Barney Frank: We're broke because of war

[kpete]

Barney Frank, Congressman from Massachusetts (Democrat), 4th District; Chairman, Financial Services Committee, USA

Barney Frank, Congressman from Massachusetts (Democrat), 4th District; Chairman, Financial Services Committee, USA“I think the biggest problem in the U.S. is . . . far too large a percentage of our resources go into the relatively unproductive segment of Defense. If we had not started the war in Iraq, and spent a trillion dollars there . . . we would have far more freedom now to respond to this short-term crisis.”

http://www.weforum.org/en/events/AnnualMeeting2010/Quotes/Fri29/index.htm
via:
http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/10389

[lib2DaBone]

1. Well Barney.. maybe you should ..STOP VOTING FOR WAR?

Hello CONgress... ya think?

[KonaKane]

3. Tired old charge against the Dems during the IWR fiasco

Come on, dude. You can do better than that. You should know damn well that the Democrats who voted for IWR were doing so on the assumption that all the scary bullshit the GWB admin was dishing out to get their backing, was true. As it wasnt. That is not Franks, or Kerry's, or any other Dem who voted for it's, fault. Congress in such circumstances trusts that the executive office is being straight with them.

If the Democratic contigent had some sort of superknowledge of the truth, none of them would have voted to allow Gee Dub to make his stupid lying war. But you saw what happened when we trust the untrustable. Somethning like 137 Democrats voted AGAINST the IWR. How many Rethugs do you think did that? I can guarentee they can be counted on less than one hand.

So please, get real.

[Fumesucker]

6. BF has been in Congress long enough to have seen a mountain of bullshit..

A mountain that would make Everest look like the anthill in your back yard.

Anyone who believed what the bushies were selling is too naive to last in politics.

BF is far from naive..

[Hissyspit]

7. Please... There was plenty of evidence it was bullshit.

There were plenty of alternative voices out there.

I never bought any of it for a second and it was Barney Frank and John Kerry's jobs to not fall for it either. It had nothing to do with "superknowledge."

It is not a "tired old charge." It is the truth.

[KonaKane]

8. By the time the IWR vote was shoved to the fore? I think not.

There was some, but the mountain of evidence showing it was a load of shit came later.

I have a hard time thinking Frank would be stupid enough to vote against his better judgement, especially FOR a war, as he has no real history as a hawk.

Think it through.

[Hissyspit]

10. I remember it all quite well, thank you.

Was disgusted and horrified at the time so many voted for the IWR.

Yes, more evidence came later. There was plenty to be skeptical and suspicious before that.

[walldude]

11. Well then you weren't paying attention..

Not only was there a pile of evidence showing there were no WMD's in Iraq but Saddam actually offered to leave Iraq and go into exile 3 days before the war started. Problem is the war was never about WMD's or the safety of Americans it was about revenge and oil. Period. Hell the whole thing was laid out in the PNAC plan to take over the middle east. In their document they said all they needed was "another Pearl Harbor" to put their plan into motion. Lucky for them 9/11 happened.

[BeFree]

13. Exactly

But, there was a feeling that Bush wasn't going to invade without a 2nd (or 3rd?) UN resolution. I think that alone is what made them go ahead and vote for the IWR. They trusted (falsely) that Bush wouldn't move without complete support and better evidence. If they had a real fault it was trusting Bush and Colin Powell and the CIA and the military intelligence and etc.

[AlbertCat]

67. They trusted (falsely) that Bush wouldn't move without complete support and better evidence.

What they did was vote to give Bush the decision to go to war, which is constitutionally Congress'. They passed the buck... so they wouldn't appear weak but also not be responsible for the (inevitable) SNAFU, and could raise money to get elected.

Congress lives in a bubble, not because the info isn't out there, but because they have one job 24/7....getting re-elected.


The Supremes just made this even more true.

[Edweird]

16. "Trifecta" - *

[fascisthunter]

42. everyone ignored the truth tellers then

Preemptive strikes should be a war crime, regardless, and they did so without proof.

