Posted on 09/19/2008 6:04:27 AM PDT by Kaslin
On the S & L crisis, there were many, but here's an easy one from wiki:
The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly referred to as the S&L crisis) was the failure of 747 savings and loan associations (S&Ls) in the United States. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD$160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. government—that is, the U.S. taxpayer, either directly or through charges on their savings and loan accounts[1]—which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s.
FIRREA: "The law enacted in August, 1989, to bail out the S&L crisis and create the Resolution Trust Corporation."
As for LTCM, as I said, it was "under Bill Clinton" that Greenspan helped "publicly organize" a bail-out. Of course the Fed's "concerns" influenced the situation greatly, if not with direct monies.
What is your definition of “bail out” and “government money” ?
When the Feds takeover a bank, the bank goes away. Owners and officers lose their ownership, jobs, etc.
The depositors get bailed out.
Yes, the Fed put the bankers in the same room. But no government money was involved. No guarantees. Nothing.
“Strawman argument. Nobody has said otherwise to what you said.”
So, you’re here to tell me what I think? Freedom means just that, and for all individuals in a nation. Afghanistan and/or Iraq might manage to remain democracies, but the nature of Islamic law and Arab traditions excludes true individual freedom and individual rights.
And, Bush has actually modified his statements over the years. The first quote I provided contained no qualifiers:
“I think two of the great ironies of history will be that there will be a Palestinian state and a democratic Iraq showing the way forward for people who desperately want to be free,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/28/politics/28prexy.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp&oref=slogin
Oh, yeah, they’re desperate to be free, but it won’t be anything an American would call real freedom, but he gave no clarifications. Your pulling one statement by Bush from a five year or six year period means nothing. I’ve heard him make many of those people desperate to be free statements and rarely if ever heard any qualifiers.
All that can really be said is that maybe they’ll remain democracies.
Oh, yeah, look at this:
“In the January 2003 State of the Union preceding the invasion of Iraq, Bush proclaimed that “Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation.” He continued: “The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity.”
NO distinctions in that from 2003.
http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/04/22/bush-benedict-and-freedom-as-gods-gift/
More from that link:
“The day after his meeting with the Pope at the White House, Bush aligned Benedict with his approach to freedom, God and—by extension—US foreign policy. “His Holiness believes that freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man, woman and child on Earth,” he told the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.”
Did Bush mean that God has different types of freedom for different people? Answer: NO, he meant the same type freedom for all peoples as did Bush, until he decided at some later point that if would never happen in Afghanistan and Iraq, so he started back peddling and modifying.
This was my original statement in comment #3, and it is 1,000% true, and Bush rarely ever made such qualifiers over these years, as is plain to see.
“Yep, Americans need to stop pretending that all people want American style, individual freedom and democracy. They don’t. Freedom means very different things in other parts of the world.”
Bush has been one of the ones pretending. But maybe he stopped somewhere along the line. But your statements are totally incorrect.
No straw man argument, but clear statements of fact. My original statement made clear distinctions between American style and what might evolve in Afghanistan and Iraq, which would not be anything an American would call freedom.
Then, the statement was made that Bush and I were in 100% agreement, which we definitely have not been based on most of Bush’s statements.
Bush seldom made any distinction between American freedoms and what freedoms might exist in Afghanistan and Iraq, for several years, as my links in #24 show.
Different people have responded to me so this summarizes the exchanges.
President Bush from April, 2004:
“And so what we’re doing right now is we’re defeating the enemy there so we won’t have to fight them here. But, as well, we’re working for freedom in the heart of a part of the world that needs freedom. You know, I can’t tell you how strongly I believe that — about the power of freedom. After all, it’s been a part of our national soul. We have proven how powerful freedom can be. We bring people from diverse backgrounds together under the mantel of a free society. We’re such a beacon.
“I believe freedom is not America’s gift to the world; I believe freedom is the almighty God’s gift to each man and women in this world. And therefore, as we work to not only make the homeland more secure, we work to spread freedom, which will make the world more peaceful. The enemy can’t stand the thought of free societies. That’s why they attacked us, see. And we’re not going to change. That’s what they don’t understand. There’s nothing they can do to intimidate, to make us change our deepest belief.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
Quote from around the middle of the WH press release.
Another example of Bush talking about spreading freedom with no qualification as to what type freedom might be spread to the Middle East.
When the US first invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq, the hope was that both nations would embrace American style freedom and democracy. Then, there were online discussions and MSM reports about how both nations insisted that their constitutions be based on sharia. That was a disappointment to many Americans, and many thought it represented a failure of our policy in those two nations.
I’m not doing the research because I know what I heard over those years, but I’d bet that some qualifications began creeping into Bush’s statements when it became apparent that the two Muslim nations would not be embracing US style freedom. And, in truth, they aren’t embracing individual rights and freedoms at all.
