Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Question of the Day | 10/13/2009 4:00 am

To ensure that there are no safe havens for terrorists, would you support keeping troops in Afghanistan for the next five years?

Liz Smith, Joan Ganz Cooney and Candice Bergen discuss the cost of safety.
© Shutterstock
Liz Smith

Liz Smith | 10/13/2009 12:00 am

Liz Smith Fears Another Vietnam

I don’t know. I want the president to decide this fateful question. I fear we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. But this is why I voted for Barack Obama and I don’t believe in second-guessing him for the rest of his term and adding to the confusion and hatefulness that is going on. I do fear another Vietnam.

Candice Bergen

Candice Bergen | 10/13/2009 12:00 am

Candice Bergen: Where Are the Terrorists?

Afghanistan? I thought we were shifting our focus to Pakistan. That’s where Al-Qaeda is said to be hanging these days. The Taliban is supposedly no threat to the West. Unless they team up. Which they are wont to do.

Joan Ganz Cooney

Joan Ganz Cooney | 10/13/2009 12:00 am

Joan Ganz Cooney on the Argument of War

I have heard so many smart and knowledgeable people argue both sides of this question that I have no idea what the right answer is. The big question for me always is how many American soldiers’ lives is it worth, not to mention civilians in Afghanistan? That question almost always turns me against the war option.

163 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

F P
Large number of troops—where are you going to get them? It’s been estimated that 650K troops are needed to stabilize the mess called Afghanistan—going to reinstitute the draft? And no hundreds are of women and children are not killed every month using drones. Cite your sources before I’ll believe or even consider one word you say.
By F P on 10/14/2009 6:09 am
Marjorie C.

F P:  …where are you going to get them

Ya know what would end all this nonsense, and fast?  Bring back the draft.  No deferments.  Young women as well as men.  The liberals will soon wave the white flag, and Afghanistan will be a memory.  The Dems are in complete charge now, this is their war.  You can wrap it up in Bush and his crowd all you want, but they aren’t making the decisions to spill American blood in Afghanistan.  When the war becomes personal (your son, your daughter), decisions will be make more carefully and there’ll be fewer wars.  To me, this is all political.  The Iraq war was political, and this is a continuation of it.     

By Marjorie C. on 10/14/2009 7:23 am
F P
Marjorie, there isn’t a politician alive that would risk bringing back the draft.  It’s too divisive a topic for today’s pols. And the outcry and fuss would be tremendous. We’d have a revolution in the streets.
By F P on 10/14/2009 7:59 am
Frank Somsel

F P: 650K troops are needed to stabilize Afghan? That would be more than Vietnam. Here is something to read regarding unmanned drone attacks. I stand corrected that hundreds of women and children are killed every month due to Obamas ongoing drone attacks. Since he took office, I only counted approx 450 people have been killed by those attacks. Here is my source, although there are others. Look what Obama did on June 23 2009. Look how Obama has stepped up this killing. How did you want to talk your way out of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan#2009 

By Frank Somsel on 10/15/2009 12:26 pm
Frank Somsel
Pamela: Obama kills hundreds of women and kids every month using missles from unmanned drones. It doesn’t work. To kill large numbers of the enemy, you need a large number of troops.
By Frank Somsel on 10/14/2009 12:04 am
F P
And of course you weren’t complaining when Georgie did exactly the same thing. 
By F P on 10/14/2009 6:07 am
Frank Somsel

F P: I’ve always complained about innocent civilians being killed, I realize its difficult to avoid. If you have a Taliban in your sights, and 12 civilians are close to him, somebody has to make the call if they’re worth killing to get one bad guy. Obama knows the media will only report the good so he’ll take that shot. For the record, Bush is gone. This is now Obamas boat. Remember the guy that promised change, and all you’ve received is chump change.

Obama doesn’t seem to care about our soldiers as they’re slaughtered in Afghan. The Taliban is well aware of Obamas reluctance to send more troops as his General requested.

