All Hank, all the time.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is batshit crazy:

• Over 10 years, the companies hired are projected to collect overdue taxes totaling $1.4 billion, $330 million of which the companies keep as fees. According to the IRS' own estimates, over those same 10 years, the agency could collect $87 billion in unpaid taxes at a cost of just under $300 million — if allowed to hire sufficient personnel. In total, utilizing the private sector instead of augmenting IRS personnel would leave in the hands of delinquent taxpayers more than $85 billion owed to the federal government.

Spanky, is there someone you can call about this?

The numbers in that paragraph make no sense. They say it's 8 times less efficient (3c v. 23c) but will collect 80x the revenue for the same cost?

Second, I suspect this is applees to oranges. The collection rates now are for larger delinquencies, whic of course are cheaper to collect. Furthermore, I suspect that they aren't taking into account the compromises they give (i.e., we'll settle for half). Turning it over to a private collection agency, for the small stuff, with compromise authority, will naturally lead to lower collections.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
This seems like an absurd question.

1) No one knows, except for people with security clearance, if there were WMDs after Desert Fox. You make it sound like you and I can access information that would shed light on the subject. We can not.

2) What I do know that it is painfully obvious that operation Desert Fox did not wipe out Saddam Husseins WMD program. Either it was moved or Saddam destroyed it, but to suggest Clinton took it out with Operation Desert Fox is just absurd.

Spanky, we invaded the country. We sent a lot of people over to look for WMD and WMD programs. This is what they concluded.

Here is NPR (I know -- they're ideologically biased too):

• Operation Desert Fox ::: 1998
  Cooperation ends between Iraq and inspectors when the country demands the lifting of the U.N. oil embargo. UNSCOM and the IAEA pull their staffs out of Iraq in anticipation of a US-led air raid on Iraqi military targets. The four-day military offensive known as Operation Desert Fox begins on December 16, 1998. According to a U.S. military Web site, the mission of Desert Fox was "to strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction." The operation is considered a success, largely finishing off what was left of Iraq' s WMD infrastructure.

If David Kay said that Iraq's WMD infrastructure was effectively addressed by Desert Fox, would you accept the proposition as non-absurd?

And is there any other claim that Ricks has made that seems facially absurd to you, or is your accusation that he's biased based solely on your disagreement on this point?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky, we invaded the country. We sent a lot of people over to look for WMD and WMD programs. This is what they concluded.

Here is NPR (I know -- they're ideologically biased too):

• Operation Desert Fox ::: 1998
  Cooperation ends between Iraq and inspectors when the country demands the lifting of the U.N. oil embargo. UNSCOM and the IAEA pull their staffs out of Iraq in anticipation of a US-led air raid on Iraqi military targets. The four-day military offensive known as Operation Desert Fox begins on December 16, 1998. According to a U.S. military Web site, the mission of Desert Fox was "to strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction." The operation is considered a success, largely finishing off what was left of Iraq' s WMD infrastructure.

If David Kay said that Iraq's WMD infrastructure was effectively addressed by Desert Fox, would you accept the proposition as non-absurd?

And is there any other claim that Ricks has made that seems facially absurd to you, or is your accusation that he's biased based solely on your disagreement on this point?

Sure: The bombing hurt the infrastructure but it is virtually impossible that the bombing took out all the WMDs. Actually missiles, not bombing. Of course the administration is biased, but have they confirmed this? As Sagan said, extraordinary claims take extraordinary evidence. Unless the evidence is conclusive I just don't buy it. This allegation, is just too perfect for the Clinton does everything right and Bush does everything wrong crowd.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Right now to write a good book on what is going on in Iraq you would have to be privy to stuff that only the military and the administration knows. They most certainly aren't releasing all the relevant information, and most of the reporters are flying blind. It will be years before a descent book can be written. At least that is my opinion.

Aaaaaaaah!!! Aaaaaaah!!!! Aaaaaaah!!!!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
We turned the tide of the war in Afghanistan and ended that conflict rather quickly

And now appear to be losing the peace, as the Taliban gains power while we are occupied elsewhere. Biggest missed opportunity of the Bush Admin, IMHO.

and Rumsfield was right in that we didn't need a lot of troops to conquer Iraq. That invasion was text book. He has done some stuff wrong, but he has done a lot of things right.

I don't think anyone thought we needed a lot of troops to conquer Iraq. The issue was how many troops we needed to occupy Iraq in order to avoid chaos, civil war, and the quagmire we are in today.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And now appear to be losing the peace, as the Taliban gains power while we are occupied elsewhere. Biggest missed opportunity of the Bush Admin, IMHO.






I don't think anyone thought we needed a lot of troops to conquer Iraq. The issue was how many troops we needed to occupy Iraq in order to avoid chaos, civil war, and the quagmire we are in today.

I was asked if he ever did anything right. I was pointing out the right things he did. I never said he did everything right.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Sure: The bombing hurt the infrastructure but it is virtually impossible that the bombing took out all the WMDs.

