Bush's Address

[zurich]

What did you all think?

A few things I found interesting:

1 - He never said the words 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' once the entire time.
2 - He's betting the farm on Iraq, in that 'if we beat them here, we'll defeat terror for good!'. Risky.
3 - $87 bil, then another $67 bil next year? Yeowch.
4 - Basically threw down the gauntlet to Germany and France saying, 'we put a resolution through the UN, now its your part to accept it *cough serving under America cough*'. Left out any mention of Russian, Pakistan, Indian, etc. troops.
5 - The Democratic senator afterwards (on NBC) was supporting Bush?! Its strange to see opposing political parties rallying around their President, atleast in Canada the opposition will argue till the end of time, even if they agree.
6 - CTV (Canada's largest network) didn't air the Presidential Address. First time ever I think.

 

[Fred]

The speech was dry and monotonous as usual when he speaks on a podium.

Actually, the CBS interview he gave was far more interesting, it was the first time I've ever seen him speak eloquently. He talked about jobs, the deficit, productivity, gasses, and the war. Frankly, it was far more convincing than the usual political dumbed down rhetoric designed for the American populace (ie repeat courage and terror as many times as possible).

 

[SMarth]

...atleast in Canada the opposition will argue till the end of time, even if they agree.

And you think that's a good thing for ? It's childish at best! But in Canada the party in power control the parlement (and also the useless senat, but that's another story). In the US, the presidency is separated from the congress and the senat, so it's really not the same. You can get strange alliances sometime. Frankly, there's much more "security" in the US democracy then there is in the ones like Canada. And at least, you don't know for sure who's going to be the next president/prime minister ;(

Btw, I'm Canadian

 

[Fred]

Politically the dems are in a quagmire about Iraq. The majority of their presidential frontrunners were very vocal and supportive about action there (except Dean), since several of them (Senators) had access to foreign relations security docs that the pres used to base his decision on.

If they back away from that, they shoot their frontrunners in the foot. If they don't, they look supportive of Bush and as if they didn't have an alternative plan.

Some will probably say thats a failing of the 2 party system.

 

[zurich]

...atleast in Canada the opposition will argue till the end of time, even if they agree.

And you think that's a good thing for ? It's childish at best! But in Canada the party in power control the parlement (and also the useless senat, but that's another story). In the US, the presidency is separated from the congress and the senat, so it's really not the same. You can get strange alliances sometime. Frankly, there's much more "security" in the US democracy then there is in the ones like Canada. And at least, you don't know for sure who's going to be the next president/prime minister ;(

Btw, I'm Canadian

Nope, never said it was a good thing. I think its sort of stupid, because in Canada when a party gets a majority gov't, they might as well be dictators, ie: nothing can stop them from doing whatever they want, save the constant nagging of the opposition Ofcourse, minority gov'ts are another matter all together.

 

[Natoma]

It's amazing. Lawrence Lindsay was basically fired for saying that the Iraq war would realistically cost roughly $200 Billion, far higher than the $60-$80 Billion the rest of the administration was parroting during the buildup phase. They laughed off those estimates as doomsayers and naysayers not knowing what they were talking about.

And what do you know. We spent $90 Billion on the actual war. We've spent $24 Billion thus far in reconstruction costs. Bush is now asking for $87 Billion, and then another $60+ billion (though this will probably be higher since he was originally thought to be asking for roughly $66 Billion this year) next year. Sans the $60+ billion for next year, we've spent $201 Billion on the Iraq war/occupation.

Good prediction Larry. You must be taking quiet solace in knowing you were right even though you lost your job over it.

 

[Sabastian]

President Bush put the war in perspective. Afghanistan, was the al-Qaeda and Taliban home base that was assaulted and frankly besieged the terrorist, this resulted in a large number of key extremist being captured or killed. The effort in Afghanistan busted up terrorist monetary and logistical organizations. Dismantling Saddam Husseins government in Iraq which sustained terrorism and had the prospect of equipping terrorists with WMD. Also the work in Iraq surely has destroyed any terrorist ties with the Saddam regime, now there is none for them to deal with. The message that President Bush had was not new, but it helps to remind Americans what is being fought for.

