A federal judge has blocked the Nevada State Legislature from passing almost $800 million in tax increases by simple majority after a the Nevada Supreme Court set aside a Constitutional requirement for a supermajority.
It's too bad that federal judges have to get involved in state budget disputes, but when the state supreme court acts as recklessly as the Nevada Supreme Court acted, there's simply no other choice.
What really interests me in this is how the dems, who control the legislature, chose to frame the battle. The rammed through spending increases across the board, and didn't choose to fight the tax battle until the last spending bill, education. This kind of political brinksmanship is fundamentally dishonest, and akin to blackmail. They are the ones holding the state's children hostage by trying to use them as leverage to force the largest tax increase in state history, over the obnjections of the people of Nevada.
Posted by Rich at July 15, 2003 3:30 PM | TrackBack
This is a response to your Cox and Forkum cartoon.
Usually funny requires some commerce with the truth BUT:
Look at the president's final remarks from his press opportunity with Kofi Annan yesterday ...
The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.
I mean, where do you start with this?
As the well-worn line goes, I think it's too soon to say we know Saddam didn't have a WMD program. I thought he did. There was lots of evidence to suggest he had at least some chemical and biological weapons programs. And we're still actively looking. (Here's an interesting piece in the new New Republic about how and why he might not have.) But I think our inability thus far to find any clear evidence of a on-going chemical, biological or nuclear weapons program would seem to leave us at least a bit short of being "absolutely" certain that he had one. Am I nitpicking here?
Like the philandering husband, he seems to be asking us, "Who ya gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?"
And remember when Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in? I totally missed that one.
Look, you can certainly say that Saddam wasn't cooperating fully with the inspectors, that his people hadn't fully accounted for various chemical and biological munitions which the UN thought he had back in 1990s. Hans Blix said as much. It's true. But, c'mon, he let them in.
You hear this stuff and you say to yourself: "Well, you can kinda know what he meant, I guess."
I find myself thinking that. But even that doesn't cut it.
The disquieting fact is that these whoppers aren't even getting reported any more because it's become a given among reporters and editors that most of what the president is saying on this subject has little connection to anything that's actually going on. And the two keep diverging more and more. It's almost as if the shakier the evidence gets the more certain he becomes about what the evidence was supposed to prove.
What is really funny is that Cox and Forkum dont get it.
Posted by: Barry Bozeman on July 15, 2003 8:17 PMActually, there were several times when Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in, and even more examples of times when the insppectors were allowed in, but not allowed to inspect. I believe that this is what Pres. Bush was referring to in his remarks, but I have to agree that his inarticulateness adds confusion to an already complex subject.
As for Iraq's WMD program, I am convinced they has an active program, based on the reports from Hans Blix and the UNMOVIC inspectors. As for nuclear WMD, recent statements from the British indicate that their assessment was not based on the forged documents that are causing all the fuss right now. Are they covering their butts, and carrying Bush along? I don't know, but I find it hard to believe that a Labor gov't has any real love for a conservative President. But it is a possibility, strange bedfellows and adversity and all that.
As for our difficulty in finding a 'smoking gun', while it is frustrating, considering the intelligence presented by Colin Powell to the UN, it is also understandable, given the highly mobile nature designed into the program, and the lengthy delay while seeking UN approval.
Given these factors, I think it is a partisan stretch to characterize the President's statements as "whoppers". Gathering and interpreting intelligence is never a matter of certainty, but always subject to probabilities and estimates. As such, we have to take into account the very human propensity to see patterns where there are none, or to interpret the data to fit our own beliefs.
We see that in action right now. You look at the info we've recovered so far, (centrifuges, hidden research documentation, mobile chem labs, NBC warfare suits, etc) and see random items that in themselves don't prove anything. An intelligence analyst will see a pattern of actions to circumvent inspections, maintaining the core of a WMD program.
Did the President or his advisors manipulate the data, or did they interpret it as accurately as possible, erring on the side of caution? It is an open question, which means it's too soon to be accusing anyone of lying just yet.
The 16 word in SOTU were a lie.
But I would be willing to grant you some of your points that we do not know about WMD programs completely yet. Let us call it debatable since that is what we are doing.
But the cartoon above does not reflect that. It would be more appropriatly applied to the Starr investigation of Clinton speak in determining what is is.
That is my point here. Bush mis-speaks with abandon and it certainly does not require a magnifying glass to locate those errors.
The inspectors were in the country when Bush decided their time was up. To say he went in because Saddam would not let the inspectors in is STUPID. You cannot defend it because it is indefensible. The inspectors were in IRAQ. Saddam let them in. Period.
There is no ABSOLUTELY in the WMD debate or the WMD program debate. The use of the word absolutely is STUPID. It is indefensible. The President of the United States needs to take care to speak the truth because he is speaking for all of us.