It's like me saying to the police after shooting a person, that I thought they had a gun, and I was afraid that person would use it on me, so I blew him away. You think I'd skate free with that bullshit excuse? No.. then why is it ok for a country? It isn't!

[L0oniX]

59. Truth is still ignored and even attacked ...and it is here on DU too.

[polmaven]

66. You're right...

Like the truth that Barney Frank voted NAY on the IWR.

[Yavin4]

43. "Lucky for them 9/11 happened" - Reminds me of a Gary Shandling Joke About Robert Blake

Shandling recounts how Blake was in this terrible relationship with this woman who was blackmailing him among other things. The couple goes out to dinner and she gets killed while waiting for Blake to come back from the restaurant.

Shandling goes on to say, "no one gets that lucky".

[KonaKane]

54. Does Frank the "warmonger" actually make sense to you?

Because it doesn't to me, knowing he does not have a record of being a warmonger or even a hawk in Congress. Therefore, your claim that he just arbitrarily liked the idea of a war in Iraq simply strains all credibility.

[fascisthunter]

61. yet you lie about him... so your question is moot

[KonaKane]

68. Lie? You mean I was misinformed. Here is my correction:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7614338

[walldude]

69. My claim? WTF are you talking about? I made no statements about Frank at all

and my post had nothing to do with the OP. I merely corrected the posted who didn't think there was any reason not to attack Iraq until after the war started. Jeeze, quit projecting..

[rhett o rick]

85. Ok fine. Then what's your explaination? He was duped, he profited, or he is an idiot? plez tell us

why.

[KonaKane]

87. He didn't vote for the war.

How many ways can this be explained?

[rhett o rick]

18. The point is there was no evidence, no intelligence showing a need to go to war

and kill hundreds of thousands of children. The only evidence they had was debunked at the time. It was garbage. If you think there was intelligence good enough to fool the supposedly suspicious opposing party in Congress, tell us what that evidence was?

[Marr]

28. You're wrong about that.

The Bush Administration's transparently phony claims were being debunked days after they were introduced-- hours later sometimes-- in the international press. I even remember reading a surprisingly good piece in the New York Times about Bush's claims about Iraq vs. the UN record back in mid 2002. It was buried on page 22 or so, but you could find such critical coverage even in the US press.

[LeftishBrit]

52. Frank voted *against* the war resolution. I have checked in more than one place.

[KonaKane]

55. Wow, you're right. I guess that nixes the validity if this entire thread.

;)

[patrice]

75. We had a ring-side seat here at the DU. All of us read William Pitt's book-length interview with

Scott Ritter.

We looked at the info resources available, talked about it, and figure it out, way before the vote.

And some of our Democratic Senators, and certainly the House figured it out too.

Yes!! THE LIES were THE trigger, so not all of those who voted yes were using plausible deniability. They were lied to and I guess there's no accounting for how folks can take the same facts and come up with different conclusions, but all of that aside, people do vote for candidates on certain important un-definable qualities that can make all of the difference in the world sometimes. Since those qualities are often non-rational, there's no explaining why they failed us on this one, but that's what they get the big bucks for and fail us they DID.

[Marr]

26. Well before it, yep.

Even in the big US papers, information was there-- though generally buried. The international press was full of information that gave the lie to the Bush Administrations claims.

[Miss_Underestimated]

50. I'll bet that the problem is behind the scenes threats to people in Congress

who have the knowledge and power to do the right thing, but hold back because they fear for their own lives or the lives of people who matter to them.

(I stand corrected - Barney Frank voted against the IWR, BTW. However an inexcusably large number of Dems voted in favor of it)

So if we could address the problem of behind the scenes threats, maybe things would improve a lot more

[rhett o rick]

17. So you say that Georgie fooled the Democrats into voting for the war? Preposterous.

With millions of us screaming at the top of our lungs that Bush lies with every breath and they missed it? They had access to the intelligence and could see how flimsy it was. And if they didnt have access, they are negligent for not asking to see it. But there never was any legitimate intelligence. They voted with the republicans for a couple of reasons. One they got a cut from the profiteering. Two they were cowards to go against possible public opinion.

