Sorry, Rove, Bush Did Lie About Iraq

“Sorry, Rove, Bush Did Lie About Iraq”
Obama makes Bush look like a piker

Posted by Betsy Jacoby on Mar 9, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Cessation of hostilities with Iraq in 1991 was specifically conditioned on the terms of an Armistice.  Iraq, however, repeatedly violated that Armistice, meaning we were still at war with them when Congress gave the go ahead for our invasion.  We had to continually monitor a “no fly” zone to prevent Saddam from committing genocide.  WMD was merely one of the reasons given for going to war with Iraq.  Our intelligence on Iraq was weak, and likely inconsistent (both for Bush & the Congress).  Therefore, Bush & the Congress likely had to make a judgment call.  And given all the other problems with Iraq, who’s to say they didn’t make the right call.

Posted by Mitty on Mar 9, 2010 at 3:20 PM

This is one of the most puerile articles I have ever read. The Bush lied account is nothing more than a series of conclusory assertions. Most who do not like Bush will not question this, as it is gospel among them, but the echo chamber repeated assertions here, without any real substance, is almost painful to witness.

What is a lie? It is a statement that the person KNOWS is not true. Its not an opinion based on conflicting evidence. Its not a judgment call after taking in information for many different sources. Remember that that UN passed resolutions and the world community passed on intelligence that seemed to corroborate Bush’s end position. Congress, through hearings and assertions of its members, also backed up the Bush’s position. Heck, even Clinton backed up Bush’s position. There is not one shred of evidence that Bush made statements that he knew to be false….. not one….

Dont believe me on this either, but see for yourself in the Duelfer report, see also the inquiry into whether Tony Blair lied. The former backs up statements made by Bush, and the latter exonerated Blair (who used the same evidence as Bush to bring his counrty into the fold in Iraq).

The irony is that the author of this piece resorts to the very thing he is accusing Bush of doing. He has no evidence, only the cacaphony of similarly minded individuals that cannot be bothered to actually cite evidence.

Finally, the other poster has it right…. WMD was just a small part of the reason to go to war. Saddam and Iraq had continually and flagrantly broken the first Gulf war armistice. Further, the containment of Iraq was also failing under the the corruption of the UN through the oil for food program run by Iraq and by the illegal shipments of arms to Iraq from Russia (and some interesting tidbits about French interests in Iraq…..). Many in the world wanted Saddam gone. Thankfully Bush put paid to the equivocation of the Clinton years, and now there is a fledgling arab democracy in the middle east. Here’s to hoping that it continues to strengthen and shines a light on the misogynistic and corrupt autocratic regimes that surround it.

Posted by Tired of nonsense on Mar 9, 2010 at 4:12 PM

The only reason Bush(jr) declared war was Saddam put a hit on dear daddy when he was pres. Just wanted to make daddy proud.

Posted by todd greenfield on Mar 9, 2010 at 6:04 PM

Hussein had refused UN inspectors access to his country for several years prior to 2002.  When they were again allowed, the cooperation was less than the inspectors were demanding.  That is what was reported in the media. 

Among those opposed to the invasion were Hans Blix, the head of the UN inspection department, but he never, ever said Iraq’s cooperation was sufficient to satisfy the UN resolution nor that he was confident there were no WMD.

On June 16, 2003 he was asked in an interview “Are you surprised that U.S. forces haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction [WMD] yet?”
Blix: “No, I would not say I am surprised, but nor would I have been surprised if they had found something. Our position was always that there was a great deal that was unaccounted for…”

Indeed, Blix was among the very large number who speculated that Hussein was deliberately trying to make the west believe he had such weapons.  He pointed out that, to paraphrase, you don’t have to have a dog to hang a Beware of the Dog sign.

Bush’s error is serious enough on its own; it doesn’t need the unsubstantiated charge that he lied.  Those who make it look infantile—it is in early childhood that we learn the difference between lying and being mistaken.

Posted by Rob Fink on Mar 9, 2010 at 6:04 PM

what i want to know is how did bush2 get albert gore to go along with the conspiracy robert parry posits. just a few months before the iraq invasion, albert gave a speech—a very thoughtful speech—in which he stated the following concerning saddam hussein:

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. We have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons with terrorist group. However, if Iraq came to resemble Afghanistan

Posted by Keevan D. Morgan on Mar 9, 2010 at 7:46 PM

In tried and true fashion, the writer depends on the ignorance of his readers in order to cling to his cherished belief that Bush lied. If you hail from the left, as I assume Robert Parry does, your job—your primary job in life—is to demonize those on the right, facts be damned. In 1991, Saddam Hussein declared (falsely) that he had destroyed his WMDs. It turned out he was hiding a reasonably well developed nuclear program that was not far from developing its first bomb. In 2003, he again declared (this time truthfully) that he had destroyed his WMDs, but he behaved (intentionally) as if he had something to hide. He knew full well that this would create doubts in the minds of reasonable people. And it did. Ironically, only the naive would take his word for it this time because he had flagrantly lied the last time and was not cooperating again this time.

The truth is that Bush did not lie; Saddam Hussein did. He lied with his actions, not his words. He did not give UN inspectors full access, as even ultra-dove Hans Blix admitted (even on the very brink of war). As much as he wanted to say that Saddam Hussein was fully cooperating with UN Resolution 1441, Blix instead said this mere days before the invasion in march of 2003:

“Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated

Posted by Engram on Mar 9, 2010 at 9:50 PM

I clearly remember the lead inspector, just prior to the start of the Iraq war, telling the Security Council that although Saddam cooperated somewhat in regards to the range of certain missiles, there was still no evidence of a general attitude of cooperation on Saddam’s part regarding inspections.

That would mean that by paragraph 4 and using your interpretation of the word, you lied.  That of course, would mean you are a liar.

OTOH, perhaps you simply misinterpreted what was stated in the inspectors report.  In that case, you wouldn’t be a liar, just incorrect.

Your call.

