By massively reregulating our economy, Dean will help narrow the gap between rich and poor . . . by decreasing wealth for everyone. We'll all be poor, and isn't that nicer that some being rich?

Facts, versus Dean's hyperbole:
1) The breeding ground of international terrorism is the use of religion to keep the ignorant masses ignorant, thus preserving the status quo.
2) The US contributes vastly more to eliminating hunger, poverty and disease than any other country.
3) The US contributes more to alleviate the suffering of Palestinians than the Saudis.

Dean's an idiot, liar and a hypocrite. AND, the likely Democrat Party nominee. What's that say about them?

Well, Dean shows us once again that he really hasn't the slightest idea how to combat terror.

Evidently he thinks that there just isn't enough proper redistribution of wealth in the world and if all of those greedy capitalists would just spread some of the cash around, then the terrorists would just fade away.

Give me a freaking break.

Uhm, vote for Dean?

No, thanks...

[Saddam's money trail,etc:] DRAGON DOWN

By AMIR TAHERI
What Saddam's capture means for Iraq, the Arabs & the world
NY Post, full-page 42 [ digested to 15%], for full text go to
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/13415.htm.

December 15, 2003 -- 'He is in the bag, singing like a canary!" This
is how news of Saddam Hussein's capture spread throughout Iraq...
The... dictator... claimed that he would fight …to the bitter end, and
would not be captured alive... Not only did he not fight, but he
immediately offered his "cooperation." …

It may take months for the full impact of the final demise of
Saddam to become fully apparent in Iraq and other Arab
countries. His was the most brutal of the one-party regimes
that the Arabs developed from the 1950s onwards. His rule
affected almost every Iraqi. There is hardly an Iraqi family that
did not lose at least one member to Saddam's death machine.
And that includes Saddam's own family. He murdered dozens of his
own relatives, including both his sons-in-law, two of his grandsons,
a supposedly "favorite" uncle and several cousins.
His victims included not only Shi'ites, Kurds,...but also Arab Sunnis.
The Iraqi army...was one of his victims; he killed thousands of officers.
Even the ruling Ba'ath Party was a victim of Saddam's terror. Of the
16 members of the top Ba'athist leaders in 1968, only one was alive
in 2003: Saddam Hussein. All others had been murdered by him...

* Saddam's arrest could persuade many Iraqis that it is now safe to
come out and work with the Coalition and the Governing Council.
An Arab proverb: He who congratulates the victor on the first day is a fool,
he who does so on the second day is an opportunist, but he who does it
on the third day is a wise man. Saddam's arrest may persuade many
Iraqis… This is especially true of Sunni Arabs…
The arrest could provide valuable info... that only Saddam possessed.
His was a highly centralized power-structure in which only the chief knew
exactly what was going on…could lead to a speedier dismantling
of the terror organizations…

...nostalgics of Saddam in Paris and London have suggested that the
fallen tyrant be tried by the recently created International Criminal Court…
the ICC would not be able to try Saddam for all his crimes since ...1968,
the date at which his Ba'ath Party seized power… (The ICC's remit is
limited to crimes committed since its own creation in 2002).
Saddam has countless questions to answer.
...of special interest to the people of Iraq...he must provide info...on the
fate of some 13,000 Iraqis classified as "missing" after being arrested
by his secret police.
Then he must provide his narrative of 35 years of criminal rule that led to
four foreign wars, two civil wars and countless smaller conflicts in which
...1.5 million people, including many Iranians and Kuwaitis, died.
So far, the [UN] has discovered some 300,000 corpses in mass graves
throughout Iraq. But many more corpses are still missing, including
victims of chemical weapons.
He is... responsible for driving some 4.5 million Iraqis, almost a fifth
of the nation's population, out of their homes. In the Kurdish areas
alone, he presided over the destruction of over 400 villages in the 1980s.
Saddam must also tell the Iraqis what he did with their money. During the
Ba'ath Party's 35-years rule, Iraq earned nearly $300 billion from oil
exports. It also received some $50 billion in the form of gifts from
the Arab oil-states of the Persian Gulf. Yet when Saddam fell, Iraq
had a foreign debt of over $120 billion… [mostly to Saudis plus
French, Germans, and Russians].
…Saddam must provide answers to the 29 questions, asked by…U.N…
about Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction…Second,
Saddam should tell the world which Western governments and
corporations helped him build his death machine. He must…
tell the world which European, and Arab, politicians,
businessmen, bankers, media people and
so-called "peace activists" he bribed over the years.
Finally, he should tell... about the two dozen or so terrorist
organizations that he trained, financed and sheltered for decades.