You should be able to agree with that if you weren't so caught up in your ideological defense of this guy. His buck passing is even worse.
Posted by: Barry Bozeman on July 16, 2003 6:24 AMThe sixteen words "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." are not a lie. The Brits still stand by that assessment, and claim that they did not base that assessment on the french forgeries. When your ally provides you with an intelligence assessment, relying on it is not a lie.
In order for your statement to be true, you must prove two things.
1. Prove that the Brits were lying about the uranium.
2. Prove that Bush knew the Brits were lying, and made the statment anyway.
You have done neither.
As for the cartoon, it addresses the full catalog of reasons for invading Iraq, something liberals have been loathe to do.
As Bush said a numerous occasions, there were a host of reasons to invade Iraq.
1. Failure of Iraq to live up to the terms of the cease fire.
a. Failure to pay reparations to Kuwait
b. Failure to return Kuwaiti property
c. Failure to destroy all WMD
d. Failure to disclose all WMD
2. Husseins actions against his own people
a. Use of WMD against the Kurds
b. Imprisonment, torture, and murder of dissdents
c. Brutal repression of Shia Muslims and other groups not favored by his Ba'athist party
3. Iraqi sponsership of global terrorism, including al Qaida.
4. Iraqi active WMD programs.
All of these were mentioned in the SOTU speech, either in brief or in detail. To date, every one of the reasons have been revealed as accurate by discoveries after the war. The mass graves, the bulldozed villages, the children's prisons, the warehouses of corpses all tell the truth of the charges against Saddam. We have documentary confirmation of links between Hussein and bin Laden's organization.
We have not found a 'smoking gun' for the WMD, but we have found bits and pieces which lend credence to that charge as well. However, of the whole cataog of reasons, the WMD charge is the only one which hasn't been conclusively proved, which is why libs are now singling it out as the 'only' issue driving the invasion.
That revisionist tunnel vision is the point of the C&F cartoon.
By the way, while we're on the subject, I've looked through the SOTU speech, trying to find out where Bush claimed Iraq was an imminent threat, as some libs are claiming.
It ain't there.
here's the text:
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
Sounds to me like he's saying that whether Iraq is an imminent threat or not is irrelevant. Now you can argue with that assessment, but I don't see how you get any claim of imminent threat out of that passage.
Posted by: rich on July 16, 2003 7:53 AMFirst off, I’d like to say that this is not defined as an absence of war. It is the presence of liberty, stability, and prosperity. In the face of the enemy. Don't buy into the pessimism and apathy that says, "It's hopeless," "They hate us too much," "That part of the men and women serving here in Iraq the enemy wherever you are.
You are a mighty force for good, because truth is on your side. Together we will ultimately fail. That is why I am asking for your support. Become a voice of truth in your community. Wherever you are fight the lies of the men and women serving here in Iraq the enemy wherever you are.
You are the soldiers at home fighting the war of perception with the media and American people. Our enemy has learned that the people in the highest regard. We love to criticize ourselves almost to an endless degree, because we care what others think.
Our enemies see this as a weakness and are trying to exploit it. When we ask ourselves questions like, "Why do the Japanese hate us so much?" or "How can we change ourselves so that they won't do that again?"
Here in Iraq would be a goldmine. When our so-called "trusted" American media takes a quote from an Iraqi doctor as the gospel truth over that of the horrendous tyranny of the world will let us!
If the American Revolution was all about. Have we forgotten? Freedom is not peace. The peace that so-called "peace advocates" support can only be brought to Iraq through the military. And we are making the whole world safer.
Your efforts at home and abroad. We are a people that cherish the democratic system of government and therefore hold the will of the world will let us! If the American people believe we are playing into our enemies' hands. Our natural tendency to question ourselves is being used against us to undermine our effort to do good in the world. How far would we have to remember is that peace is not peace.
The peace that so-called "peace advocates" support can only be brought to Iraq through the military. And we are doing a tremendous amount of good. Spread the word. No one is poised to make such an amazing contribution to the detriment of our brave heroes fighting for liberty and peace.
What we have to remember is that peace is not free and "peace" without principle is not peace. The peace that so-called "peace advocates" support can only be brought to Iraq through the military.
And we are failing, even if we are making the whole world safer. Your efforts at home and abroad.
We are a people that cherish the democratic system of government and therefore hold the will of the enemy is trying very hard to portray our efforts over here, you can refute them by knowing that we are failing, even if we are making the whole world safer.
Your efforts at home are directly tied to our success. You are the soldiers at home and abroad.
We are a people that cherish the democratic system of government and therefore hold the will of the people back home will lose the will of the enemy.
Don't buy into the pessimism and apathy that says, "It's hopeless," "They hate us so much?" or
"How can we change ourselves so that they won't do that again?"
Semper Fi - Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere!
1st Lt. Mark V. Shaney USMC
Baghdad, Iraq