Actually, Bush & Co have repeatedly associated Iraq with 9/11.  He has tied them to Al Queda, which were Shia in a time when Sunni's ran Iraq.  Also Saddam was a very secular Muslim and not on Bin Laden's Buddy list.   Even recently, Palin tried to associate 9/11 with Iraq.   (I'm at work, so I cannot hunt sources, but I'm sure some of the other folks on Brides.Com can).   AFGHANISTAN harbored the individuals who were responsible, and they were a legitimate target.  Yet Bush literally said about Bin Laden:  "I don't know where he is, and frankly I don't spend that much time worrying about him."   (you can look it up.  The man did say that almost verbatim.  Bin Laden...the guy who was responsible for 9/11, who Bush went all cowboy on...he doesn't know and doesn't care where he is.)

We went to war with Iraq because they attacked us, because of WMDs (never found), to protect Iraq from a dictator, to spread democracy, to fight terrorism.   Pick a week, the reason has changed and even now, I don't know the real reason that WE started the Iraq war.  Okay, I do (oil), but that's not a reason to go to war.  I don't know the true legitimate reason.  Iraq did not attack us and did not have the capacity to attack us. 

The fact is that Bush lied, over stated, stretched the truth, used faulty information that his administration had been told was faulty, to make his case for war in Iraq.  That has been documented.   He also promised to exhaust all diplomatic means, but wanted Congress to authorize military force if he needed it as a backup.  That's when he stopped diplomacy.  He used it as his first means rather than last means.

Now we're in a "You Broke it, you bought it" situation in the middle east, and McCain and Bush are both taking similar positions about Iran over nukes that they do not have the technology for yet.   He's trying the same trick in Iran.  And McCain is talking tough about Russia.

Exactly where are the troops he's going to need to fight these other two wars?  We can't do a draft, naturally... so where are these troops going to come from?  We're already overextended, so much so that the National Guard has a hard time maintaining the home front in cases of disasters (their primary mission), and adding two more fronts is going to make it even worse.

You can be respected without being a bully.

Okay, just this last comment. Mavjen, your posts make me want to dance. You express reality in such clear and concise terms. I generally tiptoe around that issue because people don't like feeling accused of not taking personal financial responsibility, but it's true for a lot of people. I heard another statistic that said Americans spent more money than they earned in 2007, which is the first time that's happened since the Great Depression. People are not saving - it's the main cause of the debt crisis, so in many ways, we've done this to ourselves, and the government is hardly to blame.

Okay, really really going now.

Woman to my man. Slave to my budget.

I can speak to the mortage lenders.  Have you seen some of the loans that they made in the past five years as regulations got looser and looser?  These are just in the PRIME business (people with good credit).  They went from requiring 20% (80% LTV) or 10% (90% LTV) down in conventional loans to offering 103% LTV loans.  They did a lot of loans wehere they took the sales price at face value without the benefit of an appraisal.   They did verbal verifications of employment only in a market where fraud became more and more technologically advanced.  We can't be held accountable for the fraud, but the documentation requirements being loosened lost the double checks that could have prevented some of the straw buyer (fake buyers who were paid to get the loan) situations.

Add to that really annoying loan programs being allowed:  5/1 Interest Only Arms.  5 years, you pay interest only on your mortgage, and then at the end of that, your interest rate can adjust up to 5% higher than the present one, and you add on principal, AND you have no equity in your home.   (These were made popular guess when.... FIVE YEARS ago. Hmmmm..)   Regulators should have denied those types of loans.  Fannie and Freddie should not have been offering them.  They should have only been offered to certain profession paths (like doctors in residency). 

Add to this the sub-prime lenders, who are really and truly often predatory.  These are lenders who offer interest rates up to 8% above prime, because the people getting them already have bad credit and can't get the good rates with the cushy payments.  These people truly didn't need these loans.

