GOPers Promise you War on Iran & Torture & Poverty

Saturday’s Republican debate, sponsored by CBS and the National Journal, revealed a Republican field that is promising war on Iran and a revival of the use of torture, as well as horrible relations with the new governments in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya (according to Herman Cain, they have gotten “out of hand,” and he and Gingrich want to deal with them by supporting a muscular Christianity).

Dear Herman Cain: In revolutions, things typically get “out of hand.”

The only adults in the room were John Huntsman and Ron Paul, who have no realistic chance of being the standard-bearer. They denounced water-boarding as torture and generally punctured the warmongering of the others. But it is shameful that potential US presidents are even talking about torturing people and launching wars of aggression.

Herman Cain said he would deal with Iran 1) by funding the opposition Green Movement and 2) by lowering the price of petroleum dramatically through producing more petroleum in the United States.

Cain then added that although he would not give military aid to the Iranian opposition,

“And then there’s one other thing that we could do. We could deploy our ballistic missile defense capable (UNINTEL) war ships strategically in that part of the world. We have the biggest fleet of those warships in the world. And we could use them strategically in the event that they were able to fire a ballistic missile.”

Problems with Cain’s talking points: 1) Any such attempt at gunboat diplomacy would raise the potential for military conflict with Iran enormously, a possibility of which Cain seems blithely unaware.

2) The Green Movement would not take his money, and the people in the opposition who would take his money don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of coming to power in Iran. To be fair, when asked if he would give military aid to the opposition, he demurred.

3) The price of petroleum is determined by both supply and demand. North America has 3% of the world’s proven petroleum reserves and it just is never going to be able to pump enough again to have a significant impact on world prices. Moreover, increased supply would be gobbled up by massive increased demand from Asia, including not just China but also India and many others. There is no prospect of a significant fall in Iran’s income from energy exports short of a Chinese economic crash, which would hurt the US as well. Even if the world can switch to solar in short order (which Cain opposes), Iran is well placed to produce a lot of solar energy, as well. Indeed, Iranian solar electricity generation would be impossible to boycott.

Then Mitt Romney said he could have done a better job in deterring Iran’s nuclear enrichment program than has Obama. But you will note that the Bush administration could not do anything about it, and there is absolutely no reason to think that Romney could, either. General James Cartwright testified last year that only an invasion and occupation of Iran could stop the program. Romney thinks he could have forced Russia to cooperate with sanctions on Iran, but it is all just hot air. Russia has substantial economic relations with Iran that it is not going to sacrifice to make Mitt Romney happy.

Romney continued,

“Fin– finally, the president should have built credible– threat of military action, and made it very clear that the United States of America is willing, in the final analysis, if necessary, to take military action to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Look, one thing you can know– and that is if we reelect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if we elect Mitt Romney, if you’d like me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon.”

Romney urges “crippling sanctions.” But the only crippling sanction would be a blockade of Iranian petroleum exports, which would send the price of petroleum through the roof and would be an act of war. Russia and China will not cooperate in “crippling sanctions” at the UN, so they’d be purely American and Western European, and ultimately ineffectual without a military blockade– which would lead to war.

Romney also urges aid to Iranian “insurgents.” But there are no Iranian insurgents. If he means the People’s Jihadis (Mojahedin-e Khalq or MEK), they are about as popular in Iran as Mormonism is in Alabama. Nor has the MEK ever shown significant “insurgent” operational ability. And, actively funding an “insurgency” is an act of war.

Romney can’t stop Iran’s nuclear enrichment program (there is no proven nuclear weapons program). His promise to do so is either dishonest, as with Nixon’s secret plan to end the Vietnam War, or belligerent– because he must know that only an invasion and occupation could accomplish this goal. A mere military strike on some centrifuges would not stop the Iranians, and it could very possibly set off another Mideast War.

Romney is actively campaigning on a “we’re going to war again” platform. He should be taken seriously when he says this.

Newt Gingrich advocated a robust set of covert operations inside Iran to disrupt the nuclear enrichment program or perhaps the regime in general, which he said should be “deniable.” He urged covert cooperation with Israel in Iran.

But “covert” operations most often do not stay “deniable.” CIA pilot Gary Powers’ U-2 overflights of the Soviet Union became public. Israel’s covert operations in Egypt in the 1950s, in which it planned and carried out attacks on US targets in that country in hopes of blaming them on the Abdel Nasser regime and so souring relations between Cairo and Washington– became public when the plot was penetrated and broken up by Egyptian intelligence. The “Lavon Affair” roiled Israeli politics for years.

