American Experience: George W. Bush- Saddam Hussein (2020)

Source:American Experience- Saddam Hussein (Baathist) President of Iraq (1979-2003)

 "Osama Bin Laden’s escape from allied forces and the swift collapse of the Taliban left President Bush dissatisfied. Initially resistant to the neoconservative argument to invade Iraq right away, President Bush felt himself increasingly drawn to the idea. The reasons were not only political, they were personal. "Bush developed a sense that there was unfinished business from the first Persian Gulf War in the early 1990s, that leaving Saddam in power had been a mistake,” recalled journalist Barton Gellman. “Bush was attracted to the idea of finishing something his father had left undone." 

From American Experience 

"The latest addition to AMERICAN EXPERIENCE’s Peabody Award-winning series of presidential biographies, this two-part, four-hour look at the life and presidency of George W. Bush features interviews with historians, journalists and several members of the president’s inner circle." 

Source:American Experience- President George W. Bush (Republican, Texas) 43rd President of the United States.

From American Experience

The original mission in the War in Iraq of 2003, was to go in and take out Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and destroy them. Figuring that we would have to take down the Hussein Regime and its security forces, or as it turned out what was left of them which brings me to another point. 

Our military and intelligence apparently wasn't aware that even though they believed that Iraq had a military of 500,000 personal, easily one the the largest military's in the world, they didn't have much of a military left and didn't have any WMD as well. We didn't know that they didn't have the WMD at the start of the war of course. Iraq is a big country about the size of Nigeria physically, but we did know early on that Iraq didn't have much of a military left. And I think this should've been a pretty good clue. 

If a country can't even manage a military, how are they going to be able to develop nuclear weapons? Iraq no longer had WMD let alone the ability to develop nuclear weapons. Iraq is clearly not North Korea with its military, even though they are substantially wealthier economically. North Korea clearly has WMD and nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them. So does Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as well as Turkey with WMD, but these are all allies so we are not worried about them. 

What we apparently we found out later that Saddam Hussein didn't have any terrorist groups that he liked or trusted and didn't have relations with them. Which is more evidence suggesting that we shouldn't be there in the first place. President Bush famously or infamously (depending on your perspective) declared Mission Accomplish in Iraq in June 2003. And looking back at it even though it might seem comical 17 years later. 

But in a sense if you look at the original mission, President Bush was correct. Because again the original mission was to take out the Hussein Regime and locate and destroy the WMD. And whatever Iraq was working on as far as developing nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein may of had dreams of have nuclear weapons and being the Superpower of the Middle East. But his WMD were taken out by the late 1990s, four or five years before the Iraq War. And taking down the Hussein Regime happened within a few weeks of the Iraq War, because Iraq no longer had a military capable of defending this big country. 

We've done our part now its time for America to pull out and bring in other partners to help Iraq develop its Federal Government and security forces so they can govern and defend this large country. The United States has borrowed about 2T$ to finance our involvement and we now have a national debt and deficit and a weak economy to show for it. It's time that we do some nation building in our own country and keep these resources at home before we try to build other peoples countries.

Ron Paul Liberty Report: Chris Rossini: 'Who Pays For All The Government Free Stuff?'

Source:Ron Paul Liberty Report- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and U.S, Representative Alecandria O. Cortez: the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Congressional Free Stuff Caucus. LOL

Source:The New Democrat

"Benjamin Franklin said that: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” How prescient and true. Once theft and redistribution by government is considered acceptable, the downward spiral of civilization begins. It can last for decades, or even centuries. But the end result is always bankruptcy as countless factions ruthlessly fight with one another to be on the receiving end of the heist. When theft by government is no longer considered acceptable, the upward march of civilization resumes."

From Ron Paul Liberty Report

This blog post is perfect timing ( if I may say so myself ) because CNN had a marathon of town halls on Monday with like 5 Democratic presidential candidates including Senator's Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders ( the two farthest left Democratic presidential candidates ) and they're both making the basic argument that the rich has too much money and everyone else doesn't have enough and are struggling to pay their basic bills like college, health care, paid leave, etc and that it's the job of the Federal Government to come in and somehow correct that. And say that it's wrong for rich people to even be rich to begin with, especially when we have so many Americans who are struggling just to pay their own bills.

