Clinton: Bush should raise taxes to pay for recovery

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

There is going to have to be an exit strategy at some point in time, because eventually this will become the Iraqi's war, to maintain the peace in their own country.

There should have been an exit strategy before we ever invaded their country.

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

There should have been an exit strategy before we ever invaded their country.

should have an "entry strategy" first

Brian "Death before dishonor-The Samurai creed" j.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Okay, pardon my ignorance, what do you mean?

Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation is up in about a month.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The mainstream media does not support this idea of the Middle East being one body

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

[JazmenFlowers]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

should have an "entry strategy" first

Brian "Death before dishonor-The Samurai creed" j.

lol - you're cracking me up.

(and I agree with you)

[Moony]

...and once again, ignorance and stupidity rear their ugly heads in the form of a big Brown Eye...

[David]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

He said not only Osama and his cronies, but also the countries that even supported or harbored terrorists, and if Iraq is not such a country then I don't know what is.

Iraq seemed a rather strange choice at the outset. The U.S. State Department had a lot more info linking terrorist groups to state bodies like Somalia, Libya, Syria, the Sudan, the Palestinian Authority, Iran, Pakistan & Lebanon. The terrorist activity planned & executed from these countries is greater in number & reach than it is from Iraq -- why invade Iraq first?

Afghanistan is certainly a hot bed of terrorist organizations, but our "war" there appears to have fixed absolutely nothing. An American -- indeed, any Westerner -- is no safer today flying to Afghanistan to vacation than five years ago.

[golddustwoman77]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

simply raise taxes -- it's the Democratic Party cure-all.

Maybe this go along with the typical Republican cure-all, lower taxes but have out of control, through the roof spending, until we have a several trillion dollars deficit?

We could have asked Reagan, or maybe we should ask W.? They were/are definitely experts in this field.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by David

Iraq seemed a rather strange choice at the outset. The U.S. State Department had a lot more info linking terrorist groups to state bodies like Somalia, Libya, Syria, the Sudan, the Palestinian Authority, Iran, Pakistan & Lebanon. The terrorist activity planned & executed from these countries is greater in number & reach than it is from Iraq -- why invade Iraq first?

Afghanistan is certainly a hot bed of terrorist organizations, but our "war" there appears to have fixed absolutely nothing. An American -- indeed, any Westerner -- is no safer today flying to Afghanistan to vacation than five years ago.

Proof of the truth of your statements

Al-Zawahiri downplays U.S. efforts in Afghanistan
U.N. report: No shortage of terrorism recruits worldwide

(CNN) -- In a videotape that aired Monday on the Arabic-language TV network Al-Jazeera, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, downplayed U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and again claimed responsibility for the July bombings in London.

Meanwhile, a United Nations panel of experts issued a report Monday saying there is no shortage of recruits for terrorism worldwide and that Iraq has provided new training ground for them, replacing al Qaeda bases lost in Afghanistan.

"Al Qaeda has managed to recover from the loss of Afghanistan as a training base for terrorism by exploiting the situation in Iraq," the report said.

The report was the third by an expert panel set up by the U.N. Security Council to monitor al Qaeda, the Taliban and their associates.

Recruits travel to Iraq from many parts of the world, "acquire skills in urban warfare, bomb-making, assassination and suicide attacks," and return to integrate with local fighters in their home countries, the report said.

Second al-Zawahiri tape
The authenticity of the tape that aired Monday on Al-Jazeera, which is based in Qatar, has yet to be verified.

It showed al-Zawahiri being interviewed by an unknown questioner. He wore a black turban and white shirt, without his typical black vest, seen in past videos.

He told the interviewer the Taliban moved from Kabul, the Afghan capital, only to the outskirts of the city and did not flee.

Voters went to the polls Sunday in Afghanistan amid heavy security to elect representatives to their national parliament and local legislators in 34 provinces.

"There is no reform except through jihad," al-Zawahiri said in the video, the second this month showing the 54-year-old Egyptian-born doctor.

In a tape released September 1, he said British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his policies were responsible for the London attacks. He also sharply criticized President Bush.

A July 7 attack on London's transit system killed 52 commuters and the four bombers. No one was killed in a second, similar attempted attack July 21, in which bombs failed to detonate.

