Besides Tony Blair being the only member of NATO supporting potential US military action against Iraq, and he stopping well short of removing Hussein from power, the only other nation that has expressed support in the world is Israel. Now, a new poll has come out that has 57% favoring giving the UN resolution on sending inspectors back to Iraq a chance to work while only 31% would oppose that action's delay in an attack. Also, by a 2 to 1 margin the American people want the incompetent Sapling to get Congressional APPROVAL before taking any military action. Seems like old Sapling has the same "military confidence" by the people as he has "consumer confidence", both of which sum to 0. You can only hide your gross ignorance so long, and in Sapling's case, it didn't take long for the American people to judge him a "30 watt light bulb trying to do a 100 watt" job.
And of course Dems are thrilled to have that debate in Congress! LOL The people want a full and thorough debate on this issue, I am sure Democratic campaign strategist are thrilled that Tiny Daschle will be given the opportunity to deliver this full debate through October! LOL
Democratic strategists I'm sure are concentrating on the economy Sapling would like to come up with a 'red scare' type of deal, now called 'terrorism alerts' because he nor his pathetic party officials want to discuss how they have run the US economy into the ditch and through Newtie Gingrich's "turn private enterprise loose" of the mid 90's has destroyed investor confidence in corporate accounting.
Democrat Stragegists WANT to concentrate. On the economy and the charade created by the previous administration that .com was going to propel the economy to lasting prosperity. Unfortunately for them, Tiny Daschle got what he asked for. A "full and thorough" debate on Iraq! LOL Another case of Tiny not doing his homework, don't ask for what you don't want and pretend to want it, you might just get it! The only question in this "full and thorough" debate is whether Lott will give time to the majority of Democrats who support action against Iraq or reserve it for his "side". And similarly, who will Tiny have to speak against action against Iraq other than Paul "2 Terms" Wellstone? I have an idea, why not let Torricelli, the alive part of the Carnahan family, Cleland, Johnson and Harkin speak in favor of Hussein? We want this debate to be "full and thorough" after all!
Re: Democrat Stragegists WANT to concentrate. Snipped most of your rambling reponse but will concentrate on the one area that wasn't drivel. There was no sham to the economy of the 90's related to what Clinton did. Clinton encouraged new technologies which indeed flourished and will remain as the industrial age gives way to the information age. Of course, it was Newtie Gingrich and the other elephant men who allowed conflicts of interest in accounting/consulting -- you know the bill they passed that CLINTON VETOED. So the blame lies squarely on those who were going to "turn private enterprise loose in this country". That was Newtie Gingrich and the rest of the bribed crowd of the GOP. Yes, the internet and certain technology areas were oversold, but that is to be expected with a new industry. Clinton put in place the incentives to encourage growth and the safeguards to prevent abuse. Newtie and YOUR party were the ones who screwed up the balance.
Auditing/Consulting is an issue of the "practice of law" Yes, the local bar associations were upset about the "Big" CPA firms treading on their turf with the "consulting" side of the businesses. But in truth, that had very little to do with the Enron and Global Crossing, et.al. fiascos. That was simply a case of poor auditing procedures and lack of oversight of the audit function of the CPA firms. But, I'm sure you have taken that up with Sen. Lieberman! LOL In fact, the issue of these CPA firms also providing internal auditors to the businesses they audited, that is something in retrospect that should have been addressed. The "consulting" side just has a louder cheerleader (the local "bars") but were minor in comparison with other more glaring issues (poor audit oversight and the internal/external mix). Of course if you were truly concerned with legislation that triggered the Ken Lay's of the world, you would be commenting on Clinton failing to do his homework with regards to his foolish idea that limiting the deductibility of corporate salaries would be a cure-all to coporate "greed". That worked really well! I wonder how long it took the Lay's of the world to figure out that stock options were a sweet alternative and not covered by Clinton's meaningless posturing? I guess that was a Clintonian idea of "turning the private sector loose"?