Posted by mzarowitz on Mar 9, 2010 at 11:10 PM

“Sorry, Rove, Bush Did Lie About Iraq”
By Robert Parry

Sorry, Parry, but you’re lying about history.  No more revisionist history, please.  Stop lying.  STOP LYING!

Thank you.

Posted by te519a on Mar 10, 2010 at 12:20 AM

You are the one re-writing history.  Saddam did not fully comply with UN resolutions or cooperate with inspectors.  Everyone believed he had WMD’s.  We removed a brutal dictator from power and brought Freedom and Democracy to the people of Iraq.  Terrorists who would otherwise have been plotting against American civilians poured into Iraq by the thousands only to be killed by our troops.

Those are the facts.  There is much to be fairly debated, starting with the question of whether or not we ever wanted to be in the business of preemptive war regardless of circumstances.  Argue that instead of becoming a liar yourself.

Posted by NJYankeeFan on Mar 10, 2010 at 1:20 AM

“Bush followed up his false pre-war claims about Iraq

Posted by cloud on Mar 10, 2010 at 5:59 AM

There are more rightwing talking points here than on FOX News!! Let’s look at the facts. Bush and Rumsfeld claimed that Saddam had the capacity to manufacture VX nerve agent, mustard gas and serin gas; none of which was found nor were there discovered any facilities for manufacturing such weapons. Saddam’s nuclear capacity was also nonexistant. Yet,  Rumsfeld in testimony to Congress on March 30, 2003, claimed not only that such things existed but that we knew where they were located. 

It is now also known that forged documents were used by Colin Powell to link Saddam to al Qaeda. The conclusions of the NIE report on Saddam’s alleged connection to al Qaeda clearly stated that there was none.  The reports of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004; 2006), which Rove himself uses to make his case, also stated that Saddam had no WMDs and no real ties to al-Qaeda. It is also generally accepted as fact that the senior Bush Administration officials told the CIA to cherry pick evidence supporting their case for war.

Saddam did in fact give full cooperation to the UN weapons inspectors. On November 27, 2002, inspectors entered Iraq and conducted their investigations unhindered. Hans Blix ultimately stated that there was “no evidence that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapons program,” and “no mobile facilities for producing weapons.”  According to a July/August 2003 report of the Arms Control Association listing the accomplishments of the inspectors between 11/27/02 and 3/18/03 when they left the country as the US prepared its invasion,

“UN weapons inspectors began their work in Iraq November 27 and left March 18. Iraq submitted a declaration containing information about its weapons of mass destruction December 7, as required by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conducted 237 inspections at 148 sites, including 27 sites not previously inspected. UNMOVIC inspectors conducted 731 inspections at 411 sites, including 88 sites not previously inspected. Of those inspections, 22 percent were related to chemical weapons, 28 percent to biological weapons, and 30 percent to missiles. The remaining 20 percent were multidisciplinary inspections, involving experts from each disarmament area.”

Furthermore, UNMOVIC conducted more than a dozen private interviews with Iraqi nuclear scientists as well as several arial survaillance and monitoring missions by helicopter during this time. The IAEA found no evidence that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapons program at the time of its inspections. Bush apparently did lie.  The far right is still in denial about this fact and continues to rewrite history.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 10, 2010 at 1:56 PM

Tire of nonsense…..I am tired of your nonsense…

Maybe the Blackhorse should be President , cause right from the get go , it was clear to this ‘horse that ol’ Buckfush or President Bush as you fanatics referr to him , was both misinformed in addition to lieing about so-called WMD…

Looky here , it’s real simple see , Rumsfeld sold Saddam all of the weapons he had back in the 80’s…Do you really BELIEVE that from that point on that the US GOV’T WAS NOT MONITORING SADDAM AS FAR AS THE WEAPONS HE PURCHASED….

If you do believe that Saddam bought weapons from another supplier…What does that say about US SO-CALLED INTELLIGENCE ? ? ?

Additionally , if you believe that Rummy and his boys did in fact have a record of Saddams weapon purchases , then your argument is more mute than the initial assumption that this was just business as usual , cause that would very much point to the fact that either one of two situations existed in the Oval office…

Either they were stupid or they lied…

No other scenario makes sense…

If your child came to you with a story like the one Bush and company tried to perpetrate ; you would tan his/her little behind and confiscate his/her ipod…

Please spare us the excuses , you know just as well as anybody else knows that Bush lied and sure as shootin’ people died….The truth hurts sometimes , and for neo-con apologist it must be unbearable…....

So true,

PS Just so its clear I am not picking on Mr/Ms Nonsense ; NJYankeefan , te519a , Engram , Mitty and Ms Besty Jacoby ; all of you folks are in fact delusional…......

Posted by blackhorse on Mar 10, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Guys!  Guys!  Guys!  Don’t be the last to relinquish outdated, frayed, old school arguments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/opinion/10friedman.html

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/841519foreword.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/before_and_after_iraq.html

Posted by Mitty on Mar 10, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Cabdriverinchicago , first hello , second this is the former Redhorse from some time back , during the discussions on the 9/11 hoax… Third ; it seems that you and I are the only logically thinking individuals on this particular post…

The neo-cons are in full force , in their attempt too obfuscate and obliterate facts , history as told by their own handlers( AS YOUR POST CLEARLY STATES ) , and of course , good ol’ common sense….

One would guess that this ostentatious behavior is par for the course or rather obligatory behaviuor for those who believe that because Bush/Cheney stated it ; it must be true…......

Good to read you again Cabdriverinchicago , hope to read you again….

Posted by blackhorse on Mar 10, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Thanks, blackhorse. There is heavy troll infestation on many In These Times threads!! They’re all over the progressive blogs. They only want to derail discussion with their inane and tiresome talking points.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 10, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Mitty , I must admit you do raise some interesting points of reference , but your conclusions are all wrong….If the evidence is murky , it makes absolutely no common sense what so ever , too invade another indepentent nation….

Its easy to say, yes lets go to war , if you are not the one being bombed or fighting in the conflict…The stakes are too high for this kind of guessing game…

The decision to invade Iraq , based off of all of the reasoning that have been laid out by your fellow conservative poster , don’t amount to any type of reasonable , logic based decision making process…In other words it was extremely unsound…..