There are two questions that any voter and taxpayer should ask any politician or candidate who is seeking reelection or a new office, when they make a lot of promises to people about new government services, especially if they argue that these new services would be free:

How are you going to pay for all of these so-called free services? If they say the rich are going to pay for it with some new wealth tax ( lets say ) then you should ask especially if you're familiar with the Internal Revenue Service, our tax code, and how the wealthy avoid paying taxes ( including these so-called Hollywood Leftists ) who is going to pay for these new and current government services when the wealthy avoids paying their new taxes. The only way that government can pay for anything when they're short on revenue like through tax avoidance are two ways: pass those taxes onto the middle class. Or just just borrow that money from China or another country and add to their budget deficit and debt.

I would have a lot more respect for these Socialists running for office ( whether they're self-described Socialists or not ) if they were just upfront and candid about how they would pay for their new government services and just say: "you middle class taxpayers are going to pay for these new government services through new payroll taxes or other new taxes." Or they could say that they believe that deficits and debt doesn't matter and therefor we could just borrow the money from other countries and add to our deficits and debt. But don't overpromise and pander especially to young voters, especially young Democrats who tend to be overly idealistic to begin with and believe that government can solve every problem itself, if you just give it the money to do that.

Tom Mullen: ‘Words and Phrases To Avoid April 15’

Source:USA Today- “Tax Day 2019 Coundown Calendar."

Source:The New Democrat

“We hear a lot about words and phrases we should or shouldn’t use these days, politics having crept into virtually every area of our lives. At the risk of promoting even more political correctness, here are some terms that can legitimately be considered micro-aggressions when used in the presence of net taxpayers on April 15:”

The rest of Tom’s piece at Tom Mullen

"Discord available in CANADA, AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND and the U.S.

Tax season is upon us, and it’s time to reconsider your politics… unless you don’t make six figures."

From College Humor

Source:College Humor-  Is this the same Republican Party, that raises taxes on the middle class, because they believe the wealthy are overtaxed?

I have a different take than Tom on this, ( who I’m friends with on Facebook and follow him on Twitter ) because I believe that to have a civilized, developed society you need some type of functioning, responsible, but limited government there to insure that. Not to run our lives for us, but protect us from predators foreign  and domestic and to perform our basic, but limited services like infrastructure. And for government whatever level it is to perform these necessary services, it needs revenue to do that. Government’s are financed through taxes,  at least when they’re run responsibly and when they’re not or their economy is going rough times they’re funded through borrowing. That’s just how government is able to operate regardless of the jurisdiction or country.

No one enjoys paying taxes, ( except honest Socialists ) but who enjoys paying for groceries or whatever else that we pay for? And the Libertarian is going to say that we don’t have a choice to pay for the government that we receive and don’t get to decide on what government services that we  receive: they’re just wrong on that since as Ronald Reagan once said people vote with their feet. We choose where we live and what level of government and taxation that we get based on where we live. We’re not forced to live in any country, state, county, or city. We make the decisions based on what we do for a living and our economic conditions and choose the best place for us to live based on these factors. If you don’t want to live somewhere where you have to pay taxes, move to a country where they don’t have a government, or at least a functioning government. I hear Haiti and Somalia are open for new residents everyday.

Now, where I believe Tom Mullen and I might agree hear and have somethings in common here ( he as a Libertarian and myself as a Liberal ) is having to deal with let’s say the opposite of people who are known as Anarcho-Libertarians, which of course are Socialists.

The only people anywhere in the world who pays taxes not just gladly and proudly, are Socialists.

The only people you’ll ever find filling out their taxes with smiles on their faces, are Socialists.

The only people you’ll ever find not just asking or demanding, but begging Uncle Sam and his nephews and nieces at the IRS for more taxes and higher taxes, are Socialists.