Or lenders who are paid commission not by the loan amount, but by the program they put the borrower in.  Higher risk loans have higher commissions, but are worse for borrowers.  Instead of getting the best loan for the borrower, these crafty and unscrupulous lenders would get the best commission for them.  Proper regulation would have been insuring that the programs were the best for the borrower.

Not to mention those who were disclosed one thing at the start and then got an entirely different loan at the closing table, and would be told by attorneys and their loan officer to go ahead and sign and they'd get it fixed.  Once you sign, that is your mortgage.  PERIOD.  The lender doesn't need to fix it. 

A lot of untruth and fraudulent activities happened which regulation would have prevented.  And a lot of underwriting standards were reduced, even for companies which didn't practice fraudulent activities.  I've worked for two good, conservative companies, which did not do that.  Where the processors felt perfectly free to call the loan officer and say "hey, why are you sticking them under this program when X would get them a better rate and better terms?"  (As our LOs were paid the same commission, no matter the loan program, usually it was because they forgot about Program X or didn't know about it or didn't think the borrower would qualify....it wasn't to better line our pockets.) 

But because of the loosened underwriting standards, we still had to loan to people whose situation made us cringe, because not to do so would be discriminatory.  If we got a certain score, they were guaranteed and we could NOT turn them down.   Several times, I wanted to.  I'd look at their history, their ratios, their savings and say "this is a foreclosure waiting to happen" but they'd meet the guidelines and I'd just have to bite my tongue and issue the loan.  Because of the riskier credit guidelines issued without the proper regulation.

And I AM a military BRAT, by the way.  So while I consider it an honor to have served (and make no mistake...we dependants serve.  We don't get to volunteer...we're drafted as our family makes that decision) my country in making the sacrifices I made (unsung and unrespected), unless you are a military dependant, former military dependant, or in the military, please do not speak for us.

CatStandish, thanks for posting that information. It sheds a lot of light on the situation. Question is, who's responsible for the looser guidelines adopted by the lenders? Where did that encouragement for indiscriminate lending come from?

Again, I'm expressing my respect for military folks. Their opinions run the gamut as much as any other American's. I'm speaking based off of the people I know. I don't claim to speak for you. You've quite eloquently managed that yourself.

Also, the reason I've momentarily returned is because I realized I missed the last part of my response (Dear lord, there's MORE? Noooooo!!!!) So, here it is.....

World's Longest Response, Part.... 9, I think?

“What has happened these last eight years is not some historical anomaly, so we know what to expect if we try these policies for another four. When lobbyists run your campaign, the special interests end up gaming the system.”

Yep, it’s not an anomaly, but I think Obama is confused about what HAS happened in the last eight years. It sounds like he’s so focused on the current crisis, that he forgets about all that growth and those 5 million new jobs that occurred between 2003 and 2007. Like many Dems, he wants to rewrite history to support his current positions, because his good intentions justify such censorship. His statements repeatedly prove that he does not understand economics, which isn’t particularly surprising since he’s never worked in the private sector (so BRAVE of him). The only money Barack Obama has any experience with is taxpayer money. Rather than work to make money for a business, thereby creating jobs and wealth, Obama prefers to use the power of the federal government to demand (rather than earn) more money from American businesses and taxpayers, to pay for his pet social programs. I found that entertaining, too: the idea that he himself is not in the pocket of special interests is laughable. Obama has accepted $126,349 in donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the 2^nd highest in the Senate, and that’s just one example of how he’s as much in the pocket of irresponsible businesses as any politician.

The popular misconception that Obama’s ideas are new is very unfortunate. Google the history of socialist policies and see what you come up with….. and don’t forget the National Socialist party in Germany.

We've already covered a lot of of this, but I thought I'd toss it in anyway. Off to a meeting now.

Woman to my man. Slave to my budget.

I understand you weren't trying to disrespect military families...but my point is this:  maybe most that you know feel this way, it does not mean that most of us do.    By insisting that "most" feel that way (even after several other posters stated their military ties and position, I believe you still said 'most'), you are speaking for us.