Those bastards got on their knees and bowed down to King Georgie. They supported his murder of over a million people. They should be prosecuted along with him.

[Foo Fighter]

25. Gotta disgree with you here on one point.

"One they got a cut from the profiteering. Two they were cowards to go against possible public opinion."

Fully agree on point one. On point two, they weren't cowards. They just didn't give a shit because they were blinded by point one and why the hell should they even care what the public thinks anyway? Between the rigged elections and the prospect of extremely lucrative jobs with lobbying firms should they get voted out of office, they really didn't give a shit one way or another how the ball fell. Either way, they were set and we (the taxpayers) were screwed. For them, it was "Mission Accomplished." In their minds, it gave them complete cover to sell us out because either way, there would be no repercussions (for them).

"They should be prosecuted along with him."

Absolutely. Couldn't agree more.

[rhett o rick]

29. Yes. They were either corrupt, cowards or idiots, you choose. Doesnt really matter

i guess.

Actually I completely agree that they are most likely corrupt and that is worse.

[Foo Fighter]

83. Yeah, I guess regardless of the path they took, the end result is the same.

Sounds like we're on the same page.

[rhett o rick]

84. yes i think we are. Where do we go from here? nt

[Foo Fighter]

86. Oh boy. That's the $64,000 question. Or, these days, more like the $64B

question. Public financing would solve a LOT of problems but since the only way to get that would be by requiring that those that love the money and power they reap from the current system to give it up, I just don't see that happening. In an ideal world, it would happen but we all know what kind of a world we live in and it's about as far from ideal as you can get. Well, at least as far as the poor and working class are concerned anyway.

Aside from that, the only thing I can think of is to support third (or, actually, second) parties. The Dems clearly don't give a rat's ass about us. I remember hearing someone -- Lawrence O'Donnel possibly ? -- talking last fall about a discussion with one of the higher-ups in the Dem party. They were discussing the "left" and the party member said (paraphrasing here since I don't have the exact quote), "Yeah, but face it. Who else are they going to turn to? The left have nowhere else to go." The gist was that the Dems can go as far right as they want because the hey, there's nothing on the left to counter-act them. And that, my friend, is the root of the problem. We have two parties serving the right-wing and none serving the left.

I wish I had an answer to your question but I don't. All I know is that I have switched from voting Dem to voting third-party in the hopes that some day we might actually have a viable second party. Unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[patrice]

81. True.

[hollowdweller]

45. No He Fooled the Public and the Dems who knew it was BS were afraid to speak up.

Look at any of the McClatchy news articles in the run up to the war. Look at what the UN inspectors were saying.

Bush was doing what any good politician would do. Getting his message out. The Dems on the other hand were "Running for the Hills" Except Byrd and and a few others.

[Flaneur]

33. No apologies for war-facilitating Democrats, please.

WE knew it was all a pack of lies. So did they. They voted for it anyway. They were intimidated, but they voted for it.

[KonaKane]

88. Even though most Democrats voted against it?

I don't see that little factoid getting much traction in peoples' thinking, even all these years later.

Odd.

[DissedByBush]

39. So 137 voted against

Those were the ones with a conscience.

Others like Frank voted for it.

All had the same information.

This "we were duped" thing is not believable.

[on point]

48. That's a cop out!

I knew all the scary BS from GWB were propaganda lies intended to scare and manipulate the country.

They had a responsibility to do some independent critical thinking and to insist on getting information. All they had to do was call in Scott Ritter for a morning, or put 2 and 2 together from what the UN was telling. Or notice that Bush had started to demonize Saddam before 9-11 to see war was desired. Or even ask the dead stupid simple question of how he could possibly be a threat. I mean like spell it out.

It was OBVIOUS it was all lies. Anyone who fell for it was just a sucker, an easy mark for any con man.

[rainy]

57. We knew it wasn't true and so did they. They were scared because it was

close to an election and we were attacked. The didn't want to look week on defense. Cowards everyone except the few, Byrd comes to mind.

[lib2DaBone]

79. You completely lost me... I tried to follow what you were saying..?

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Most Democrats, Including Frank, Voted Against The IWR

I'm not in love with Barney (he's my rep), but he got that one right.