And I’m not talking about corrupt Socialist dictators who are some of the wealthiest people in the world, while half of their people or more have to beg for food and money in order to pay their bills. And I’m not talking about these so-called Hollywood Leftists who act like they hate wealth and capitalism, even though they personally enjoy being wealthy and have benefited greatly from capitalism. I’m talking about honest to goodness, ( to use a corny phrase ) down to earth, honest Socialists. Who when they have any extra money at all they always donate that money to their favorite charity like Uncle Sam or perhaps another charity, but who generally live simple lives. Who are very generous with their time and money.  ( Not someone else’s time and money )

These are the people who believe that tax day should be a holiday and always get together and celebrate tax day together with wine and cheese or coffee house coffee, listening to French poetry and folk music. Whatever you think of their politics, at least they’re honest about it, which is more than can say about most politicians. Especially the wealthy ones who are always calling for higher taxes on everyone else.

Professor Milton Friedman: Equality and Freedom

Source:David Whitehead- "The great Milton Friedman on equality and freedom."

Source:The New Democrat

“Milton Friedman – Equality and Freedom”

Source:Basic Economics- Professor Milton Friedman giving a lecture n 1978.

From Basic Economics

Socialists like Senator Bernie Sanders and company, argue that it's somehow wrong that we have people who make a lot of money, while we have some people who make very little money and in some cases don't make any money at all, that having a wealth gap ( which is also called income inequality ) is somehow unfair.

That it's somehow unfair for an associate lawyer ( let's say ) at a law firm to make 250,000 dollars a year ( depending on where they work ) while a janitor at a school makes 25,000 dollars a year and perhaps has a second job just to pay his bills. Even though the lawyer not only has a law degree and spent at least years in college and law school to get that law degree and did well in college and law school and now has the skills and education to be a successful lawyer.

While the janitor might just have a high school diploma and maybe he doesn't even have that. And only has enough skills and knowledge to do menial tasks ( let's say ) where a professional education isn't required. Like doing janitorial work or driving cabs or whatever the non-college educated job might be. Even though being just an average lawyer or a good one is a lot harder that being a good janitor, because there's a lot more you need to know about the law than you do in keeping your place of business clean for people to be there.

Professor Milton Friedman, went the opposite route and argued that it's a good thing when the lawyer or businessperson or entertainer or whoever the successful person in life might be who makes a lot of money is a good thing, because they earned their money based on their skills, knowledge, and production. That the reason why business people make a lot more money than let's say service industry workers, is because the college educated workforce has a lot more skills and knowledge and that there's a lot more work involved in what they do. Compared with service industry workers who in a lot of cases aren't even blue-collar workers, but do jobs where you might not even need a high schools diploma to be successful at.

My point about so-called income inequality or what I call the wealth and skills gap has always been that the problem with the American economy and American capitalism has never been that we have too many rich people or that we even allow for people to have wealth and even a lot of money, but that we don't have enough rich people and upper middle class people. But instead have too many poor people. If we didn't have 1-5 Americans living in poverty in America, would anyone even on the Left be talking about what they call income inequality? If we had 1-10 Americans or 1-20 Americans who fall below the Federal poverty level, would poverty be an issue for anyone in this country who isn't poor themselves or donates to or works for charities? I doubt it would be because poverty wouldn't be visible at all for most of the country.

If you want less poverty or even a lot less poverty in this country, you do that encouraging people to be successful. You do that by encouraging and empowering as many Americans who want to be successful in this country to be successful. To get the education and skills that they need to make it in America and have the economic freedom that middle and upper income Americans have. You don't do that by heavily taxing the wealthy simply to take care of the poor. Or giving people middle incomes to people for choosing not to work and telling Americans that they don't need to work hard, get good skills, and be productive in order to live well in this country.

NBC News: Minister Malcolm X- 'Don't Beg For a Job: Create a Job'

Source:NBC News- Minister MalcolmX; speaking in New York in 1963 or 64.

Source:The New Democrat

"Your Name Is No Accident: http://tinyurl.com/z5qldpv

Malcolm X Says: Stop BEGGING the Man for a Job and CREATE a Job for Yourself by starting an ONLINE BUSINESS. Watch the FREE Video: http://www.launchyourstore.co.uk/

(This video is for educational purposes only and displayed under the Fair Use provision of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107.)"