OK. But Ricks didn't say that "the bombing took out all the WMD." The transcript again:

• HH: There are a number of very fascinating passages in Fiasco, which is why everyone should read this, and I want to get to them serially, Thomas Ricks. First, I want to get to the WMD question. Any doubt in your mind that George W. Bush and his team and the Pentagon career believed there were WMD there when the war began?
  
  TR: No doubt whatsoever. I think they drank their Kool-Aid, and talked themselves into it, on the basis of no evidence. But yeah, they believed it.
  
  HH: When you write that Operation Desert Fox was tremendously successful, you're concluding that those WMD were there in 1998? Or did Clinton drink the Kool-Aid as well?
  
  TR: Yeah, there were WMD facilities in '98, and they were taken out pretty effectively by those raids. The most effective aspect of the Desert Fox raids, though, which we didn't recognize at the time, it's very difficult to pull out, was the psychological effect. The message sent to Iraqi weapons scientists was Uncle Sam is not going to let Saddam Hussein have this stuff. And their hard work of seven years, after the '91 war, was taken out. It was destroyed.
  
  HH: Can it really be said to be, "drinking the Kool-Aid", as you just said, to conclude that that which had been destroyed in 1998 would immediately be begun to be rebuilt, even as Saddam had begun to rebuild after 1991. Or would it have been prudent, post-9/11, to conclude that Saddam then, as Saddam now, is Saddam always?
  
  TR: Well, that would, but it would be untethered from the realities of Iraq, which was that the country was becoming increasingly poor, weaker, had a less strong military, and that in fact, the '98 Desert Fox raids had almost toppled Saddam Hussein.

BTW, the fact that Hugh Hewitt (!) is telling people to read Fiasco suggests that what Ricks says can't be dismissed as ideologically biased.

Originally posted by Spanky
Actually missiles, not bombing.

No, you're wrong. Desert Fox involved both bombing and cruise missiles.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
I was asked if he ever did anything right. I was pointing out the right things he did. I never said he did everything right.

And you responded by pointing out one thing that he got, at best, half-right (Afghanistan) and another where he got it completely wrong. Taking Saddam out of power was the easy part and the debate about troops needed never centered on that.

If I the easier half of the questions right but blow all of the harder half, I fail the test.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


If David Kay said that Iraq's WMD infrastructure was effectively addressed by Desert Fox, would you accept the proposition as non-absurd?

Has David Kay ever said that? Here is one quote from him "On January 23, 2004, David Kay resigned stating that Iraq did not have WMD and that "I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Taking Saddam out of power was the easy part

That is easy to say with hindisght now. But the invasion was accomplished very quickly, efficienty, and with minimum loss of US Soldiers. But that is all beside the original point.

Absolute statements make me sckeptical. And I was pointing out that the guy made absolute statements about Rumsfield and Franks which makes me doubt his credibility.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

TR: Yeah, there were WMD facilities in '98, and they were taken out pretty effectively by those raids. The most effective aspect of the Desert Fox raids, though, which we didn't recognize at the time, it's very difficult to pull out, was the psychological effect. The message sent to Iraqi weapons scientists was Uncle Sam is not going to let Saddam Hussein have this stuff. And their hard work of seven years, after the '91 war, was taken out. It was destroyed.

What difference would the mindset of the scientist matter? If Sadaam is ordering them to do it don't you think they would?

HH: Can it really be said to be, "drinking the Kool-Aid", as you just said, to conclude that that which had been destroyed in 1998 would immediately be begun to be rebuilt, even as Saddam had begun to rebuild after 1991. Or would it have been prudent, post-9/11, to conclude that Saddam then, as Saddam now, is Saddam always?

TR: Well, that would, but it would be untethered from the realities of Iraq, which was that the country was becoming increasingly poor, weaker, had a less strong military, and that in fact, the '98 Desert Fox raids had almost toppled Saddam Hussein.

so poor countries can't build weapons program, even if driven by a dictator. cool. just solved the whole North Korea problem.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I think we can. That doesn't mean I want to spend every last dime researching SDI. I thought you were a Fiscal Conservative. Don't you want to restrict expensive government programs that don't work?

I am a fiscal conservative. But of all the things the government spends money on, my personal safety is at the top of the list. North Korea is developing the technology to kill me and is just crazy enough to use it. I would like our government to focus resources on doing something about that problem. SDI probably isn't even one percent of the annual federal budget (that would be 20 billion dollars per year). I think funding should be increased.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK. But Ricks didn't say that "the bombing took out all the WMD." The transcript again:

You stated this: (1) Bitch, please. Clinton is the one who destroyed the WMD programs.

I was arguing against that.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No, you're wrong. Desert Fox involved both bombing and cruise missiles.

I stand corrected

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Has David Kay ever said that? Here is one quote from him "On January 23, 2004, David Kay resigned stating that Iraq did not have WMD and that "I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them."

I think what he said is that a variety of different things, including sanctions, inspections and airstrikes, culminating in Desert Fox, essentially took care of Iraq's facilities. The allegation is not that the bombing destroyed every chem-capable artillery shell.