If sounds more like a bunch of crackheads , trying too decide whether to buy food for their children , pay the rent or drugs , the drugs always win…..

True…........

Posted by blackhorse on Mar 10, 2010 at 3:28 PM

“So let me ask you as I close, to lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today, to the hopes of tomorrow, beyond the freedom of Berlin, or of Germany, to the advance of freedom everywhere, beyond the wall to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind.  Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.”        John F. Kennedy, June 26, 1963

Posted by Mitty on Mar 10, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Pretty words Mitty , but JFK was no friend too freedom , or for that matter , when has Amerika truthfully been a democracy…

Capitalism and democracy are like the Catholic church and phenopilia , a disgusting combination , that is unspeakable in every way….

Excessive patriotism is like a drug , once you are under the influence , its hard to get sober….

“...Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved , all are not free…”

Again if this is true Mitty , than we are all slaves ,true ? ? ?

Invading Iraq does not make anyone free…

Its just more of that excessively , overtly ostentatious Amerikanizationalism….

You know , wrap any particular issue in an amerikan flag , then scare the bejesus out of the general population , telling them that the boogeyman is coming to take away your ipod and SUV….

Tired argument sir , extremely tired…..

Posted by blackhorse on Mar 10, 2010 at 3:55 PM

America was set up as a Republic, with our founders adverse to true democracy.  So, you are correct.  America was never a democracy, nor ever intended to be.

Recognize that the Dem icons in Congress had access to the same intelligence as Bush before they voted to invade Iraq.  So, if Bush made a giant mistake, so did they.  Bigger government tends to make bigger mistakes & spend more of our money in the process.  A smaller government would get less of our money to waste.  If you’re anti-war, recognize that only governments with a lot of money can wage wars.  Tighten government’s belt & shrink its sphere of influence, and it will be less inclined to launch frivolous misadventures, if that’s how you characterize Iraq.

And now the Republicans have become the freedom loving idealists—a province once occupied by the JFK left?  Interesting.

Ask not what you can do for your government.  Ask your government what it can do for you?  Sorry JFK, but you’ve been spun completely around!

Posted by Mitty on Mar 10, 2010 at 4:20 PM

Blackhorse writes:

Posted by Rob Fink on Mar 10, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Deliberate cherry picking of information to be presented to the Congress and the UN is in effect, lying. Bush deliberately deceived the Congress and the rest of the world. It is a reasonable accusation to say he is lying. There is so much evidence that the war was no innocent, honest error of judgement or faulty intelligence; professional intelligence specialists like Ray McGovern and others have proven this beyond a doubt!!  The drive to invade Iraq was so strong that deception was used. If any doubts remain just read the Downing Street Memo!! According to the memo, which records a secret meeting of high levels officials in the Blair government,  the head of MI6 expressed the view of Bush Administration policy regarding Iraq that “...the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”  This seems quite dishonest to say the very least.

Of course, the Democrats went along with the War; they were fed the exact same lies as everyone else. The UN Security Council wasn’t fooled, however.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 11, 2010 at 1:10 PM

At last, someone brave enough to cut through the facade of the Bush Administration!
What happened to investigative journalism between 2001 and 2007?
The American people were entitled to the truth, yet no one challenged the irresponsible actions of this president. Ane we’re still being lied to by Karl Rove in his forthcoming book! And not only that, he has the audacity to use the word ‘courage’ in its title!

Posted by Eugene Connolly on Mar 12, 2010 at 7:38 PM

The far right won’t stop their harassment of Obama. They are utterly determined to destroy his Administration and save the reputation of the Bush Administration and that of the GOP. Never in our county’s history have members of a past Administration been so disruptive of a sitting president’s administration and his political agenda. The GOP acts out of pure political partisanship and cares absolutely nothing for the best interests of the American People or the country itself.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 15, 2010 at 7:50 AM

To cabdriverin chicago:
Actually, Dubya has been very circumspect in his criticism of Obama, taking a cue from his father.  Past Dem Presidents and Vice Presidents were, however, not circumspect.  Do you remember Carter’s attack on Bush’s Shock and Awe prior to the invasion of Iraq?  He inaccurately portrayed it as an attack upon civilian targets and never apologized when it turned out that wasn’t true. 
Al Gore gave us this: http://pol.moveon.org/goreremarks052604.html/
“[Bush] has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon. “
These are just two examples of dozens, hundreds.  Since your facts are wrong, you might want to reexamine your conclusions.

Posted by Rob Fink on Mar 15, 2010 at 8:01 AM

I don’t recall Democrats or their supporters parading around with pictures of Bush in a Hitler mustache, or threatening to filibuster everything he proposed or putting dozens of appointments and pieces of legislation on hold in the Senate just to be disruptive or declaring that it was their desire that Bush “fail” or encouraging violence against Bush such as those who openly troll for assassins to kill Obama like the preacher in Colorado. I don’t recall Democrats ever questioning Bush’s patriotism or calling him a “fascist” the way all these inane Republicans stupidly, routinely and inaccurately call Obama a “socialist.” I don’t recall Democrats running around in the media declaring that Bush was endangering US security as Cheney has done to Obama. I also don’t remember any equivalent of Liz Cheney’s recent toxic, obnoxious and ignorant remarks refering to US Justice Department attorneys as the “al Qaeda seven” and the DOJ as the “Department of Jihad.” These insane attacks were even condemned by hard core conservatives aa “shameful.”

I recall instead eight years of the Democrats caving in to Bush’s agenda even after they gained majorities in the House and Senate in 2006. They supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, tax cuts, warrentless wiretaps, the establishment of GITMO, Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind along with many other Bush Administration efforts. They trusted his administration until it became obvious that he and others lied in order to start an unnecessary war. The integrity of the Democrats is far more respectable than that of the Republicans on these matters.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 15, 2010 at 9:42 AM

Cabdriver:
If you don’t recall that, then you have either a selective memory or a selective filter on receiving information in the first place.  There was even a name for it: “Bush derangement syndrom.”  And I recall that Bush couldn’t get his judicial appointments through until the “nuclear option” was threatened in the Senate and a compromise reached.