And what pray tell is either wrong with that statement or different from what you believe or indeed Thomas Jefferson penned in 1776? You want a consistent definition of freedom, but he has the same basic parameters and understanding. If you dont think people have inalienable rights and deserve freedom, you are outside the American tradition. Bush simply restated that. And it doesnt matter if not everyone in other cultures agrees that freedom is good... that's a strawman argument, not in dispute.
"So, you’re here to tell me what I think? " I am here to correct your false distancing of your beliefs from Bush. When you say "Bush is wrong, X is true" and Bush has said X in the past, one can only conclude you've been arguing strawmen. They are not different, based on your own words.
As for "democratic Iraq showing the way forward for people who desperately want to be free" it is without a doubt true that Iraq is freer now than under Saddam, selective fact-pulling notwithstanding. So Bush has grounds for his statement. The fact that sharia law exists is not more incompatible with that fact than were you to point to similar puritan laws based on similar religious restrictions on daily life and insist that the American colonies were inherently hostile to freedom. Iraq's consitution is the more liberal ie freedom-and-rights-oriented constitution, and the govt is living up to that in many ways. Citing imperfections is not a real rebuttal, its not a conservative thing to expect utopia and nobody is claiming that. The phrase usually goes "We dont expect Iraq to be a Jeffersonian democracy, but ... "
The original strawman argument was that Bush said the advance of freedom would be easy. he did not. Then the strawman that Bush somehow imagines the advance of these freedoms mean that he thinks those countries are as free as ours. He does not. You claim that freedom will not advance in other countries like it has in ours. BUSH AGREES, he knows that histories and traditions are different, and has said so and expressed it that way. In short, you are picking a fight with the president over nits.
If you would rather Iraq have stayed under a dictator and are just churlish about the idea of other people advancing - in their own historical ways - in freedom, then I would just suggest you reread our 1776 Declaration of Independence. The goal in iraq was to advance our national security, and the liberation of Iraq was done not for its own good (and it was a good thing), but for those benefits. Bush believes the advance of freedom globally helps our national security. He is right.
It’s clear you have an agenda to attack Bush for what are at worst harmless platitudes. This ...
“We have proven how powerful freedom can be. We bring people from diverse backgrounds together under the mantel of a free society. We’re such a beacon.”
- Is this not true?
“”The enemy can’t stand the thought of free societies. That’s why they attacked us, see. “ ...
- Is this not true?
Is it a dangerous and wrong statement?
You say:
“Another example of Bush talking about spreading freedom with no qualification as to what type freedom might be spread to the Middle East.”
It is specious reasoning to read something into his statements because he did not immediately contradict your extrapolation. This:
“When the US first invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq, the hope was that both nations would embrace American style freedom and democracy.”
- That is a false strawman. The fact is that while we might hope that they follow us as closely as they are able, the US gave its first commitment to sovereignty for these nations which means it is up to THEM how to develop their laws and constitutions. And I would add that the only people who have been proven definitely WRONG in how Iraq and Afghanistan turned out were the cynics who said that democracy would not work. It has, of course, we multiple successful elections in both countries.
The cynical view that the Iraqi constitution is anathema to freedom is wrong too. It grants religious liberty and multiple other rights and is the most liberal constitution in the Arab world. Combined with the multi-ethnic nature of the government and society and the fact that it has been doen in the wake of a totalitarian dictator and the threat of terrorists and religious extremists, it is an achievement worthy of praise, not condemnation because it fails to meet up with a standard (American-level freedoms) that you agree WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE anyway!
“I’m not doing the research because ...” - in the end you would come up with nothing that really supports your point. Bush’s platitude’s on behalf of the advance of global freedom
*Bumping* your good points
You are quite something at changing the subject and going off on tangents.
The statement was made that Bush and I were in 100% agreement on this. Not at all true. I’ve never believed the pollyannish line that the entire world is “desperate” for freedom as Americans define it. A fair number of “neocons” who put forth those ideas most frequently have since departed the Bush administration. I suspect because they’d said so many things that hadn’t come to pass a couple of years after Baghdad fell, that their continuing presence became something of an embarrassment.
Say whatever you care to, but Bush’s expectation and rhetoric was fairly soaring from early 2003 through 2004 or 2005, then we heard less and less about all the world being desperate for freedom. I hope he, and all those in government and most citizens have now learned that all people do not wish for American style freedom and democracy. Many do, but even most Russians seem to be giving up some of their freedoms willingly for a return to being a more powerful and influential nation as envisioned by the ex-KGB officer (whose soul Bush looked into and saw a good man). Believing Muslims never wanted American freedoms because it contradicts so much of their religious faith and ethnic customs.
“No man’s law above Allah’s law.” All Americans would do well to contemplate that, and realize that both Afghanistan and Iraq, when free to choose, insisted that their constitutions be based upon sharia, to the disappointment of most Americans. And that’s when the soaring rhetoric about freedom for all peoples became less soaring and more qualified.
And I care not what other tangents you choose to go off on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.