In an age of Wikileaks, Newt thinks the way to go is “covert operations” and “deniability”?

And if the covert operations did not work? Gingrich said,

“And I agree entirely with Governor Romney, if in the end, despite all of those things– the dictatorship persists, you have to take whatever steps are necessary to break its capacity to have a nuclear weapon.”

Likewise, Rick Santorum said a lot of predictably belligerent things about Iran. But none of them are practical. He doesn’t know that Iran’s current program depends on centrifuge technology, which is easy to spread around here and there, and is not like a single nuclear reactor such as Osirak in Iraq, which the Israelis bombed in 1981. (Actually, since Osirak was a light water reactor built by the French with safeguards, it could not have been used to make a nuclear warhead; Iraq only ramped up its nuclear weapons program after the Israelis attacked the innocent reactor). So Santorum’s suggestion of “working with the Israelis” to bomb Iran is laughable. The Israelis probably couldn’t even get back from such a mission. They want the US to do it. And the mission, i.e., air strikes on a few centrifuges, is a fool’s errand, since you could only disrupt, not stop, the enrichment program that way.

As Ron Paul pointed out, neither Romney nor Gingrich said anything about going to Congress for a declaration of war on Iran. Rather they used the language of the imperial presidency.

Actually, the US lived with a Soviet and a Chinese Communist bomb, and it could live with an Iranian one. But, as with Iraq 2002, the alleged Iranian nuclear warhead does not actually exist and there is no early prospect of it existing.

These people just like the idea of war. War is good for munitions firms and security firms, who give a lot of money to Republican candidates. They’re actively looking for a war. It is good for business, for them.

As for the rest of us, think about this:

The US credit rating was cut because its debt ($14 trillion) came to equal its annual gross domestic product ($14.5 trillion).

If it hadn’t been for the Iraq War, which was entirely paid for by borrowed money, the US debt would have been only $13 trillion, and there would have been no downgrade. When a country’s credit rating is downgraded, it makes it more expensive to borrow money, which makes the debt increase, in a vicious cycle.

So Mssrs. Romney and Gingrich should be made to tell us how they will pay for a war on Iran. Iran is nearly 3 times as populous as Iraq, and Iran’s area is 636,296 sq miles, whereas Iraq’s is 167,400 square miles. I’d say it is a fair bet that an Iran War would cost the US three times what Iraq cost– i.e. an Iran War would cost the rest of us $3 trillion off the bat, and another $6 trillion over the lifetime of the wounded veterans’ care.

Since all the Republicans are against raising taxes on their cronies among the billionaires, there would only be one way to pay for a $9 trillion Iran War, which would be to abolish social security and medicare. Maybe accomplishing that long-desired goal is even what drives the Republican frontrunners to their fantastic dreams of another Middle Eastern War.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Posted in Uncategorized | 33 Responses | Print |

33 Responses

  1. Well said, really liked this article.
    That’s true. We are strongly against Iranian Regime but that doesn’t mean we are going to get weapon against our people. We continue out non-violent movement to reform from inside.

    Any attack from outsiders especially from Americans who do not have good reputation among Iranians (A Coup against democratic government in Iran in 50s, Helping Iraq with weapons during the 8 year war, firing at Iranian Airbus and killing 290 innocent civilian passengers plus over 3 decades of sanction that only hurt my people) are the things that we never forget leave alone accepting arms and fund from them.

    Attacking Iran only make the dictatorship in Iran stronger and make leave their hands open to crackdown the opposition like us.

  2. To paraphrase John Lennon….Imagine there was no Israeli lobby. It’s very likely there would not have been an invasion of Iraq and we certainly not see the false hysteria created around Iran’s nuclear ambition.

    On Amanpour’s show yesterday, she hosted two gentlemen who discussed Iran’s nuclear program. At no point during the segment, and I thought this was extremly telling, is that no one pointed out that Iran’s nuclear program was, as far as we know, was for peacefull purposes. The entire debate centered around Iran’s (mythical) nuclear weapons program.