Don’t hate America because you’re infatuated with Obama. I never liked Obama, but I gave him a chance for quite awhile. When he promised to create new jobs with his stimulus, then changed it to saving jobs, I knew this country would be in trouble. The global war on terror, is now an "overseas contingency operation". A terror attack is now a "man made disaster". Lame.

3 million jobs have been lost since his stimulus.  Here is a funny You Tube that came out months ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJu0DgpiK8c

By Frank Somsel on 10/15/2009 1:06 pm
Callie O

"There’s something about Marxism that brings out warts…the only kind of growth this administration’s economics encourages."

             (Paraphrasing P.J. O’Rourke)

By Callie O on 10/13/2009 10:38 pm
F P
Marxism?  lol  It’s not the 1950’s.
By F P on 10/14/2009 6:10 am
Callie O

Not, Frankie, it isn’t the 50’s….that’s the era we could leave our doors unlocked, and families were the backbone of America,..right?

As for Marxism, if you look at the writings of Marx and his buddy, Engels, you’ll see that this nation is certainly pointed in that direction.

By Callie O on 10/14/2009 12:07 pm
F P
I have and no it isn’t—that’s just more right wing paranoia speaking.
By F P on 10/14/2009 1:16 pm
F P

BTW check out how well capitalism is doing:

NEW YORK — JPMorgan Chase & Co. reported strong third-quarter earnings Wednesday as its thriving investment banking business more than offset rising loan losses that the bank warned would continue for the foreseeable future.

JPMorgan, the first of the big banks to report earnings for the July-September period, reported a $3.59 billion profit but also said it roughly doubled the amount of money it set aside for failed home and credit card loans in the quarter.

The bank’s stock rose on the news, helping to lift the overall market and send the Dow Jones industrials above 10,000 for the first time in a year. Still, the bank’s performance shouldn’t be taken as a forecast for how well other banks did during the quarter. Many financial companies don’t have such big investment banking operations, which includes trading of stocks and bonds and allowed JPMorgan to overcome its loan losses.

Bart Narter, a senior vice president at consulting firm Celent, said JPMorgan’s results showed a clear trend that "Wall Street is picking up quite smartly, while Main Street continues to suffer."

Banks including JPMorgan have predicted for some time that their loan losses would keep rising. And in JPMorgan’s earnings statement, CEO Jamie Dimon confirmed that this trend continues.

"Credit costs remain high and are expected to stay elevated for the foreseeable future in the consumer lending and card services loan portfolios," Dimon said.

In its earnings statement, the bank also described the near-term path of the economy as uncertain.

The company said for the second straight quarter that there are some signs of stabilization in delinquencies among consumer loans that are only recently past due. But Chief Financial Officer Mike Cavanagh said during a conference call with reporters the bank "can’t at the moment be certain" that the trend will continue.

 JPMorgan may be able to raise its 5 cent per share quarterly dividend to as much as 25 cents if loan losses stabilize and the company’s credit costs fall, Cavanagh said. The CFO said an increase could come early next year, but he again cautioned that’s it too soon to know if the economy will recover enough to make a higher dividend possible.

Investors didn’t seem troubled by the bank’s dim credit outlook, and likely were more focused on the fact that big profits in divisions such as investment banking helped the New York-based bank earn 82 cents per share during the third quarter. Analysts forecast a profit of 52 cents per share.

JPMorgan said its investment bank net income came to $1.92 billion, up $1 billion from a year earlier as fixed income trading thrived.

The company’s stock jumped $1.40, or 3.1 percent, to $47.06 in afternoon trading.

JPMorgan, the nation’s largest bank by assets, has been considered one of the strongest financial companies during the past year’s turmoil. It has performed better than other large competitors in part because of its relatively light exposure to troubled subprime mortgages and commercial real estate. It was also among the first banks to repay government bailout money. On June 17, JPMorgan gave back all of the $25 billion it had received at the height of the credit crisis in 2008.