Now I am pretty well plugged into conservative thought and I don’t see most of what you ascribe to it, especially I don’t see solicitation for assassination, but don’t doubt there is some that is inappropriate based upon the vomit on the left wing blogs—surely someone on the right must be similarly nutty. 

I am a little concerned that lawyers who take pictures of CIA agents and turn them over to gitmo al qaeda terrorists; who give the gitmo al qaeda terrorists propaganda filled with second and third hand accounts of mistreatment for them to then parrot; and propaganda likening the questioners to Mengele; and maps of Gitmo, including guard towers….  in short acting like al qaeda acolytes rather than American lawyers.

But it is irrelevant to your original post, which suggested Bush was not criticized by previous Dem administrations.  Admittedly, Clinton avoided it for awhile because, of course, he knew Bush was right.  Eventually even he went over to the dark side—his wife’s campaign needed him to.

Posted by Rob Fink on Mar 15, 2010 at 10:33 AM

Your post is ridiculous. Your admitted “plug in” to conservative “thought” is probably the reason your perceptions of this issue are so “selective.” As regards Bush’s Supreme Court appointments, the only issue on which you remember the Democrats giving strong resistance, it can be seen as utterly reasonable considering the extremism of the nominations. The Democrats eventually settled more amicably than did the GOP on the nomination of Sotomayor, an eminently moderate choice for the Supreme Court.

Let’s look at GITMO. I don’t know if your accusations are actually true or taken out of context or just more right wing disinformation. What I do know is that GITMO was illegal, unconstitutional and a stain on the American justice system. Most of the more 600 prisoners to have passed through the GITMO detention center since its inception were innocent of any wrong doing. Most were judged not to be terrorists and were never formally charged. In 2007, a 5-3 US Supreme Court decision struck down section 7 of the 2006 Military Tribunals Act which as unconstitutional because it suspended a detainee’s right to a writ of habeas corpus which allows detainees to challenge their internment in a US court of law.  Furthermore, it is a violation of the law to try anyone by a military tribunal without a formal declaration of war by congress.

Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, last year declared that most of the GITMO detainees were innocent of any charge of terrorism though many remained interned for up to eight years.  One of the most shameful cases was that of Kuwaiti, Fouad al-Rabiah who was captured in Afghanistan doing humanitarian work as he had done in many places in the Muslim world. According to Jane Mayer of the NYT in her book, The Dark Side,

”...two National Security Council staffers — senior terrorism expert General John Gordon, and legal adviser John Bellinger — sought to brief President Bush about reports that an innocent man was being held at Guantanamo Bay. Before they could reach President Bush, however, they were intercepted by David Addington, legal counsel to vice-president Dick Cheney, who said, “No, there will be no review. The President has determined that they are ALL enemy combatants. We are not going to revisit it!”

Was this justice? Did it make us safer?

Other incidents involve 14 year old Mohammed Jawad who was detained for six years at GITMO for allegedly throwing a hand grenade at a US military vehicle in Afghanistan. Upon review by a US District Court judge in June 2009 the case was dismissed. The judge stated that the government’s case against Jawad was “outrageous” and “riddled with holes.” There have many similar such cases.

The Bush Administration’s establishment of the GITMO facility has been viewed as illegal and unnecessary. Terrorists can easily be tried in US courts under US law. Over 200 of them were tried in this way while Bush was in office. Richard Reid, the famous “shoe bomber” is in a supermax prison in Colorado. Others have been similarly imprisoned.

Bush’s actions were illegal. He evidently felt he was above the law.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 15, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Cabdriver:

You keep changing the subject. 

As for Sotomayor, well, she got a vote (and was confirmed).  What did you want?  Bush’s appointments did not get a vote, until some were jettisoned as part of an agreement.  To say the Dems “settled more amicably” than the Reps on this particular subject belies a bias so deep that it truly blinds.

And as for the filibuster, it is true that it has been used more than ever by Reps since the Dems took over the Senate.  And it is also true that it was used more than ever by Dems previously when the Reps took over the Senate.  In fact, it has been ever increasingly used now, congress by congress, for some time.  Its use is hardly new nor radical, both parties wielding it and neither party yielding it.  It will continue to be used unless the rules are changed, probably more and more.  Would you encourage the Dems to voluntarily surrender that tool should they fall into the minority?

Posted by Rob Fink on Mar 15, 2010 at 2:21 PM

I decided to look into the recent history of the use of the filibuster in the US Senate to see who was really abusing the system. Apparently, the two parties are not equally as disruptive of the legislative process. In the 110th Congress (2007-08) there were 104 cloture votes required to break a filibuster (as of Oct. 3 2008) , roughly twice the number required in any of the thirteen preceding Congresses going back to 1981.  There is also the issue of the more than 70 holds on presidential nominees for approval by the Senate. The is unprecedented. Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) is the first Senator to use this tactic to this extent.

The rules must be changed. The GOP has become simply obstructionist despite the fact that health care reform and fiscal stimulus is hugely popular according to most national opinion polls. The GOP seems to care less about the country and the needs of average Americans than about itself and its own political future. I might also note that the Senate itself as an institution is not entirely essential and has become a great obstacle to progress.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 16, 2010 at 12:50 PM

Cabdriver:
Interestingly, I already agreed that the filibuster was being used more by Republicans.  So, although you didn’t directly dispute my point, I will make it more explicitly.

Recent history can be disceiving.  Here is a longer history.
% of filibusterable and major bills that had filibuster problems:
1960s           8%
1970-80s     27%
90s-mid 00s 51%
2007           70%

It is a rising trend.  You say it must be changed (and therefore Bush lied abour Iraq?  Weird).  OK, let’s make a deal (as though our opinion mattered).  Starting in the next congress and ever after the filibuster is eliminated.  Given the ever increasing use of it, it be necessary to do that.

If our little deal does not come about, will you criticize the Dems if in the future they make use of it?  Be honest.