"People of the crusader alliance behold the disasters that the policies of Bush and Blair will bring upon you and, God willing, on all of those who march behind them," al-Zawahiri said in the previous tape.

"As they have let rivers of blood run in our countries, we will, God willing, erupt volcanoes of anger in their countries."

An Al-Jazeera anchor said at the time al-Zawahiri's comments were part of a "much longer tape."

A CIA spokesman said the next day that the tape appeared to be genuine.

After the September 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people, the U.S. State Department offered a $25 million award for information leading to al-Zawahiri's apprehension.

Al Qaeda threats
The U.N. report issued Monday said the "most notable success" of al Qaeda was an agreement struck by bin Laden with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq.

The pact allowed bin Laden to claim world attention in "a key issue of the day" and helped al-Zarqawi to attract recruits "by adopting the al Qaeda mantle," the report said.

Al Qaeda also has benefited from another group: fighters who trained in Afghanistan and who are now "spread all over the world and actively providing expertise and leadership to local cells," the report said.

It said estimates of their numbers vary "but several thousand graduates of the Afghan camps survive."

The international community has now identified and is hunting many, and they have to use false identities and criminal means to survive, "which increases their risk of detection and arrest," the report said.

Nevertheless, the report said, this group provides "a significant backbone to the al Qaeda structure."

A third group is made up of new recruits radicalized by world events, by extremists in their communities or by terror Web sites and chat rooms on the Internet, the report said.

It said these cells are "emerging as the main threat posed by al Qaeda terrorism today" because they remain "independent, anonymous and largely invisible until they strike."

The report said the Taliban remain a localized but serious threat in Afghanistan.

The recent increase in violence and sophistication of weapons and communications systems "suggest an infusion of money [and] an ability to recruit younger and increasingly vicious supporters," the report said.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...iri/index.html

[sparky]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Clinton wants everyone to be equally miserable. Raising taxes would lower revenue; Clinton knows this and doesn't care. For Clinton, this is just an excuse to limit freedom and increase government influence in our lives.

simply raise taxes -- it's the Democratic Party cure-all.

As opposed to continuing to go into debt for things we can't, as a country, afford ? Just keep digging the hole deeper, right ? That's smart. If I ran my finances the way this administration has run it's finances, I would have lost my house and everything I own many years ago. Borrow, borrow, borrow.

[markolas]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Essentially, unless you made over, say $150,000 a year, you probably noticed no tax cut overall because though your Fed. income taxes may have been reduced, you state and local taxes likely increased to compensate for the Fed. Govt.'s lack of funding for many state programs, etc. There are a bunch of articles on it if you look around on the net.

But we don't have a state income tax in Texas.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by markolas

But we don't have a state income tax in Texas.

I do not know about Texas, but if the Feds stopped funding things, etc., then the state had to fill that monetary req. on its own. Many states had to do that by increasing rev. and the general way to do that is by raising taxes and/or borrowing money. But, maybe Texas sis not have to raise its tax rev. rates. If not, good for it

[markolas]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

If not, good for it

Or not.

I remember hearing that they've had to shut down a lot of mental health programs, among other things, because there's no money.

At any rate, and at the risk of being called a "socialist"...why does someone who makes $150,000 get their taxes reduced, but someone who makes $22,000 have to pay?

Rhetorical question.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by markolas

At any rate, and at the risk of being called a "socialist"...why does someone who makes $150,000 get their taxes reduced, but someone who makes $22,000 have to pay?

Welcome to the dark side.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by markolas

. . . At any rate, and at the risk of being called a "socialist"...why does someone who makes $150,000 get their taxes reduced, but someone who makes $22,000 have to pay?

Rhetorical question.

You asking the wrong person

I think income tax should start at $35,000 a year and then progress to 15% tops at say $50,000 a year with no, and I mean NO, deductions period. But, that will sadly never happen because the special interest groups will never allow it, the true liberals will want to punish the rich, and the really rich on the far far right will want to pay even less than that.

I also think the estate tax should be 10% and not a penny more. But, the true liberals would rather tax a dead person's estate at 70% after the first $600,000 or so and the really really rich on the far right want no tax on it whatsoever.

In the end, our tax system is utter crap and the extremes on both sides will never allow the other a moment of peace.

I mean some people want to tax people 50% or more. I think the revolution should occur that day.