  3. I just wanted to say something about the Iran / nuclear weapons issue. I suggest Juan that the most viable argument is that no country has the right to tell another country what to do. And if the US appears to have no problem with Pakistan, China, Russia, and India having nuclear weapons, there is no rational basis for assuming that Iran’s possession of that item would be a problem. Every country in the world that has obtained nuclear weapons has behaved very responsibly with them. And examining Iran’s extra-country actions, there is no reason at all to assume they would be differ.

    Once you use such an argument, it becomes obvious it is irrational to assume there is any real life basis for being concerned about Iran having nuclear weapons. And, therefore, as soon as any government, such as ours, Israel, or various European counties object to Iran, we immediately announce it is obvious they have a hidden agenda at the root of their objections, and begin to examine what is that hidden agenda; thereby turning the spotlight from Iran to the obviously devious actions of the objecting government; leading us eventually discovering what crime they are attempting to cover up with this Iran diversion.

    • the only country that has behave irresponsibly after obtaining nuclear weapons is the united states of america.

  4. Leaders of the Republican Party have no concept of cause- and-event, and its shortsightedness is not limited to Iran. They are living in as much of a Condi Rice dream world that never actually existed on foreign policy issues as they do on domestic policy and events.

    The whole field of candidates seem to be part of a story line in a Laurel and Hardy movie rather than serious contenders for the American presidency.

  5. “If he means the People’s Jihadis (Mojahedin-e Khalq or MEK), they are about as popular in Iran as Mormonism is in Alabama.” Funny. Excellent piece, this.

  6. I again want to point out the issue of capacity or capability as opposed to actual weapons, from Gingrich:
    “And I agree entirely with Governor Romney, if in the end, despite all of those things– the dictatorship persists, you have to take whatever steps are necessary to break its capacity to have a nuclear weapon.”
    Capacity to have a nuclear weapon is legal. Some people think the Additional Protocols – which Iran has not ratified and which is not in force regarding Iran – would make nuclear weapons capabilities illegal. That is not true and Iran has offered to implement the Additional Protocols if the US demand which is against the NPT that Iran stop enrichment is dropped.

    A former defense minister of Japan puts it:
    “I don’t think Japan needs to possess nuclear weapons, but it’s important to maintain our commercial reactors because it would allow us to produce a nuclear warhead in a short amount of time,” former Japanese Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba told the conservative periodical Sapio in recently published remarks.

    Japan implements the Additional Protocols. Japan’s legal nuclear weapons capability is not a loophole but the NPT as it was negotiated.

    If the US wants there to be a special rule for Israel’s region, that is something the US should debate openly. Doing “tremendous” harm (according to Barack Obama) to Iran’s economy to coerce Iran to relinquish capabilities that are legal outside of Israel’s region causes harm to real people, to say nothing of the program of assassinations now being orchestrated by the US and Israel.

    If preventing legal technological capabilities from reaching Iran and the other 400 million non-Jews in Israel’s region is part of the cost of keeping an enforced Jewish political state viable, then maybe the cost of that is too high.

  7. “War’s good business, so give your sons.” — Grace Slick, from “Rejoyce”

    It is horribly shameful that the US has descended to this — behaving like any of the worst, most arrogant empires through history, full of fear, ready to launch sneak attacks on any perceived rival, no matter how nebulous the threat. It was only as recently as 1962 that RFK argued against attacking Russian missile sites in Cuba on the grounds of not wanting his brother to be “the American Tojo.” We’ve had a number of American Tojos since then, and the prospect of more to come.

    All out of fear and paranoia — fear of a country that has not attacked us, is not threatening to attack us, a fear that’s more Israel’s than America’s. To launch a war on the basis of what you fear *might* happen is simply immoral and illegal. I might fear all sorts of imagined terrors from my neighbors, but that doesn’t entitle me to open fire on them in their homes. That would be the act of a madman — what do we call it when a nation acts in this way?

    The rest of the world needs to clamp down on this unilateral US aggression and hegemonic behavior, sooner than later, before millions more suffer.

  8. I saw a comment on another website yesterday that seems to make sense: The Republicans are fielding fools to ensure Obama is re-elected; he is then set up to take the fall that is soon inevitable.

  9. They sound like a bunch of foolish old men chasing after a young girl, each one bragging and posturing for her attentions, only in this case it is war they are chasing after not sex. Even the foolish old men are wiser than they are.