It seems pretty obvious that once you didn’t actually have to, well, filibuster to filibuster, its use would rise with each minority in turn pointing to the “over use” of the previous minority to justify its increased use of it.  It is just too easy, I agree.  Time to somehow change it, even if they go back to actually requiring a filibuster.  Next congress.

Posted by Rob Fink on Mar 16, 2010 at 8:03 PM

I never said that because the Senate procedural rules are abused therefore Bush lied about Iraq. The two have nothing to do with each other and I never said they did. You conservatives sure like to confuse things and misquote people.

The filibuster is probably here to stay. I’m sure both parties will make ample use of it. It is just obvious that the GOP is less bipartisan, more obstructionist, more dishonest and more ready to disrupt the daily business and functioning of government for their own political ends at the expense of the country. I don’t see the Democrats behaving this way.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 17, 2010 at 10:37 AM

cabdriver:
I am not so sure the filibuster won’t be changed.  Initially there was no limit on debate, but the filibuster wasn’t used at all in the first decades of the Senate.  In 1919 Rule 22 was changed so that 2/3 of the entire body could shut off debate.

In 1959 the rule was changed to 2/3 of those present and voting, a major loosening because it put a burden on the filibustering side similar to the one on the majority side—their troops had to be present at all times, else they would lose a vote.

In 1975 it was seemingly loosened again, to 3/5 of those present and voting.  I say seemingly because the rule change also allowed for “procedural filibusters” where they no longer needed to actually, well, filibuster.  It simply became a supermajority voting requirement for things which were being “filibustered.”  These were usually reserved for things consider major by the filibusterers.

In 2005 the Republicans toyed with the “nuclear option” (eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations) to free up judicial appointments being held up by Dem filibusters.  A compromise was worked out whereby some judges were dropped but more were allowed to come to a vote.

Given the ever increasing use of the filibuster, it seems likely to me that some change will come.  It has always been the case that a majority of the Senate could change the rules, so it isn’t exactly correct to say the filibuster is anti-majoritarian.  That same fact also means it can be changed, just as it has in the past.

As for process and intent and honesty, well, the Senate as an institution has the purpose of slowing down major changes, else we wouldn’t need it at all.  The filibuster is consistent with that.  Using the filibuster for something as sweeping as Obamacare, something unanamously opposed by one party, is exactly what it is there for. 

But reconciliation was not created to pass major legislation, especially regulatory legislation.  And what is with passing legislation without voting on it, as the Slaughter rule would do in the House?  That’s where an abuse of process is taking place.

Posted by Rob Fink on Mar 17, 2010 at 11:22 AM

I agree that the US Senate is an obstructionist institution in general and that the filibuster, among other things, is consistent with such obstruction. Perhaps we don’t need the Senate. It slows down the entire process. In the earliest years of the Republic, Senators were appointed by the governors of their home state and approved by the state legislature until the 17th amendment to the US Constitution established direct election of Senators by popular vote in 1913. Some have argued that the US Senate is still an undemocratic institution because representation is far from proportional because of the fixed number (two) of Senators from each state regardless of population.

I disagree that the reconciliation process was not meant to pass “major” legislation. The GOP has also used this process more times than the Democrats since its inception in 1974. In fact, it was used to pass the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. That was certainly major legislation. Remember that all bills passed by reconciliation expire by law in ten years from the time of passage and must either be renewed by a vote at that time or allowed to remain expired. This sets a time limit on legislation passed in this manner.

The “deem and pass” tactic that you refer to has often been questioned in terms of its constitutionality.  I know that the US Supreme Court has reaffirmed article one of the Constitution which requires passage of the same text of a bill in both houses before it is sent on the president. The House Rules committee has decided that the bill can go to the floor for a vote. It is essentially the Senate bill which it wants to amend and which it “deems” to have passed the Senate because it has adopted the necessary rule that allows debate on the changes to be made to the Senate bill even though the Senate didn’t vote on the reconciliation fixes. A Congressional committee will make the “fixes” then send it to the floor for a straight up or down vote.  A 2007 US District Court ruling affirmed the legality and constitutionality of deem and pass which the US Supreme Court never actually ruled unconstitutional. The GOP in any case has used it far more than the Democrats.  According the American Enterprise Institute, this “self-executing” rule was used a total of 35 times between 2005 and 2006 during the 109th Congress.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 17, 2010 at 3:30 PM

I agree that deem and pass is probably legal; the courts are loathe to tell the legislative branch how to run itself, and there will be a vote on the rule.  In the past it has been used for uncontroversial yet uncomfortable votes, such as raising the debt ceiling.  In this case I don’t think it will shield the members from owning the vote in the public’s mind.

Reconciliation is for budgetary items, so it is not so surprising to see tax rate changes passed that way, just as one might pass spending level changes that way.

Also, I disagree that tax cuts are major; they are pretty minor.  Nobody wants tax rates to be 0% (well, almost nobody) and nobody wants them to be 100% (well, almost nobody).  The tax law is already in place, most of what is being changed is the percentage at each tax bracket.  Obamacare is very much more complex than that.

But you may rest assured that the genie is out of the bottle.  Just as passing tax cuts via reconciliation gives the Dems an argument for passing Obamacare that way, so will passing Obamacare that way give the justification for Reps to pass whatever they wish using that technique when they again have the majority.

In today’s hyper-partisan climate, with the partisanship being so ideological, my guess is that we are headed for a simple majority rule in the Senate, similar to the House. Keeping the filibuster would require more than a few Senators that believe in the institution and process more than they believe in policy.  I don’t see them.  The few that you might think would stand for the institution and process, such as Byrd or Graham, seem end up with their caucus when the day is done.

Posted by Rob Fink on Mar 17, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Much of what you say is right. Tell me, though, do you use the term “Obamacare” as a pejorative? I think we need health care reform. Do you disagree?

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 18, 2010 at 2:19 PM

“Obamacare” is chosen in preference to “Health Care Reform,” because the latter is generic and would apply to many things I would favor. 

