not have the time to go through your long post - no disrespect intended - I have spent way more time on this forum than I ever intended, and my attempts to move on have led to further conversation - I am working on a large work project, and I have put it off too many times.
I apologize therefore, if this seems to be preemptively dismissive of the points that you have put time and energy into. But, even were I to stipulate stronger evidence than I was aware of that Saddam was dangerous and capable of endangering not the fabric of our nation, but nonetheless American lives, through terrorist activity, Bush’s underlying reason for going into
Iraq, from its inception was political and oh yea, we can find some good reasons to take Saddam out.

As a political maneuver it was poorly, no, horribly, planned, and executed, highly misunderestimated at the very least, though with exception, some aspects of the last year, and the initial military strikes.

Waste and abuse abounded. Billions of dollars disappeared without a trace, private contractors were paid exorbitant fees and no bid contracts were given out for things that the military handled just fine in past wars.

As a result of going into Iraq, our eye was off the ball - actually going after Al Quaeda and Bin Laden. Or taking directly what Bush said in 2002-

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

“I am truly not that concerned about him.”- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

My basic point, on getting into this particular phase of this part of the thread, was about the tragedy that we were fighting the wrong war, and fighting a preemptive war, which I believe was wrong to begin with, and which has proven to diminish our standing and respect in he world, and to be part of the economic difficulties we find ourselves in now, and how wrapping it in the flag is, to me a misuse of patriotism.

To say that maybe there was something more behind the evidence - as I believe is your point, does not solve my concerns, even taking your post at face value. The lead up to Iraq was not a conversation of the relative benefits, it was not a national conversation, it was a sales job at a post 9-11 time when it was largely considered unpatriotic to question it.

Some may be more comfortable with trusting that kind of central decision making concerning national defense, which after all, is based on analysis of secret information which we cannot know. I know I was not.

obama said that his tax plan would allow seniors making less than $50,000 to pay no income taxes yet when I use the tax calculators on the internet I find that to be totally incorrect. Is he lying or are the calculators wrong?

You can listen to Plains radio right now. They are talking about the issue right now.
http://www.plainsradio.com/chat1.html