Re: As usual, Mr. W. dreams up an excuse ROTFLMAO!! Wow, you have just broken an amazing story, emphasis on the word "story". No, actually, from the accounts I've heard, it had A LOT to do with the Enron scandal. Why? Because everyone from brokers to consultants NEEDED the financials to be fudged for their firms to make as much money as possible. There was a BLATANT CONFLICT OF INTEREST, but then again, you elephant men never worry about such things. I mean a party that survives by taking bribes/contributions and then doing the bidding of those greasing their palms wouldn't recognize conflict of interest if your party bumped into it on a street corner. And certainly, you wouldn't recognize it as a bad situation. Also LAUGHABLE was your statement about the 1993 Budget Act limiting the deductibility of ridiculous corporate salaries. What's next, Flip Wilson's trademark "The devil made me do it" related to why corporate officials committed fraud against shareholders. I guess if somebody doesn't have enough money, they should just go out and rob a bank, right? Your point is NONSENSE -- IF you really believed in personal and corporate responsibility, which you obviously don't, then the blame lies on the BOD of companies for committing fraud and the shareholders for not keeping tabs on them. Oh, and as far as the poor little corporate executives not making enough money due to that limiting act, geez, you mean that 6 houses aren't enough for Lay. That is how many houses Lay put up for sale after his problems surfaced. Clinton and the Democrats tried to put rules in place to prevent fraud from happening, but Newtie Gingrich and YOUR party didn't want them, because the corporate honchos had paid them off. Basically, your post is just EXCUSE-MAKING for the crooks in the situation, the Kenneth Lays, the Fastows, the Saplings who sell stock without filing the REQUIRED FORMS ON TIME, etc. Apparently, your opinion of white collar crime is signficant different that blue collar crime, which is yet another reason why the label HYPOCRITE fits you perfectly.
Do you even know what the "consultants" do? Obviously not. What they do is the equivalent of the work the traditional "law firms" would have done had these "consulting" arms of the CPA firms not "stole" the business from them. That is why the law firms were upset, the CPA/consultants got in on their turf. So you must believe Enron could not have found a traditional law firm to set up these bogus partnerships? Thank you for your confidence in attorneys, its much appreciated...your naivete' that is! LOL What you are "hearing" is the cries of law firms about the CPA firms (who rival only government in terms of the employment of attorneys) trying to take advantage of the 3 real and legitimate reasons for the Enron's of the world 1) the mix of external/internal auditors from the same CPA firm 2) lack of oversight by the Audit Committees of the corporations and 3) Clinton not doing his homework and creating a gigantic loophole in corporate compensation whereby the Lay's of the world can get rich by taking advantage of (1) & (2) by scheming to inflate stock value and enrich themselves with options. Clinton spawned the Enron, Global Crossing and Worldcom's of the world with his foolish lack of homework on this issue. Had he really cared (or more appropriately understood!) business and finance he would have recognized that it is much easier for scheming CEO's to enrich themselves via stock options than it is more easily understood (by investors) and disclosed salaries. Luckily we now have a man in the White House who cares about corporate responsibility and does his homework on the issue, instead of depending on transparent photo-ops.
You don't even know what the problem is LOL!! What a joke. This has NOTHING to do with law firms. You just threw in law firms because you consider them a Democratic party bastion. So, let's get back to the REAL issue. The REAL issue is that corporate executives are VASTLY overpaid in this country compared to any other country in the world. That was also found to be the conclusion by studies done in this country. And BTW, Mr. W., OPTIONS are to REWARD performance. Many companies' BOD have made available stock options that would be "in the money" even if the stock price fell. Now exactly how is that linking performance to reward. That is nothing more than corporate officer WELFARE. Then run the company in the ground and get BONUSES for doing so. But then, I guess that is little different from the GOP CLAIMING to be fiscal conservatives while running up huge piles of debt, huh? The bottom line is that Clinton encouraged new investment based upon REAL results, REAL jobs being created, etc. What the GOP did was take that and respond to palm greasing by giving corporations tax breaks for dummy subsidiaries, let blatant conflicts of interests occur between accounting and consulting arms of the same Big 6 firms, etc. So the bottom line is you can ATTEMPT to throw smoke bombs in this discussion to try to divert attention from the real issue, but it won't work. The real issue is that MANY corporations are run by greedy, dishonest, incompetent persons who will stop at nothing to make sure they get THEIR cut. The brokerage firms went along because they got paid MORE MONEY if they recommended companies, and the stock price rose(i.e. they got a slice of the pie). The stockholders didn't mind as long as the price went up. But this just shows what I've always said on almost every issue. Unlimited and uncontrolled private enterprise is a HORRIBLE economic system because you cannot trust the executives to be honest and to do the right thing. That is why air and water pollution occur to a large degree, why fraud occurs in the price of stocks, etc. And another example of the type of person that one becomes when they are greedy, has no scruples, and will lie at the drop of a hat now occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the POS that you call president, and the one that I can Sapling.