I live in Massachusetts and had some sympathy for the concept of making people buy health insurance when it was first implemented.  Like wind and flood insurance on our coastlines, it seemed to be a way to get at least a little bit of responsibility from the individuals, given the reality that when a disaster struck the taxpayer was going to pay the bill anyway.

But programs like that have unintended consequences.  We have multi-million dollar homes built where they aren’t safe.  And RomneyCare (that’s what we call it) has resulted in almost everyone having insurance, but at a huge subsidy from the taxpayers.  The problem that was being addressed—the overuse of emergency rooms by the uninsured—really wasn’t the major problem that supposedly was. 

Meanwhile, the requirement that insurance companies cover pre-existing problems (along with other stuff, of course) has resulted in sharply higher premiums—we now have the highest insurance premiums in the country.

We know what works in providing goods and services at the best quality and best price, and that is the market.  Third-party pay (insurance or government) interferes with the workings of a market.  Regulation, such as mandated coverages (e.g. mental health in Mass, or chiropractic, or acupuncture or other things which are fine if you want them) also interferes with the market.

The argument that health care is complex and so consumers shouldn’t have choices doesn’t work with me.  Automobiles are complex yet we are allowed to select the one we wish and, surprise! surprise!, it is rare to find a family owning a two-seater as its only vehicle.  Individuals can’t evaluate the quality of all automobiles very well, but they can evaluate the evaluators.  I go to Consumer Reports, among others.

And the argument that families can’t afford health care also doesn’t work with me because they are going to pay anyway, either through surrendered wages, direct premiums, or taxes.  In fact, a movement towards consumer-control will have the effect of bending the cost curve downward.

I view it as I do other necessities of life.  Food, for example, is produced and consumed in a private market, despite its being absolutely essential to human existance.  We handle the poor by providing food stamps.

In short, any reform needs to move away from third-party pay (e.g. via large deductibles) away from regulation (I don’t want mental health benefits; I seek counselling elsewhere) and towards a bigger and more competitive market.  We know that works; we know increased government involvement does not.

There are many, many other things that I consider to be related.  For example, our open borders have kept wages down for unskilled workers, causing income disparity which makes it difficult for the less skilled worker to afford health care.  The answer to that seems obvious.  In fact, although economically a minimum wage makes no sense, in a country with open borders it does.  Better to restrict immigration, but raising the minimum wage is second best.  But the same business interests that want America flooded with low-cost labor also don’t want a high minimum wage; they are on the exact opposite side as I.

But I am meandering.  I am not opposed to government helping the poor afford health care; I believe centralizing and controlling it will harm the amount and quality of care available while we can increase the amount and quality through greater use of the market.

Posted by Rob Fink on Mar 19, 2010 at 5:16 AM

I disagree. In the first place the higher costs and poor coverage people receive from private health insurance companies is market driven. It is not the result of any kind of “distortion” by government or anything else. Insurance rates have been increasing all over the country faster than either the rate of inflation or actual health care costs. The reasons have been complex. In the first place, the recent loss of about 8.4 million jobs has taken millions of younger, healthier workers out of the private health care market. Insurance companies have lost revenue from fewer premiums and have seen the ratio of high risk insured to low risk insured shift in favor of the higher risk people in the insurance pool. This is one reason premiums have increased. Premium increases also create a vicious cycle further reducing the number of low risk, younger and healthier workers who drop their coverage because it becomes too expensive. Mandating insurance coverage will rebalance the risk pools and, if coupled with rate regulation and competition from a public option,  contain costs and result in near universal coverage. Furthermore, insurance companies have been reporting record profits and their stock prices have increased in anticipation of the insurance mandate passing so I wouldn’t worry too much about the insurance companies’ financial viability.

Automobiles and health insurance are not quite so analogous. There is a lot of competition between auto dealers and manufacturers which contains prices and there are always year end close out deals. The market works less efficiently with health insurance.  Premiums have risen at a faster rate than any other cost in the US economy.

The public option provides the needed competition. Health care is a need like many others but less subject to normal market functioning. It is easily monopolized and easily gets out of reach of most people. Health care is part of the social infrastructure like pensions and other social welfare. People will pay one way or another but insurance is best handled, in my opinion, by a single payer system which necessarily means government. Obama isn’t centralizing health care. He is actually providing market competition and expanding coverage.

Immigration has not done the most to reduce wages. Corporate outsourcing and unemployment have done that more. Minimum wages have declined steadily in value in real terms even though inflation has slowed since the early 1980s. Do you think no minimum wage will be better for the growing number of working poor?

The market has failed at many things. We need a mixed economy and dynamic public sector.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 20, 2010 at 2:48 PM

You are correct that the market for health care is not working as well as it should or could.  There is little reason for many of the mandates except the political pull of the interest group imposing them.  The choices offered consumers are severely limited.

The cost increases in health insurance have gone up for the reasons you mention, but you left off the greater burden imposed upon private insurance by the underpayment of the government for medicaid and medicare.  Hospitals demand and get substantially more from private insurance to make up the deficit from government programs.  The bigger the government portion gets, the less able the private sector will be to absorb those costs, making it a spiral (as you pointed out).

We can assume the public option would be subsidized at the expense of the rest of us and the crowding out of us would accelerate.

Also, we just have to face the fact that we are spending more on health care because we want to.  We are richer and will spend our money on what economists call a superior good, one on which a greater proportion of our income is spent as income rises.  .

Currently the third-party pay system we have distorts that, so that people feel as though they are paying more for the same thing. 

You are correct that the market isn’t working as well as it does for other products.  Fixing that is the direction we should be moving.

I don’t agree that outsourcing is a greater threat to low-skill workers than immigration.  As evidence of that, literally tens of millions of immigrants have been sucked into this country because there are low-skill jobs.  The jobs are there; it is this competition that has caused the low wages.  Americans should mow their own lawns, or pay a decent amount to the person who does.

Yes, of course low-income workers are better off without a minimum wage, except for the problem of immigration.  And if we make no distinction between citizens and aliens, as a group they would be better off without one. 