...an Iraqi friend reached over the telephone in Baghdad yesterday.
He quoted lines by Jahiz, an Arab poet of the pre-Islamic era:

The dragon that hid the moon is gone,
The bloodsucker has vanished into the abyss.
Let me taste this day like the ripest of dates,
And come tomorrow to talk about the days to come. "

E-mail: amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com
Bill Fox's forward:
Saddam's money trail, etc.: Iraq, the Arabs & the world

I keep remembering the X Files episode with Peter Boyle as the guest star.

Homicidal Maniac: (something like) "Why do I do it?"

Peter Boyle: "Because you're a homicidal maniac"

If only politicians were half as honest as insurance salesmen.

Well, if you read Dean's speech where he mentions the Soviet Union, all that we need to do to keep weapons out of dangerous hands is to buy all of them ourselves...I guess with the money from revoking the tax cuts.

We may be the smallest in "percentage terms" in foreign aid, but we are the largest - by far - in absolute terms.

The problem with the Dean argument is that the U.S. economy is SO much larger than any other country. If you put something similar together - like the E.U. instead of each European country - the U.S. contributes a larger share by percentage.

The guy is an idiot.

Latefinal's response is as ephemeral ...

He is correct that most of the hijackers and many other terrorists (e.g., in Palestine & Israel) are NOT among the impoverished.

BUT, the very existence of massive inequities between the Christian and mostly secular world and the Islamic world -- intensified by religious chauvanism -- prompts sometimes members of the well-to-do (perhaps far more often than the true poor) to take up arms in this particularly vile way.

For some the answer is, kill them, crush them, frighten them into giving up what is perceived as resistance. I'm sure we can crush, kill, and destroy lots of these people. (For ever?) But part of the answer should be the amelioration of the massive poverty and powerlessness -- much of it self-inflicted, I acknowledge -- that feeds fanatics' cause.

I believe that if our methods remain essentially military, that we will be at this for ever.

So I think Dean is somewhat right.

BUT, Maybe ... just Maybe ... so are the Neocons. The hope that Iraq might be rebuilt into a new model ... a fairly representative state offering its people real opportunity without tyranical cruelty. IF, that could be accomplished ... I agree it might alter the whole nature of the problem.

Why couldn't they have been more brave about that, more forthright? It's positively "Jack Kennedian."

When did they exhume Warren Christopher?

Dean happens not to be correct even about what the U.S. Government under President Bush is already doing. In fact, President Bush expanded humanitarian aid by 40% -- and that's before Iraq -- over what the Clinton Administration was doing. Add in the $20 Billion plus for Iraq and the U.S. is among the world's biggest donors in the size of its contribution but also as a percentage of GDP. So says a Kennedy School lecturer and former Clinton Administration official Linda Bilmes. See her article reprinted from the Financial Times. http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2003/bilmes_bush_donor_ft_120303.htm

COMMENT: Bush joins the donor big league
By Linda Bilmes
Financial Times; Dec 03, 2003

Oh great. Dean's another commie egalitarian.

When are people going to get it through their thick skulls that these political/economic models DON'T WORK?

I have the answer for the problem with French, German and Russian Help to make them feel so much better. Instead of Iraq paying them a dime on any debt, lets just credit them for what they owe us from world war two etc. and then everyone is happy..They get their money and the deals are done. They will never go for it of course.

Any measure of US humanitarian aid should by all rights include amounts expended on US military missions where millions of lives are saved and made better, such as in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yeah, really, these guys are so totally wrong. I can't believe how stupid they are. Talking about their "marginal propensities for spending being much higher amongst the poor" and their "reduced socioeconomic diversity leading to a paralysis of upward mobility." What a load of garbage. Stupids.

Anne: when people stop having thick skulls -- in other words, don't hold your breath.

". . .Right now, the United States officially contributes a smaller percentage of its wealth to helping other nations develop than any other industrialized country."

I've heard that the US is the largest provider of world aid, something like over 60% of all world aid is provided by the US. Anyone else heard these numbers?

brendan,

Oh, sure, Dean's somewhat right - poverty, et al, do contribute to all sorts of problems (mostly regarding lack of education and the time to think for one's self due to constantly trying to get enough food to live, which generally makes one angry and easily manipulated). But he only (partially) right about the PROBLEM. His proposed solution (apparently) is handouts and/or socialism, both of which have been tried for the last... well, longer than I have been alive, and repeatedly shown to be not only inefficient but counter productive.

So, I'd say, sure, he's right(ish) about the problem - that's the same problem I think Bush, et al (the "neocons"), see. The difference is that the "neocons" are trying something to fix that isn't already a well-proven failure.

It's important to recognize that the amount of private giving individual Americans give dwarfs the amount the US "officially" gives to other countries and these private contributions are less likely to end up in a despot's Swiss bank account. Why doesn't Dean acknowledge this?

From the picture, it looks like Dean's plan is to activate that Golem standing behind him...

snellenr,

THAT'S HILARIOUS!!!!!!