  10. The blog below gives Romney’s links to tortures. Many of the people Romney has placed on his 2012 campaign staff.

    Mitt Romney Torture Series

    link to

    Yes, Romney will go to war. This prediction has been stated by Joel Skousen. Joel attempted to give Romney a sideways endorsement.

    link to

    The Romney family has many questionable alliances and loyalties, most are not in the best interest of America, or Americans.

    As one who has had years of personal experience with the Romney family, they are a family liberals, conservatives and independents should be most concerned over. If most American realized and knew of the Romney families entanglement they would be very fearful Mitt gaining access to the White House.

  11. I agree. Well put and to the point. Any attack on Iran would be devastating for all concerned, and is completely unjustifiable unless you are Mcdonnell Douglas, Raytheon et al. Gwynne Dyer made a good point that secretly building one or two nukes would be pointless, as it is for deterring others that nukes are used. Ahmedinejad himself said that Iran would hardly use its one purported bomb against Israel with hundreds, USA with 5133 nukes; the “West” is behaving quite irrationally, just to back up Israel and its uninspected but known nukes and its belligerence and threats.

  12. Surely Karl Rove is muttering to himself at what could be a missed opportunity for the GOP. How can the GOP hope to win with such ignorance from its presidential candidates? These clowns make it easier for Obama to look “presidential.” Yesterday Bill Moyers said about the OWS, “They need to become a political movement instead of a grievance committee.” What chance for an OWS third party to emerge and occupy the presidential election?

  13. Everybody is all so intense about the nitty-gritty of this or that little or large conflict. I guess because so many of us are used to thinking in terms of reified, personified, hypostatizationified “nations” acting like patrons in a redneck bar. How about taking a step back and looking at history-as-data-set rather than some kind of glorified game of RISK, where “we” get to put one over on “them?” And get rich in the process? Instead of “Et Carthago est delenda,” our little empire’s got “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb-Iran.” Much catchier beat. And a host of idiots telling us why it’s the Right Thing to Do.

    Here’s a nice little “cliodynamical” take on the very likely not-so-distant future for America, the Empire: link to

    With all the chatter about the rise of China, our possible economic collapse, and climate change, it is little wonder that Americans might be growing preoccupied with our nation’s staying power. Is the rise of the United States a fleeting moment in world history, or simply the beginning of many centuries of American ascendancy?

    It might seem like a question for pundits to argue over, pessimists against optimists. But there is another way to answer the question as well: with some data.

    History is filled with examples of powers much like America — nations whose wealth and influence allowed them outsized effects on the world. In the past, they were empires; America doesn’t usually see itself that way, but its wealth and influence put it in this peer group. And once we place it there, we can look at the lifetimes of lots of empires, see how long they’ve lasted, and use this to gain a bit of insight into our American situation.

    This kind of approach, using a quantitative approach to understand history, is part of what has recently begun to be called cliodynamics…

    Each civilization thinks that it is exceptional, and it might be frustrating to see the survival of empires as so deeply unpredictable. But it’s also deeply humanizing to think about history this way. The human story is full of individual details, but it also has pattern and overall mathematical shape. And when we start to see it that way, we recognize that each civilization, no matter how alien or familiar it may seem, is but a single value within an overall distribution that enfolds us all.

    Naaaah, that couldn’t be right — could it?

    Of course, maybe the Occupiers have tapped into some kind of hive mind that might lead to a homeostatic econoecologiculture. Or maybe not, since the Libertarians seem to be dominating a lot of the Assembling, with their particular brand(s) of Dissembling.

    Beware the Ides of March, and lean and hungry men, and women, and overweight ones too.

  14. “GOPers Promise you War on Iran…” – Juan Cole.

    Which is completely consistent with Obama’s latest statement:

    “We are not taking any options off the table. Iran with nuclear weapons would pose a threat not only to the region but also to the United States.”

    link to

  15. These fools are nothing more than an embarrassment to the people of the U.S.A. Trying to out-stupid each other, is mind boggling, to say the least. I wonder just how much money these idiots are raking in with all these debates, as well as the suckers contributing to their campaigns? Only in America!

  16. Once again, spot on with your estimation of the Persian v United States situation. It seems nearly impossible to imagine one of these cretins actually being, even in a joking way, considered as a presidential candidate of this one-time great country.

    I had a number of opportunities to stand up or otherwise expose my frail flesh and bones to the outpouring of various and sundry weapons utilized by the People’s Army of North Vietnam. I regret I did not after seeing what my country has turned into.