Its relatively stronger foundation than its competitors, which report results in the coming days, helped set JPMorgan up for a quarter that is likely to be among the best in the industry, analysts said. Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. are also scheduled to report earnings this week, followed by many other banks over the next two weeks.

"It’s harder to come out when you’re eight feet deep than when you’re two," said Denise Valentine, a senior analyst at financial consulting firm Aite Group.

Still, the company is far from immune to the industry’s problems. Traditional residential mortgages and home equity loans as well as credit cards continue to default at a rapid pace and that has eaten into JPMorgan’s profits.

JPMorgan’s loss provision to cover current and future home loan defaults jumped to $3.99 billion, while its provision for credit card losses surged to $4.97 billion.

Eric Schopf, a vice president at Hardesty Capital Management, said JPMorgan’s aggressive additions to loan loss reserves throughout the downturn have also given it a leg up on the competition, which has lagged in adding to reserves.

Indeed, Cavanagh said that if the economy continues on a recovery path and doesn’t falter again, JPMorgan is probably close to reaching its peak loan-loss reserve levels.

Credit card defaults and mortgage losses are likely to continue rising and lag an overall economic recovery. Losses on credit cards typically mirror unemployment, which rose to 9.8 percent in September and which is expected to pass 10 percent in the coming months.

JPMorgan said the percentage of credit card loans it wrote off as not being repayable in the third quarter reached 10.3 percent of its total portfolio. Cavanagh said during a separate call with analysts that the card loss rate is expected to reach 10.5 percent in the first half of 2010 and could go higher depending on the unemployment rate.

Loan losses were also pushed higher by weakness in the portfolios JPMorgan acquired when it purchased the failed bank Washington Mutual a year ago.

Fixed income markets accounted for two-thirds of the investment bank’s $7.51 billion in revenue. While the company’s trading operations were strong, JPMorgan was also able to write up the value of some investments that have started to recover after souring during the peak of the credit crisis.

JPMorgan’s fixed-income trading got a boost from investors still uneasiness about their own financial situations. Investors continue to flock to the relative safety of bonds, strengthening that market.

"The good thing at JPMorgan is you have a lot of different profit levers," Schopf said. "The diversity works to their advantage."

Overall, JPMorgan generated $28.78 billion in revenue during the quarter, better than the $24.96 billion predicted by analysts.



Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/14/jpmorgan-earns-36b-but-lo_0_n_320251.html 

By F P on 10/14/2009 1:39 pm
F P
The above was from the AP:  Marxism, right.
By F P on 10/14/2009 1:40 pm
Callie O
Liberals and conservatives could be compared to thunder and lightening.  Thunder is impressive, but it’s lightening that does the work.
By Callie O on 10/14/2009 4:00 pm
Susan Crawford
I would hope that we can focus attention on the delicate and complicated task of peeling back the layers of silence and loyalties that, in Pakistan, have shielded many hard-core members of both Taliban and al-Qaeda. Of all negotiations, this, I think will be the most difficult, surpassing even the dance of diplomacy we have engaged in for decades in the Middle East. It seems to me that the surest way to make ANY headway in Afghanistan will be a kind of Marshall Plan that will begin to help them build a workable infrastructure, supply alternatives to the opium poppy culture, and establish a secular educational system not dominated the mullahs or Taliban. This will, in itself, be HUGE. But remember, Afghanistan was the site that repelled the British; defeated the Russians, and even Alexander the Great had problems aplenty in those hills and valleys. So I think that to focus energies on battling in Afghanistan is NOT the solution. The answer has to be in restoration of a civil structure there, and deep negotiation in Pakistan to flush out the truly dug-in militants there. The mountainous border of Pakistan has always been the fountainhead of hard-core militants. And it will take longer than five years for us to negotiate to a point where those regions will divulge all their secrets.
By Susan Crawford on 10/13/2009 10:43 pm