Surely "Iraq is now the central front" as the president said the simple fact of the matter is that it is indeed for both sides. Al-Qaeda supporters are poring into Iraq from all over the Middle East to battle with the "infidel" Americans. Ironically they thought that Afghanistan would be that place as well. The terrorists draw their tactical schooling from Vietnam, Somalia etc. In each situation America was hurt but not routed militarily. In each case, the US pulled out because the political will withered. Some mixture of lack of leadership, home political factors, and vagueness of objectives all led to an ending that was unbalanced with the strength of the enemy. In the case of Iraq though, the keys needed for the success against the US are not present. Bush is showing strong leadership even in the face of his critics, the support on the home political front is bi-partisan and there is a large amount of support in the populous. The objective is to create a democratic state in the most fertile ground for terrorism. This prospect scares the hell out of the radical terrorist. Imagine a free and democratic Iraq would be a matchless accomplishment and an undeniable loss for haters of freedom and equally an ultimate triumph for the US and the free world against its enemies. The favorable effects would be felt strongly in the region and around the world. This is why the enemies of the US, and consequentially freedom, are fighting a desperate battle in Iraq. The only way they can succeed is if the American people remove their support. As for an exit strategy there is none, only success should be tolerated.

 

[Vince]

Yeah Sab, people often get the wrong idea about just how fundimental Iraq will be in strategic defense interests in the next 50 years. There was a time where I was going to write an extended paper and thought-problem in which the fundimental aspects and dynamics of the Roman's Julio-Claudian client state system can be applied in a virtual manner to the United States's use of Iraq. Oh well, one day I'll get around to it.

 

[Vince]

Not to get into an argument Natoma, but what is this fixation with money?

Bush is now asking for $87 Billion

The Marshall Plan, now recognized as an amazingly prophetic act that saved Europe from the grips of further Totalitarian aggression, spent roughly 3% of GDP on rebuilding. It came to a figure that was roughly equivalent to the average annual defense budget of the late 1940's IIRC.

In todays money, that's over $400Billion dollars per annum. While I'm not saying that amount should be spent - who are you (and how ignorent and shortsighted would one have to be) to even question the spending of this money (at such a small % of GDP) on a program that has had such stabilizing and long lasting effects.

In essence, would you have opposed Truman in 1947/48 for supporting and sending such a bill with costs never mentioned in FDR's war decleration on December the 8th of 1941, nor in any of FDR's statements, nor Truman's? And, yet, you have no remorse to do the following to a Republican president, based on semantic and partisan grounds, 50 odd years later.

 

[pax]

Heck Id see another 150 billion a year for other countries. The only odd thing is that Bush wants help from other western allies why not get local allies to help? A lot of the oil states could...

Iraq can be a stepping stone or an isolated island (along with Afghanistan). I think we need to go further and, as the marshal plan did, make a dent in poverty in much of the area and considering long term strategic objectives of the relationship with the muslim world it probably should mostly goto muslim countries. There are quite a few candidate countries outside Afghanistan that could become new refuges for terrorist on the run...

 

[Natoma]

Not to get into an argument Natoma, but what is this fixation with money?

The comment about money was not to complain about the actual costs itself, because frankly we're stuck in Iraq now and have no other option but to reconstruct it completely, no matter how much it ends up costing.

The comment about money was in context to this,

It's amazing. Lawrence Lindsay was basically fired for saying that the Iraq war would realistically cost roughly $200 Billion, far higher than the $60-$80 Billion the rest of the administration was parroting during the buildup phase. They laughed off those estimates as doomsayers and naysayers not knowing what they were talking about.

.....

Good prediction Larry. You must be taking quiet solace in knowing you were right even though you lost your job over it.

 

[Silent_One]

Iraq can be a stepping stone or an isolated island (along with Afghanistan). I think we need to go further and, as the marshal plan did, make a dent in poverty in much of the area and considering long term strategic objectives of the relationship with the muslim world it probably should mostly goto muslim countries. There are quite a few candidate countries outside Afghanistan that could become new refuges for terrorist on the run...

I think iraq is a stepping stone. But first things first. Iraq must be dealt with first. Making a dent in the poverty of "other" countries is a waste of time, IMHO, unless Iraq is stabilized and democratized, and those "other" country's governments are either a.) going to be reformed, or b.) changed.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

It's amazing. Lawrence Lindsay was basically fired for saying that the Iraq war would realistically cost roughly $200 Billion,

You just gotta love these types of statements "basically?" What source do we have for this implication?

They laughed off those estimates as doomsayers and naysayers not knowing what they were talking about.

Who, and when?

I know that I can guarantee you this: this won't be the last request for supplemental funds.

 

[Natoma]

It's amazing. Lawrence Lindsay was basically fired for saying that the Iraq war would realistically cost roughly $200 Billion,

You just gotta love these types of statements "basically?" What source do we have for this implication?

No source whatsoever. Common sense. Bush sticks by his economic team of Larry Lindsay and Paul O'Neill for months while the economy was tanking and everyone in the conservative movement, not to mention economists abroad, were clamoring for their removal.