  17. A few nukes on Tehran would take care of Iran as a viable modern nation, Persians, and to a large extent Shiites for good. It is the only possible way to achieve the fever dreams of America, and Israel, and the Saudi’s too when you come right down to it. I consider this well within the realm of probability. Much higher with a Republican in the White House of course.

    I am not sure why it is suppressed but the hard right of old, today’s center, thought not nuking Russia and China in the late 40’s early 50’s was insane and traitorous. All roads of the right lead to the US beginning to use nuclear weapons.

    These are black thoughts but they should be put on the table. It’s an unstated subtext to many things now. Although Bush specifically did not rule out the use of nukes against Iran. Strange how that is forgotten.

  18. Meanwhile Obama promises you the opposite… yet delivers the same result. Also, pinning the blame on Republicans for supporting torture ignores what we don’t know about Obama’s massively expanded secret prisons for instance at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan or his brand new one in Somalia (see of course Jeremy Scahill in The Nation if you missed that article).

  19. If Iran’s leaders were listening to the debate, how could they help but conclude that most of the potential candidates for the GOP nomination, and thus the potential President, are anxious to do extreme harm to their country.

    They might also conclude that “not having a bomb” would not deter US military violence against them. Saddam Hussein had no WMD from 1991 on, but that did not deter the US from organizing and enforcing eleven years of harsh sanctions, followed up by a full invasion.

    On the other hand “having a bomb” has served North Korea quite well in keeping US Shock and Awe at bay. An argument might be made that Iran needs a few nuclear or atomic bombs (not nearly as many as Israel has), and a reliable delivery system, in order to maintain Middle East peace.

    Change subject. When it comes to foreign policy and national security, I think Ron Paul is the most sensible major politician in the US, Democrat or Republican. This country might be better off if the next President gave him two portfolios, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. He is quite unique in that he has humanity, just what those two departments can use a dose of.

  20. Well, once we’ve started a regional conflagration and turned the whole world against us, it will be relatively easy for the new President to declare a state of emergency and rewrite the Constitution, financial system and budget to advance his personal agenda. That’s far more important than actually paying for the war.

    And once he’s crushed all domestic resistance, there is always the option of using our nuclear arsenal to literally blackmail the world to cancel our debts and supply us with cheap oil. I mean, we rational people consider that unthinkable, but there seem to be millions of Americans who would gamble on that in a last-ditch attempt to preserve the comforts and privileges that make their lives worth living. Let’s goad Herman Cain into running it up the flagpole, and then with great fear, let’s count how many salute.

  21. AMERICANS MUST BOYCOTT THE RIGGED DEBATES that do not show how candidates would function as the President.

    Professor, your debate comments are pertinent, concise, clear and easily understood since you take the time needed to prepare thorough and researched informed comments. I wouldn’t be surprised if before blogging your comments you discuss them with your peers and with experts in areas you lack expertise in.

    Your preparation is what the candidates must do to show to the listeners how they would function as the President, not as a quiz show contestant.

    The debates are rigged Hollywood quiz shows with time limits and that also favor candidates with positive or negative questions. These debates entertain but at the sacrifice of showing how the candidates would actually perform as the President. They present useless indications of how they perform under pressure with time constraints without any real in depth study, research, analyses or preparation. Who gives a damn about this showmanship aspect?

    Hasn’t America witnessed enough of how the smooth talking, lawyer educated Obama has or hasn’t performed on issues? Some of his decisions appear corrupt and do not show thorough, researched and analytical results.

    The public must be awakened to the importance of experiencing if and how candidates might perform thorough and researched analyses on debate topics to make intelligent decisions. This is what has to be seen and determined.

    In the real world, the President’s decisions and actions are probably based most of the time on thorough understanding of each issue which includes making assignments, having discussions, meetings, written and verbal summaries and reports, and lots of interchange. Very seldom decisions in one or two minutes.

    Thus, the following reformat for “Intelligent Debates”
    Let the delegates sit at tables. Who wouldn’t get a wee exhausted standing for two or more hours?

    1. Only 1 debate topic. Two if topics readily debated.

    2. Extend debate time to about 2 hours with a break.

    3. Topic delivered to candidates 5 week prior to debate.

    4. Candidates will deliver NLT 29 days prior to debate complete answers including charts, tables & references to the Debate Review Board and to all candidates. All submitted answers will be reviewed for clarity, truth, mistakes and malarkey. The Review Board will return material with written notes on each paragraph indicating:

    a. Paragraph accepted.

    b. Paragraph needs proof and references, otherwise barred from Debate.

    c. Paragraph verbose, not pertinent. Correction required or barred from Debate.

    d. References with web addresses must be available for instant view online. Otherwise material barred from Debate.