Source:NBC News

For the life of me I'll never understand what the right-wing doesn't like about Minister Malcolm X and why the Far-Left loves him other than for these possible reasons:

The right-wing is either completely ignorant about the man or they fear strong African-Americans especially African-American men and simply see them as animals who escaped from the zoo or something. I think I understand what the Far-Left loves about him, because he was this strong, intelligent African-American man who constantly critiqued ( or even attacked ) people he called the man or the Whiteman and up until 1964 he was basically a racist as far as how he felt about European-Americans including Jews.

And as we're seeing with the emergence of Socialists and socialism in the Democratic Party today, they don't like European-Americans either, especially if they're male, straight, Christian, have rural or blue-collar background. And see the largest racial group in America as Devils, especially the men in the community. Which is how Minister Malcolm viewed European-Americans up until the time he went to Saudi Arabia in the 1960s and met and talked to a lot of fellow Muslims there of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, including European. And learned that not all Europeans are bigots and perhaps a lot of them are not bigots.

But if you look at Minister Malcolm's politics and what he was pushing for in the 1960s, it wasn't socialism and big government, including reparations. He had a lot more in common with Mr. Conservative Senator Barry Goldwater, then he ever had in common with Senator George McGovern. ( The Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialist of his era ) In an era when the Democratic Party was pushing for more welfare and other assistance from Big Government for the African-American community, Minister Malcolm had a different message for Democrats and others who wanted to give African-Americans more government assistance, which was telling Big Government: "we don't want your welfare and your socialism, we want our freedom and the power to control our own destinies. We want the same economic freedom that European and Asian-Americans have in this country. And keep your welfare for people who can't work and make it in this country."

So if you look at Minister Malcolm X's politics of real Black Power and empowering African-Americans to take control over their own lives through things like education and economic development and empowering African-Americans to become business owners and managers in their own communities, there's a lot for the right-wing especially Center-Right and Conservative-Libertarians in America to like about Minister Malcolm X. And a lot for the Far-Left even if they loved him for his identity politics to not like about Minister Malcolm and even hate the man. As they're pushing for more government control and welfare for Americans of all races and ethnicities.

Yaron Brook: 'Alexandria O. Cortez and The Principled Left'

Source:Yaron Brook- U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez: self-described Democratic Socialist. 

Source:The New Democrat

"This video was created by Christian Jackson.  Clipped from The Yaron Brook Show: Jesse Lee Peterson, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, & MGTOW streamed on Jan. 13 2019."

From Yaron Brook

 I agree with Yaron Brook at least in this sense: the establishment Democratic Party has been moving left ever since the 1930s with Franklin Roosevelt when the Democratic Party started adapting progressive goals and values. It started first with public safety net for people that truly needed it with things like Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. And then moved in the 1960s to civil rights like expanding the safety net with Medicare.

With the Republican Party essentially trying to catch up and essentially saying: "yeah, we support those things too" as those policies and programs becoming popular. The Great Society and civil rights were exceptions to that where without Republicans especially in the Northwest and Midwest, civil rights and parts of of the Great Society never get passed. Because the Democratic Party still had right-wing Neo-Confederates in the party that opposed civil rights laws and saw non-Europeans in America as second-class citizens and in some cases not even as citizens or even as human beings.

But really since Ronald Reagan was President, the Republican Party has been playing catch up to the Democrats on a lot of economic issues when it comes to the safety net. And saying: "we support these things too, but we would run them differently and introduce competition to them." Instead of saying that: "we don't need these public programs at all and we should just leave the economic policies up to the private sector."

Things are different now both in the Democratic Party, but the Republican Party as well. Democrats at least the base of the party is no longer interested in the progressive safety net for people who truly need it. They want a universal, socialize welfare state where most if not ell workers benefits in this country with health care just being a part of that being provided for not just by government, but through the Federal Government. And putting the Federal Government in charge of making sure that every single American has what they would need to live well in the country and they're very honest about this.

With the Republican Leadership saying, "we believe in all of the public insurance programs that we currently have, but we want to put them on a sound financial footing and let the states run them." Instead of going into the opposite direction ( which is what Yaron Brook is arguing ) and saying that this is not the job of government, or at least not the job of the Federal Government. And we should leave it up to the private sector to handle employee benefits and take care of the needy in the country.