But I do make the distinction, which is why I support a minimum wage—even a higher one than we have now—it takes from the poorest and gives to the next-poorest and in this case the alien is the poorest and the citizen is the next poorest.  I don’t like that solution; I would prefer we allow a limited amount of legal immigration and enforce our laws against illegal immigration and let the market raise wages.

Posted by Rob Fink on Mar 21, 2010 at 5:46 AM

First of all, the consumers get more, not fewer, choices from health care reform. There is the health insurance exchange pool in which consumers can choose a plan which best fits their needs and budget. Had the bill been allowed to pass with the public option, there would have been an additional choice and one which would have suppressed medical costs in general.

With regard to caps on Medicare payments, I presume you are speaking of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act which capped Medicare reimbursements to hospitals with exemptions for selected procedures such as various types of post operative therapies, etc. The national reimbursement average-it varies from state to state- is 90.6% of costs, though hospitals still complain. I don’t believe that the government is “robbing” the private insurance companies by underpaying hopitals for services forcing them to raise costs on private insurers. Don’t forget private insurers also negotiate reimbursements made to health care providers in their pool. Such haggling over reimbursements in the private sector is said to cost tens of billions annually in administrative costs alone.  Furthermore, the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) system has been overridden consistently by Congress in response to physician concerns about cost reimbursement. Medicare has made up the costs not by reducing Medicare reimbursements to doctors and hospitals but by increasing the premiums Medicare beneficiaries pay for Plan B coverage.  These premiums have more than doubled since 2000, according to AARP.

There is no reason that the public option would harm those already receiving health insurance. I don’t understand this “crowding out” or “rationing” idea that conservatives propagate to the public.  The public option would suppress the overall growth of medical costs which have skyrocketed and expand medical coverage to those not covered.  Furthermore, I’m sure that you’ve heard the recent CBO’s reported findings that the federal deficit will be reduced by a projected $138 billion over the next ten years. In addition, jobs will be created and taxable income generated which will further add to net federal government tax revenues.

Some health care spending is discretionary. As always, the vast majority is not. We need to spend more in the immediate term to prevent the higher costs of worsening illnesses from neglect in the long term. Preventitive care is economical.

I don’t know what distortions you mean but it has always been shown that a universal single payer system is more cost effective and efficient by reducing redundent administrative costs. Some have estimated that such a system would save up to $400 billion annually in needless administrative costs alone.

Low skill jobs pay low wages not just because of immigration expanding the supply of labor but because…low skill jobs have always paid less. There are many higher skill, professional jobs whose pay scales have not much increased in real terms over the past 30 years or have stayed mostly the same. There are increasingly large numbers of skilled, educated and trained people putting pressure on the supply of jobs that immigrants don’t compete for. Outsourcing is to blame for this to some extent where relevant but so is chronic levels of unemployment and underemployment.

It is hard to argue for illegal immigration. For one thing, it is illegal!! Most importantly, it does cause harm and strains limited resources though it can be debated how much and to what extent there are offsets such as the purchasing power, SS tax contributions and savings generated by the cheap labor of these immigrants. This is not an argument for illegals, just a proviso.

I have never believed that the minimum wage privileged the less poor over the poor. It is an irrelevant argument when the legal federal minimum wage has so consistently declined in real value over the past three decades.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Well, I’m running down…...

The maximum consumer choice would be inside an unregulated market.  Most agree that some regulation is in order, but current regulations go well into restricting choice.  To say more choice is available by offering another outlet for the same thing is like saying you have two choices at a local store because there are two cashiers.

When the government pays hospitals less than the costs, the other customers must pay more.  Seems pretty obvious.  Yes, private insurance negotiates prices, but they don’t do it ALSO, as though the government were negotiating; it doesn’t, the rates are set.  Insurers need to have the hospitals in their networks in order to satisfy their customers.  So the hospitals have leverage with insurers that they don’t have with the government, luckily as otherwise there would be no hospitals.

When you say the public option would suppress the growth of medical costs, I presume you mean they would “starve the beast.”  Just allocate so much money and when it runs out, no more care.  We all understand that once we have a single payer system medical care will compete with education and art subsidies and studies of albino turnips and everything else the government does and will certainly not be able to grow as it has under consumer choice (distored by third-party pay, for sure, but it is still the case we have chosen to spend more on medical care as we have become richer).

The notion that the various negotiations inherent in a market are inefficient in comparison to a centralized system is a theory which has been proven false whenever tried.  Insurance companies don’t like overhead, but it is cost effective.  You mention $400 billion (compared to the approx. $8 billion profits for the health insureres, that seems high).  But that is necessary for the market to work and to prevent greater inefficiencies.  For example, there is an estimated $60 billion a year in Medicare fraud alone.

In short, if the theory that socialistic central planning is superior to markets, then the average Russian should be rich in comparison to the average American.  But he isn’t.

Low skilled jobs have always paid less, but they have fallen further behind while the illegal immigrant population boomed.

The argument that minimum wages benefit the next to the poorest at the expense of the poorest is because the poorest are unemployed due to the artificial wage and the next to the poorest keep their jobs and benefit from the artificial wage, which for them isn’t artificial given that the unemployed have effectively been removed from the market by the government. 

It is true that the minimum wage is low enough that it is largely irrelevant. 

How about this?  Get the government out of education.  We know private schools are more cost effective.  The growth in costs are great in education as it has been in health, suggesting government isn’t the answer to costs.  Education has the added unfavorable comparison with medicine in that it isn’t improving as it gets more expensive.

So liberate education first and then socialize medicine.

Posted by Rob Fink on Mar 26, 2010 at 7:07 PM

First of all, Hospitals don’t have leverage with insurers. According to a report back in late January,

”...UnitedHealthcare plans to cut hospital reimbursement rates for patients at any of five Continuum hospitals in New York by 50 percent should those hospitals not notify UnitedHealthcare within 24 hours of a patient’s admission.”

They are not apparently concerned about losing the hospitals’ business to other insurers. There is an effective health insurance monopoly in America and they are exempt from anti-trust laws.