I can understand that 'most military families you know' feel that way, and I'll respect their opinions.  It is, however, not necessarily the true position.  We do run the gamut and we are probably about with the rest of the country on it.  The difference is: the military service member signed up to protect the COUNTRY, not serve the PRESIDENT...and that feeling of service does not necessarily change based on the political climate of the country.  Many will still reenlist regardless of whether they disagree with the president or not, because they still want to serve the country as a whole.   (I was military, by the way, for a brief spat.   We promise to protect America from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  We don't promise to worship the president or agree with his policies.  We just promise to serve as we are commanded.).

 The only money Barack Obama has any experience with is taxpayer money. Rather than work to make money for a business, thereby creating jobs and wealth, Obama prefers to use the power of the federal government to demand (rather than earn) more money from American businesses and taxpayers, to pay for his pet social programs.

Has McCain had experience with non-taxpayer money?  I'm honestly curious, because if he has, I haven't heard about it.

Also, what "pet" social programs are you speaking of?  If we're going to get rid of them, let's be above ground about exactly what it is that we want to get rid of. 

__________________________________________
My new favorite website: www.poptimal.com

"I'd hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, or insanity, but they've always worked for me." Hunter S. Thompson

 . . . .since he’s never worked in the private sector (so BRAVE of him).

I detect a note of sarcasm there, and perhaps a dig at community organizers?

I don't know if I'd call it brave, but it most certainly is not the easy route and is possibly the most frustrating work imaginable.  If you've worked in the communities he was in, in the South Side of Chicago, or hang out in the inner-city ghettos where I grew up --then you know damn well that the easiest thing you can do is pick up and leave for the private sector (after all, that's what I did).  No one would blame you for it. 

We can argue as to whether it prepares him for being president (I don't think anyone is actually prepared to be president except people who have been president -- it's his experience asking the right questions that give me confidence, not his resume specifics) but the kind of dedication he has shown to being of service to the American People should be respected.  

In fact, it is this quality in McCain that has in the past been the one I've admired most.  I personally don't believe being a POW qualifies you to be President, but I do beleive that McCain has in many ways shown a willingness to put party over country -- to be an independent thinker and do what you believe is best for the Country's good.

That is, until he chose Palin, a cynical pick that has nothing to do with running the country and everything to do with getting elected.  It was his first decision as an executive, and he blew it.  But, then again, we've covered this ground. 

__________________________________________
My new favorite website: www.poptimal.com

"I'd hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, or insanity, but they've always worked for me." Hunter S. Thompson

Okay, I know I've replied to myself, like, a hundred times, but this is HI.LAR.I.OUS.

Recent blog post:

Sarah Palin Stands Up For Indoor Tanning

While partisan bloggers and the sun scare industry will use this as an opportunity to undermine Gov. Palin and demonize the indoor tanning industry, the fact is that Governor Palin’s decision to get UV light from a tanning bed positively impacts her health.

“Moderate amounts of indoor tanning allow Governor Palin to experience the many health benefits that come with exposure to UV light,” said Dan Humiston, President of the Indoor Tanning Association.  “Especially in dreary northern locations like Alaska, indoor tanning can help guard against wintertime depression and ward off diseases associated with vitamin D deficiency. Kudos to Governor Palin for standing up to dermatologists and other members of the sun scare industry who are trying to frighten Americans away from UV light.”

---------------------------------------------

Between the environment, abstinence education, and now tanning, it's like there's no scientific truth that this woman can't deny.  Now, to be fair, no she hasn't denied sun exposure can cause cancer, and probably does not even know about the Indoor Tanning Association's endorsement.  But, still, their support is a hoot and a half.  

__________________________________________
My new favorite website: www.poptimal.com

"I'd hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, or insanity, but they've always worked for me." Hunter S. Thompson