Days after Lindsay makes his comment wrt the true estimated costs of Iraq, far higher than the $60-$80 Billion the Administration was saying it'd cost, he gets fired. So gee, he wasn't fired for the economy's poor performance, but as soon as he steps outside the administration line, he's dismissed?

Make up your own mind.

They laughed off those estimates as doomsayers and naysayers not knowing what they were talking about.

Who, and when?

They as in the administration while they were telling everyone the war would cost $60-$80 billion last fall and winter.

I know that I can guarantee you this: this won't be the last request for supplemental funds.

I agree.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

No source whatsoever.

Which is what I expected.

Make up your own mind.

I have...when it comes to Bush...everything is a conspiracy theory to you.

They as in the administration while they were telling everyone the war would cost $60-$80 billion last fall and winter.

Right...and that 60-80 billion was for the "cost of the war" in total, or the projected cost for fiscal year 2003?

I know that I can guarantee you this: this won't be the last request for supplemental funds.

I agree.

So does probably everyone else. But if you want to spin what the Administrationis asking for now, vs. what you try and make out as the cost of the entire conflict, go on ahead.

 

[Sazar]

President Bush put the war in perspective. Afghanistan, was the al-Qaeda and Taliban home base that was assaulted and frankly besieged the terrorist, this resulted in a large number of key extremist being captured or killed. The effort in Afghanistan busted up terrorist monetary and logistical organizations. Dismantling Saddam Husseins government in Iraq which sustained terrorism and had the prospect of equipping terrorists with WMD. Also the work in Iraq surely has destroyed any terrorist ties with the Saddam regime, now there is none for them to deal with. The message that President Bush had was not new, but it helps to remind Americans what is being fought for.

Surely "Iraq is now the central front" as the president said the simple fact of the matter is that it is indeed for both sides. Al-Qaeda supporters are poring into Iraq from all over the Middle East to battle with the "infidel" Americans. Ironically they thought that Afghanistan would be that place as well. The terrorists draw their tactical schooling from Vietnam, Somalia etc. In each situation America was hurt but not routed militarily. In each case, the US pulled out because the political will withered. Some mixture of lack of leadership, home political factors, and vagueness of objectives all led to an ending that was unbalanced with the strength of the enemy. In the case of Iraq though, the keys needed for the success against the US are not present. Bush is showing strong leadership even in the face of his critics, the support on the home political front is bi-partisan and there is a large amount of support in the populous. The objective is to create a democratic state in the most fertile ground for terrorism. This prospect scares the hell out of the radical terrorist. Imagine a free and democratic Iraq would be a matchless accomplishment and an undeniable loss for haters of freedom and equally an ultimate triumph for the US and the free world against its enemies. The favorable effects would be felt strongly in the region and around the world. This is why the enemies of the US, and consequentially freedom, are fighting a desperate battle in Iraq. The only way they can succeed is if the American people remove their support. As for an exit strategy there is none, only success should be tolerated.

there are several problems with that...

first off... terrorism is on the rise in afghanistan with a resurgence in recruiting for terrist organisations such as the taliban... I think you may recall bush is asking for extra funding for afghanistan as well to prop up the 'psuedo' puppet government there... karzai is not having an easy time with attacks on members of his cabinet on a regular basis...

as for iraq... ties with terrorism ? I fail to see any concrete information linking saddam to terrorism prior to the war... there were terrorist camps that were identified in the kurd controlled sections in the north... the kurds being our allies in the war against saddam.. therefore I fail to see any correlation... on the contrary the number of terrorists has spiked UPWARdS since the war in iraq...

now... look @ the history of iraq as a free democracy pre saddam hussein... the nation has a HISTORY of coups and regime changes... saddam was the last leader to stay in power for any length in time... is it really expected that iraq will roll over and become a fertile seat of democracy ? I find it just a little hard to believe...

the reason terrorists exist in iraq currently is because of the US creating a power vacuum and giving terrorist organisations an excellent recruiting tool to get fresh people in on the war against america...

also... fyi.. the most fertile land for terrorism is in south-east asia... indonesia is proving to be THE most fertile ground for recruiting terrorists... not the middle east.. that is a fallacy... however I find it extremely difficult to imagine our president stretching the troops even further by starting a campaign in indonesia... it is just not feasible @ this time...

bush has put all his eggs in one basket on a misguided principle.. iraq is not part of the war on terrorism... it is a completely different cup of tea... we were supposedly enforcing UN resolutions asking for compliance in the dismantling of WMD's that we have yet to find any evidence of.. the whole terrorism angle made it an easy sell to the peoples of america...

there are no links between al qaeda/taliban and iraq.. none have been proven even though much was speculated on prior to the war...

we are sinking in over $100 billion (incl the recently asked for $87 billion) of US tax payer money and countless lives of american soldiers for what exactly ? a misguided war that did not have to occur in the first place...