[omega minimo]

31. and INCLUDE MILITARY IN BUDGET FREEZE

[SlingBlade]

49. BINGO ! Whiney Assed Democrat Alert.

[LeftishBrit]

51. Frank voted against the Iraq War Resolution; as did many other Dems.

[HeresyLives]

2. Barney Frank is refreshingly....frank.

Pity there aren't more like him.

[KT2000]

4. Finally - someone dares

to speak the truth.
When we were not greeted with flowers in Iraq, a war tax and possible draft should have been instituted.
The GOP wanted to break the budget with war costs so the social programs could have been eliminated.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

32. Disaster captalism

Disaster- wherever it strikes and regardless of who (or what causes it- always seems to be a convenient tool for the gNOp to exploit and use as a rallying cry against spending for domestic priorities. Our *leaders* need to figure out a way to fight against this fraudulent (and irresponsible) mentality. Iraq was a total waste of time, money, resources, etc. It was totally unnecessary- as the UN proved BEFORE we went in there. If Bushco hadn't been so eager to get their war "on", we might have more soldiers alive today, more Iraqis might be alive and leading productive lives, and we might've been spared the billions (trillions?) spent (and lost) that we have shelled out to date on that endeavor.
:banghead:

[Edweird]

5. I place more responsibility on tax cuts for the wealthy and a lack of a progressive tax structure.

Not to say the war isn't hurting, but our infrastructure and social services were abysmal long before the war.

[TCJ70]

9. +1

It was definitely a combo. We need more tax brackets. That way there's no danger of a claim of raising taxes on main street.

[rurallib]

12. The war, the tax cuts and unfunded programs mixed to produce the situation

and I for one believe this was done on purpose to bankrupt the country while draining the treasury and passing it to their buddies.
I believe everything Bushco did had an eye on creating a bankrupt state.
And I believe we should fill the treasury back up with some massive taxes on those that benefitted

[defendandprotect]

15. Our Treasury is bankrupted thanks to war and the Fed Reserve . . .

and Democrats continuing to FUND these wars -- and escalate them!!!

[MissDeeds]

71. Yes indeed n/t

But I don't think we're supposed to notice...

[old mark]

19. Barney is right again. nt

[Kaleva]

20. Barney Frank didn't say we are broke.

He said the money spent to fund the war is money that could have been used to respond to this short term crisis. Cash strapped we are but broke? No.

[Flaneur]

35. Not broke? How many trillions is the national debt now?

[TexasObserver]

21. Recommend

[Vidar]

22. K&R.

[JCMach1]

23. Yeah, but what might this country be if we had spent half as much even

500 billion or so on infrastructure and education. Instead of exacting our pound of oil in Iraq.

[Lorien]

73. Or spent 500 billion on developing clean renewable energies

so that we no longer felt the need to kill people in the Middle East.

[Quixote1818]

24. No, we are broke because of Ronald Reagan

NONE of his debt has ever been paid off.

[Ardent15]

27. K&R

[MadHound]

30. Well gee Barney, a bit late aren't you

It's nice that you come to this conclusion now, but the true measure of a leader is to come to these sort of conclusions while the shit is hitting the fan.

Furthermore, if you're coming to this conclusion now, how about you apply it to the present day circumstances and end both of these goddamn illegal, immoral wars.

[laughingliberal]

34. A good thing to say. We should hear it more often

Obviously, not the only reason we're broke but it's time to start knocking the sacred cow of the defense department down. Why would they be exempt as we start a new season of talking about spending cuts? I would argue defense is in a far better position to see some reduction in spending than many other areas that are on the chopping block.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Aw, c'mon Barney "our" guy is now in charge of the killing and needs the money.

[avaistheone1]

37. Does this come to shock to some people?

[Martin Eden]

38. OBVIOUSLY

But not obvious enough to too many people.

[vanlassie]

40. Treasury Secretary John Snow said at the time.... ''The cost of the war will be small,''

By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM
Published: March 9, 2003


WASHINGTON, March 8— In his determination to cut taxes even while waging war in Iraq, President Bush is bucking history.
(Skipping)
In the current situation, the Bush administration argues that a war against Iraq is bound to be short and relatively inexpensive, so there is no risk in cutting taxes.