    Debate Calendar
    Days to Debate Mandatory Action
    35 Candidates receive Debate topic.

    29 Each Candidate delivers initial answers to
    all candidates and Debate Review Board.

    23 Review Board delivers first review of “all
    submitted answers” to each candidate.

    17 Each candidate delivers their first revised
    answers to all candidates & Review Board.

    11 Review Board delivers second review of “all
    submitted answers to each candidate.

    5 Each candidate delivers final revised
    answers to all candidates & Review Board.

    1 Review Board delivers final review of “all
    submitted answers to each candidate.

    Any paragraph not accepted during final review is barred from Debate. Candidates and their staff should know what’s acceptable or not after two reviews, otherwise tough luck.

    To make it clear, each candidate will receive copies of all other candidates initial, reviewed and revised answers. No surprise material during Debate allowed. But if the majority of both the referees and the candidates approve by vote, each candidate can speak on 2 or 3 new or forbidden articles.

    Approximate Timing for Each Candidate
    1. Presentation of formal answer each topic 3 minutes
    2. Answer questions for candidates 5 ”
    3. Answer questions from moderator 3 ”
    4. Answer questions from audience 3 ”

    Total Debate Time on the order of 2 hours.

    Get it. The candidates will show how they might really perform working with their staff doing actual research and analyses.

    No more circumlocution, bureaucratese, goggledygook from the candidates and moderators.

    Why not throw in an automatic off button so that if 2 of 3 referees judge that a candidate is not answering an open question from the audience or from an opponent or not sticking to the subject matter, his speaker is turned off and he’s asked to make his point clear and concise.

    more than enough

  22. Condaleezza Rice is the creator of the term “pre-emptive strike” and the concepts behind it, first appearing in an academic paper she authored during her professorial tenure. To tell you honestly, this term makes me feel physically nauseous whenever I read or hear it being employed,and most recently with regard to Iran. I am shocked and amazed to learn that I am not alone, and many if not most Americans are also experiencing similar nausea now that the war drums are beating again and talk of a “pre-emptive strike” is on the roadmap for Iran. The Republicans in the last debate just lost the 2012 election.

  23. Dr. Cole,

    Great piece. I just have one small bone to pick:

    “If it hadn’t been for the Iraq War, which was entirely paid for by borrowed money, the US debt would have been only $13 trillion, and there would have been no downgrade. When a country’s credit rating is downgraded, it makes it more expensive to borrow money, which makes the debt increase, in a vicious cycle.”

    This may be theoretically true, but in reality the downgrading of US debt was followed, ironically, by a rush INTO US bonds, thereby lowering the cost of borrowing even further than its already extremely low levels. The markets don’t seem to believe the ratings agencies all that much.

  24. Until the corruption of our political system is taken out of the equation, then this “KABUKI” will continue. If the money angle is removed, then the field of fools will be eliminated. After all, that’s the only motivation that draws them out into the public arena. Power may play a roll too, but as we’ve witnessed since Nixon, it’s the shadow that pulls the strings. It’s time for a new system, one without the “Godfather” aspect, for even it has been corrupted beyond any sense of fairness. There are just too many people in the world for the old ways of doing business. We need one that is fair, that doesn’t make those who are not in the top echelon, slaves for such. Greed has been allowed to corrupt, the law has taken a back seat, if not eliminated. Control is at the barrel of the gun, those who have the gun, control those that don’t have one. Perhaps, the time has come, for human kind to become extinct, which probably will happen, especially if one of these fools ever get the seat of P.O.T.U.S.

  25. “The US credit rating was cut because its debt ($14 trillion) came to equal its annual gross domestic product ($14.5 trillion).”
    Not true. The credit rating was cut (by one agency) because of doubts about our willingness to fund our debt, not our financial ability to do so. We can sell bonds very readily at very low interest rates, but Congress insists on setting conditions before it will authorize raising the ceiling and thus giving the authority to continue borrowing.
    At the end of World War II our deficit was 125% of the GDP, and we had no trouble with our credit rating, with selling bonds, and with paying down the debt.

Comments are closed.