Why don't we see Dean and Kennedy giving away their own fortunes before they turn to government to eliminate poverty? I notice that Bill Clinton, who never had much money himself is doing his best to make up for that now.

Reminds me of something Jesse Jackson said once:

"Criminals are just under paid"

(not a direct quote, but my summary of his plan to curb inner city crime by giving government grants to potential gangsters and thugs)

You hear that "Poverty is the root cause" line all the time from the left. Couple of problems with that: just about EVERYONE in history (including ALL of the big religious leaders) were poorer than the well-below average person in anything resembling an industrial society today. Why didn't they have the barbarism that we had in the 20th century? Simple: it isn't the poverty (and as a formerly very poor person, I find that insulting). It's the envy. That's the fuel for the Communist and Socialist engines (including the Nazis) throughout the genocides and slaughters of the last century. And it is what Islamofascists use today against Israel and America.

It's also the foundation of the Democratic platform, but hey.

Democracies and people who believe in democracy and its economic counterpart, capitalism may feel envy, but they also feel they have the power and the responsibility to do something about it. Thus, bringing democracy and capitalism to Iraq not only stops the flow of Envy into it, but gives the people there a reason to believe in themselves and a better world for all.

Dean doesn't say these things because he's a liar. He uses the ratio is used instead of the final amount (great book: How to Lie with Statistics). Yes, Denmark gives more of its GDP but that's because in large part, we fight and prepare to fight Denmark's wars for it. Furthermore, our GDP is so much higher than the little socialists in Europe that even with less of our overall resources pitted to the task we can generate far more overall force be it giving, feeding ourselves or military spending (ask the Soviets).

Brendan: Most of your argument is a strawman. "...if our methods remain essentially military"? Did you miss Bush's recent speech on democracy in the Middle East? Wake up, dude.

Yep. By their own words it's evident that a good day for America in the war on terror is a bad day for Dean and the Democrats.

So, by their own standard, when is it o.k. to start wondering what side they're on?

"BUT, Maybe ... just Maybe ... so are the Neocons. The hope that Iraq might be rebuilt into a new model ... a fairly representative state offering its people real opportunity without tyranical cruelty. IF, that could be accomplished ... I agree it might alter the whole nature of the problem.

Why couldn't they have been more brave about that, more forthright? It's positively "Jack Kennedian."

Very simple. If the Administration were foolish enough to say this prior to the invasion of Iraq, there would have been no help forthcoming from Kuwait, or any other nation there.

No that the process is underway, we can speak more freely.

It's in the nature of world politics that it is not wise to overplay your hand. It allows the opposition to prepare for your well-telegraphed moves.

For instance, it may be why there are no WMD's in Iraq, and why we continue to have trouble with the terrorists there. We gave them far too much time.

Bush's an idiot, liar and a hypocrite. AND, President of the United States. What's that say about us?

Howard Dean is the definition of absurdity. Calling for redistribution of wealth and therefore a decline in our GDP, a decline in our ability to 'pay' for "New Deal" and "Great Society" disasters that continue to plague our economy, a decline in the ability for his parasitic public & private unions to earn decent returns from their precious pensionsinvested in the hated 'Big Business', a decline in our ability to fund a strong military during the war on terrorism, a decline in our ability to maintain incentives for scientific and commercial achievement---all so that we can equalize our society with nations that have no democracy, no rule of law, no individual rights and no property rights...come again????

"Why didn't they have the barbarism that we had in the 20th century?"

What history have you been reading, dude?

Anyways, Dean didn't say that "poverty" was "the" root case. He said that misery (a more broad term) is a (essentially) _a_ cause.

And he's right. History, by the way, in addition to all sorts of barbarism has a long history of those in the uppper classes 'fighting for' the lower. Why were the 9/11 hijackers all relatively well off? Because a lot of them had to live in America without drawing suspicion, among other things. More well-educated people also have a better chance of pulling off complex plans.

But, ask yourself about all the other stuff. Take all the cannon fodder from the Pakistani madrassas, for example? Would you consider them middle class well-educated types?

There are a lot of root causes. I hardly think it's controversial to want to address them -- just look at the leaked Rumsfeld memo to show that this isn't some lefty bleeding heart idea. Just pretending that they hate our freedom or some such banal aphorism and that we can just keep killing them is inane.

We should be killing them, of course. We just need to do more.

"So, by their own standard, when is it o.k. to start wondering what side they're on?"

Oh great here comes the McCarthism...what do we do next require loyalty oaths? Purges? Prison camps? These have been used by the radical left most recently but I see the radical right isn't immune either.

Yo Tip, I think you mean Bush is, not Bush's. Perhaps if you had some simple grammatical skills you would be able to make a more effective arguement about someone's intellect.

Yo Scott check out Buster's comment first before you add to the ad hominem attacks.

Wealth, like food, is largely dependent on efficient distribution. Governments are by definition inefficient distributors of wealth.