''The cost of the war will be small,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Ways and Means Committee this week. ''We can afford the war, and we'll put it behind us.''

W. Elliot Brownlee, a tax historian at the University of California at Santa Barbara, chuckled when he was told of Mr. Snow's remark. ''That's what might have been said at the outset of almost any of the significant wars,'' Mr. Brownlee said.

[grahamhgreen]

41. In response, our "far-left" president freezes spending but not war spending! WTF. FAIL.

[David Zephyr]

44. K&R. For the truth.

!

[pleah]

46. Yawn. Well, Barney are you going to actually do something about it? n/t

[GreenTea]

47. Corporations have and continue to make outrageous amount of billions, prolonging the wars

all from OUR tax dollars! No accountability and no money left for health care just the way the republicans want it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

53. no Shit, Sherlock. K&R

in other news ---water is wet.

[Mari333]

56. a fucking men knr

[bertman]

58. Thank you, Captain Obvious. But, hey, somebody in gummint had to say it out loud.

Rec.

[julian09]

60. They voted to authorize war

if it was needed; not actually go to war. That is the reason most Dems voted yes; but Bush had no intention of waiting.

[bertman]

64. I think you must have been trying to post to the main thread, julian09, since I didn't

imply that the Dems voted for the war, only that Barney Frank is right in telling it like it is. If we weren't spending a trillion on wars in the MidEast we would be able to do more here at home.

:hi:

[JetCityLiberal]

70. Most Dems did NOT vote yes

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/107/house/2/votes/455/

Paul

[KonaKane]

72. Frank voted NAY on that one.

.

[midnight]

62. I wonder if that will matter?

[fallingrock666]

63. It's dated but...

[SandWalker1984]

65. How can we afford 15 more years in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan to need Western help for up to 15yrs: Karzai
Published: Thursday January 28, 2010

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Afghanistan_to_need_Western_help_fo_01282010.html



Afghanistan will need support from the West for up to 15 years, President Hamid Karzai warned Thursday ahead of a major international conference on his strife-torn country in London.

"With regard to training and equipping the Afghan security forces, five to 10 years will be enough," Karzai said in an interview with BBC radio.

"With regard to sustaining them until Afghanistan is financially able to provide for our forces, the time will be extended to 10 to 15 years."

[amborin]

74. $296 billion a year + for war:

Pandering to Hawks


Among the many distressing elements of Obama's proposed spending freeze is his exemption of a famously bloated defense budget whose weapons cost overruns last year totalled $296 billion – more than the salaries and health care costs for the entire military. Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress explains here how much better we can do

commondreams.org

[patrice]

77. My next street sign: $296 billion a year and off budget for 7 years

and NOW you're worried about deficits?

[patrice]

76. It really is as though people think War is Free and no innocent people are ever killed or harmed.

The only explanation for thinking about it sooooooooooooooooo poorly is that they WANTED the war too.

And we are Damned for it, "God" help us.

[Clear Blue Sky]

78. And Congress keeps funding it because...?

[patrice]

80. Partly because the Pentagon can't just say "Ooopps!" to the soldiers'

families.

Volunteer military or not, with that "Oooopps" they might just as well admit that they're just a bunch of high paid mercenaries bossing the current crop of cannon fodder.

[patrice]

82. I also imagine that the Pentagon keeps at least some of it going in order to position

certain very specific personnel, WITH THE APPROPRIATE COMBAT CREDENTIALS, for future projects.

[Amonester]

89. Congress gives our money (we don't have yet) to the 'industry' and...

the 'industry' gives our money (we don't have yet) BACK to 'a few members' of Congress... so they'll give the 'industry' 3x times our money (we won't have yet at the time)... so the 'industry' will take that part of our money (they don't Really need) to bribe 'the few members' of Congress with (our money we will never have, nor will our grandgrandgrandchildren).

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2008&ind=D

they luv to 'party' (with our money) and they enjoy free healthcare for life...