People don’t have much choice. The insurance exchange that is part of the reform bill gives plenty of choices and makes it affordable. The regulations also ensure wider access to health care. About 32 million more people will get health care.

The public option, which we didn’t get, would suppress costs through competition, not by robbing other federal programs. Has Social Security and Medicare come at the expense of other federal programs? The best way is single payer funded by a payroll tax. It would save administrative costs.  It is ultimately cheaper and more efficient for consumers and businesses than private health insurance. The optimal solution would have been to expand the Medicare system to include everyone. That is what other countries do. It seems to work fine. The CBO estimated $138 billion reduction over ten years in the federal deficit. This is without cutting other federal programs. I think that claims to the contrary is misinformation.

The health care reform has nothing to do with “socialism” or the old Russian system. Stop listening to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh!!  The $400 billion in savings from single payer is not just a savings from health insurance profits which are collectively much higher than $8 billion.  CEO compensation for these insurance companies has been obscene, especially considering that they often deny coverage at the drop of a hat. The billions in savings would come from many sources including eliminating redundant administrative costs.

All this about the market is nonsense. Healthcare in America is one obvious example of utter market failure. Failure to provide the best health care to the most people and failure to deliver it efficiently at an affordable price. Health care is a universal need, not a luxury. Thousands of people die because they lack it. Treating people early will prevent more expensive treatment in the late stages of a disease not to mention suffering. 

If government were to abandon health care and education the only people that would be able to have access to it would be the rich. Without Medicare and Medicaid more than half the US population would have absolutely no access to health care. The private sector is motivated purely by profit. As wealth and income concentrates fewer and fewer people will be able to obtain basic needs for lack of ability to pay. Many of these same people will be highly productive workers putting in over 40 hours a week between two jobs. All their efforts will go to making someone else rich. They won’t even be able to see a doctor to keep themselves health enough to be exploited.

There is no such thing as an artificial wage. Wages are not determined by the market but by struggles between capital and labor. Capital usually wins. In the 1990s, employment went up quickly even as many state minimum wages rose with it. So much for the minimum wage creating unemployment.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Apr 4, 2010 at 4:54 PM

The way you could tell, even at the time, before the invasion, that the administration knew exactly what it was doing, was how they treated people who were trying to set them straight. People who knew details about what was going on in Iraq, like Scott Ritter and Mohamed ElBaradei, the former and then current people responsible for inspection of weapons in Iraq, initially trying to be helpful in correcting intelligence errors, were viciously attacked by the administration. Valerie Plame, wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson, was (illegally) outed as an undercover CIA operative. If this was an honest mistake, why would they react like that? As it was, why were the media and Congress not suspicious, when millions of Americans knew the score exactly, because they listened to people with no history of lying and nothing to gain by it, rather than those with by then a long history of lying and a lot (no-bid contracts anyone?) to gain..

Posted by aacme on Apr 17, 2010 at 11:14 PM

I am pleasantly surprised to find so many Republicans reading In These Times, as evidenced by these comments. I am, however, sorry to see that they don’t seem to have learned anything as a result.

Posted by aacme on Apr 17, 2010 at 11:32 PM

“The way you could tell, even at the time, before the invasion, that the administration knew exactly what it was doing, was how they treated people who were trying to set them straight”

This is a great observation and one I never considered. Willfully ignoring repeated warnings about terrorism or intelligence showing conclusions contrary to the Bush Administration’s assumptions is definitely a strong indictment of Bush and Co.‘s actual intentions. In fact, many operatives in the CIA and in military intelligence claim that they were instructed to “cherry pick” information that unambiguously supported the Administration’s case for war in Iraq.

I think it should be pretty clear what happened in the run-up to the US invasion of Iraq. As the Downing Street memos clearly show, Bush wanted to get into Iraq by hook or by crook and that is exactly where we find ourselves mired down more than seven years later.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Apr 18, 2010 at 9:55 AM

aacme,

They have learned many things, believe me. Evidence is overwhelming that Bush lied to the American people. They know as well as we do what that administration was capable of, and the arrogance displayed by that silver spoon-fed slacker.
The only reasons they respond to articles as these is either to divert us from the truth, or provide some ‘rational’ to their deep-rooted beliefs. It is a sad thing when you finally realize that someone you actually trusted is nothing more than a spoiled brat whose irresponsible actions cannot be justified. They refuse to believe that facts laid right in front of them are true. In other words, they refuse to believe them because they’re so unbelievable! But it all happened. And it happened right before our eyes.
The Bush family, and those similar (historically wealthy, blueblood) aren’t like us. And by ‘like us’ I don’t mean liberal. I mean ninety-eight percent of Americans.
They believe that they are above the law. If they want something to happen, they make it happen. Human lives, foreign countries, different cultures…don’t mean a thing to these people. They are merely pawns to them. The devastation, the carnage and the consequences of this invasion were never even realized by this man. The worldwide effects never occurred to him.  Its almost sad.

Posted by Eugene Connolly on Apr 18, 2010 at 11:37 AM

“iI am pleasantly surprised to find so many Republicans reading In These Times, as evidenced by these comments. I am, however, sorry to see that they don’t seem to have learned anything as a result.”

Eugene Connolly,

I’m pretty sure that aacme meant run of the mill GOP supporters not elected officials and political appointees.  The problem is that there are a large number of serious GOP supporters among the ordinary “ninety-eight percent of Americans” who drank the proverbial Kool Aid and continue to support the GOP’s political and social agenda despite its obvious failure and debilitating effects on American society.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Apr 18, 2010 at 12:24 PM

I will bookmark and continue reading your blog in the future! Thanks alot for the informative post!

Posted by chirsmark on May 26, 2010 at 6:37 PM

I like the way the article was poste

Posted by johnsmith182 on Jun 16, 2010 at 12:13 AM

I hate to say this but Curveball started the Iraq conflict. I understand that he just wanted to be free from dictatorship but it is not the only way he can gain the freedom that he wants. Didn’t he realize that because of the intelligence he has revealed, he has put the entire Iraq and the Iraqi people in danger?

Posted by Jasmin Willis on Feb 25, 2011 at 1:25 AM