I've heard and read that there is no fundamental reason why anyone on the planet should go hungry. And yet, they do, owing to utterly incompetent - and/or criminal - logistics operations.

As to money ... well, who precisely is responsible for the poverty in the world? Is it the US for engaging in both public AND private largesse and generally encouraging the development of transparent world markets (despite b.s. like agricultural and steel tariffs)?

Or is it more likely that corrupt governments and quasi-governments - q.v. Arafat, Saddam, etc. - pocket the proceeds in order to build palaces and stuff personal banking accounts?

Curing poverty isn't merely ginning up a bunch of greenbacks. There also has to be accountability on the other end of the pipeline. Unfortunately, supranational organizations like the UN have proven to be utterly inept at making sure these transactions are legitimate.

Nice way to deceptively twist the English language, Howie. He says "Right now, the United States officially contributes a smaller percentage". The truth is that US government ("official") funding is very low, but private charity from US citizens makes total US aid way, way (2-3x) above Europe or any other rich nations. So he intentionally misused the word "official", implying it's some sort of announcement (as in "I'm now offically unelectable"), rather than what it really means here (which is "but American society is the most generous the world has ever seen").

What a loser.

Some above have pointed out that private aid by Americans dwarfs aid from the gov't. That's true, and it's also true that Americans give vastly more per capita than citizens of other industrialized nations. See here for info on how much citizens of the U.S. give: http://www.newcriterion.com/weblog/armavirumque.html

...and see here for how comparitively non-charitable the citizens of other industrialized nations are:
http://www.brunel.ac.uk/depts/ecf/research/official.pdf

Opps. The first URL above ("See here for info...") should be as follows: http://www.techcentralstation.com/082102N.html .

Prof.,

While your analysis is good, you are missing the point on how the powerful the "Dean-O-Whore" army is. It is larger than the US armed forces by 1000 times. DOW army is basically liberal-hypocrite army. But, it is full of empty headed (deaf,blind,dumb - like three monkeys) cheerleaders. They will do what they are told. Like Robots. Now they are told that they should do what it takes to elect the Master Whore (Dean-O-Whore). They will spin Dean's mistakes as honesty. Dean's foolishness as straight-forwardness.

Bottom line: You cannot compete with DOWs. No one can. It is over.

Trav

The Islamic world includes the worlds largest oil producing countries,there is a fabulous amount of wealth available.There are middle Eastern countries far richer than most Christian countries.However most of them have corrupt governments and that is the root of poverty.

Peter is completely right. To the extent that the problems of poverty lead to conditions ripe for terrorist activity, Dean misses the mark by analyzing it as an *economic* situation. This is not a market failure. What is causing the poverty is not an *economic* problem, it is a *political* problem - the existence of autocratic and intolerant governments which kill free enterprise and never allow it to generate wealth. Bush does seem to understand this, which is why *political reform* and not just international aid, is a true answer to this problem. More difficult, but more real.

Um... what about the other 16 hijackers? Were they all the sons of lawyers and what not? Or are you just using some highly selective sampling?

I'm a big John D. McDonald fan and I wish you wouldn't use Travis McGee. If it is your real name I apologize sincerely. This is just a polite request from someone that loved the character in McDonald's books.

Director Mitch claims above that "The problem with the Dean argument is that the U.S. economy is SO much larger than any other country. If you put something similar together - like the E.U. instead of each European country - the U.S. contributes a larger share by percentage."

Uhm. No. That's not how percentages work. Let's say the US gives 0.1% and two very small European countries each give 0.4%. Put them together, and the European countries still give 0.4% in aggregate.

That being dealt with, the larger issue of the point made above, that terrorists are not motivated by disparity in wealth, is logically flawed. It doesn't prove anything if every terrorist we catch has a university education and drives around in a luxury car. Obviously people who can't read aren't planning international terrorism. People who have trouble buying food aren't buying plane tickets to America. But the educated elite who do may be motivated by the suffering they see around them.

Consider our president. Bush comes from a fantastically wealthy and politically powerful family. He has a university education. Yet his actions are not motivated only by concern for people like him; his position requires action on behalf of all Americans. Yet by the argument used above, his wealth would mean he never takes action based on others' poverty, his education would mean that he doesn't care about the education of others.

This is not to say that Dean's plan will reduce terrorism. I have no idea if it will. But the argument posed here against it is unconvincing.

Dean once again misunderstands the roots of Muslim Fundamentalism. They don't hate us because they're poor and they are not afraid of our military.

What they are worried about is Barbie and Bay Watch. They are afraid that if our culture proves attractive to their young people (and it has) that they would lose power.

There is no agreement, no negotiation, no treaty, that will allow them to insulate themselves from western culture.

So they try to destroy it.

can you please comment more on terrorism and the us in iraq