The Democratic Party has made it their goal to get not just every single racial and ethnic minority to vote for them, but every single woman who at least who is college educated and professional to vote for them, but they want to every single young voter to vote for them regardless of race, ethnicity, and gender. And the way to get young voters to vote for you is be being romantic and very idealist and saying that we ( meaning government ) can solve every societal problem known to man if we just put our minds to it ( meaning the Federal Government ) and promise every single social program that they can come up with and figure out the details later. Like how to pay for those programs.

With the Republican Party instead of going in the opposite direction and instead saying that: "there real limits to what government can and should try to do for the people and we can only tax so much while maintaining a strong economy." They instead try to come up with the best and most popular alternatives on the Right that they can get away with it. And try to hold onto power by trying to contain the Far-Left in the country, as well as passing so-called voter ID laws and gerrymandering to prevent young Democrats from voting in competitive races.

CATO Institute: Michael Tanner- 'Democratic Primary Voters Turn To Socialism'

Source:National Review- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

"Outside the media and political circles that follow her every move, few probably noticed or cared when Alexandra Ocasio‐​Cortez pronounced capitalism “irredeemable.” But what are we to make of the refusal of former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper — supposedly the moderate in the Democratic field — to admit that he was a capitalist? Speaking on MSNBC’s Morning Joe last week, Hickenlooper turned aside several direct questions about whether he was a capitalist before allowing that “some aspects” of capitalism, like small business, “probably work.” And what about the fact that 77‐​year‐​old avowed socialist Bernie Sanders is in a statistical tie for the Democratic nomination?"

From the Cato Institute

"Democrats’ hard left turn to socialism. 2012 GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain discusses future of the Democratic Party."

Source:FOX Business- Not sure that Herman Cain is the best spokesman on the Democratic Party, but I don't work for FOX News. Thank God! 

From FOX Business

Source:FOX News- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez: two self-described Democratic Socialist members of Congress 

This is a great a timely piece from CATO's Michael Tanner, because I was watching The Lead with Jake Tapper in CNN yesterday afternoon, ( you can do that when you work from your desk and office ) and they were talking about this exact same issue.

Tapper, asked Conservative CNN political analyst  Amanda Carpenter basically the exact same question and she responded something to the effect of why the Democratic Party is now embracing socialism and she talked about the primary voters in the Democratic Party and their support of socialism.

Karen Finney, who is a respected Democratic strategist and CNN political analyst said something like: "This is not true since only one declared Democratic presidential candidate is a Socialist." That person being Senator Bernie Sanders, who is no longer the only self-described Democratic Socialist in Congress with several Democratic Socialists getting elected to the House last year. He's not even the only Socialist in the Senate, just the only self-described Socialist. which is very different.

CNN's Karen Finney, completely missed the point yesterday ( perhaps intentionally ) about Socialists and socialism in the Democratic Party. I realize that socialist and socialism are still scary words within the Democratic Party Leadership and establishment that Finney is part of, because when they think of those two words they remember George McGovern and the McGovernites in the 1970s and the rise of the New-Left in the late 60s and 70s. And all the negative stereotypes that come from being both a Socialist and a Democrat, especially Socialist-Democrat.

But socialist and socialism are not scary words with young Democrats and young Independents who are considering voting Democratic in 2020 and voted Democratic overwhelmingly in 2018.

When your current frontrunner at least as far as your declared presidential candidates is polling at 30% and leads every one else by at least double figures which is what Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is doing right now for 2020, you not just have more than one Socialist in your party, but you have a someone who probably represents 30% of the party if not 1/3 or more than that if the Jill Stein voters were to come out for Senator Sanders next year instead of Dr. Stein, you not only just have more than one Socialist in your party, which is stating the obvious anyway since the Democratic Party has always had Socialists in their party whether they're self-described or not, but you have a socialist faction inside of your party.

The Democratic Party today now has a large block of Democrats including Democratic Socialists voters, who embrace the ideas of Socialists and socialism and want to see those policies put into place in this country. That's just the state of the Democratic Party right now whether the Karen Finney's and other members of the Democratic Party Leadership are ready to acknowledge that or not.