to put things in pespective... we spand around $ 80 billion on federally funded education in america annually... and around $45-50 billion on ALL our federal roads/bridges etc. and all work on said structures...

bush has no choice but to stay the course here... no way is he going to admit he was wrong in going into iraq.. that would be political suicide...

the terrorists are taking advantage of the landscape and scenario in iraq... you can call it vietnamesque or even linked to somalia... or you can go all the way back to america's struggle for independence v/s britain.. no singular conflict has a copyright on guerilla warfare...

all I can hope for is the safety of our troops in iraq while this idiotic campaign wages on... of couse with a cabinet made up of iraqi EXILES (note... no major positions of power have been allotted to any iraqi's who are not exiles) there are more issues which terrorists can take to heart and say... look..we told you so...

 

[Sazar]

No source whatsoever.

Which is what I expected.

Make up your own mind.

I have...when it comes to Bush...everything is a conspiracy theory to you.

They as in the administration while they were telling everyone the war would cost $60-$80 billion last fall and winter.

Right...and that 60-80 billion was for the "cost of the war" in total, or the projected cost for fiscal year 2003?

I know that I can guarantee you this: this won't be the last request for supplemental funds.

I agree.

So does probably everyone else. But if you want to spin what the Administrationis asking for now, vs. what you try and make out as the cost of the entire conflict, go on ahead.

cost was projected @ approx $100 billion or so.. total...

 

[Natoma]

No source whatsoever.

Which is what I expected.

As if one can't make judgements about situations without having a source?

Make up your own mind.

I have...when it comes to Bush...everything is a conspiracy theory to you.

Not at all. When it comes to any situation such as this it's quite easy to see intent. You just happen to believe I think everything is a conspiracy because I don't believe everything I'm told at face value. Nice to see you can't think for yourself.

They as in the administration while they were telling everyone the war would cost $60-$80 billion last fall and winter.

Right...and that 60-80 billion was for the "cost of the war" in total, or the projected cost for fiscal year 2003?

The cost of the war in total has far exceeded $60-$80 Billion, and so will the projected cost for fiscal year 2003. Either way you look at it, the numbers are far beyond the administration's official estimates to Congress and the American Public and in line with Lindsay's estimates.

I know that I can guarantee you this: this won't be the last request for supplemental funds.

I agree.

So does probably everyone else. But if you want to spin what the Administrationis asking for now, vs. what you try and make out as the cost of the entire conflict, go on ahead.

No spin is required.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

As if one can't make judgements about situations without having a source?

Of course you can. Just as I can assess your judgement as conspiracy theorist at best.

Not at all. When it comes to any situation such as this it's quite easy to see intent. You just happen to believe I think everything is a conspiracy because I don't believe everything I'm told at face value. Nice to see you can't think for yourself.

Indeed. I don't believe everything I'm told at face value either. Which incliudes the democrats, not republicans, citing the dismissal of O'Neill and Lindsay as some type of admission of economic failure...or your asinine theory that it was because of a singular incident of challenging a budget estimate.

It surely can't be that Bush just wasn't completely happy with how they did their jobs.

The cost of the war in total has far exceeded $60-$80 Billion, and so will the projected cost for fiscal year 2003.

Sure. Just as the cost of every social program exceeds its initial estimate. Budget estimates are estimates.

Either way you look at it, the numbers are far beyond the administration's official estimates to Congress and the American Public and in line with Lindsay's estimates.

And from this we conclude that both O'Neill and Lindsay were fired on this basis.

No spin is required.

Then why do it?

 

[Natoma]

Not at all. When it comes to any situation such as this it's quite easy to see intent. You just happen to believe I think everything is a conspiracy because I don't believe everything I'm told at face value. Nice to see you can't think for yourself.

Indeed. I don't believe everything I'm told at face value either. Which incliudes the democrats, not republicans, citing the dismissal of O'Neill and Lindsay as some type of admission of economic failure...or your asinine theory that it was because of a singular incident of challenging a budget estimate.

It surely can't be that Bush just wasn't completely happy with how they did their jobs.

Nice timing of the firing then eh, especially given the long months of bad performance and muck ups from both? But lets see, in all those cases the administration came out saying they were pleased with their men and had no interest in finding new people for the positions. Again, no conspiracy theory required. Just simple common sense.

The cost of the war in total has far exceeded $60-$80 Billion, and so will the projected cost for fiscal year 2003.

Sure. Just as the cost of every social program exceeds its initial estimate. Budget estimates are estimates.

Up until the war started, the white house was saying "Oh well, we can't put a figure on it." The day after the war started, they come out with their $60 Billion - $80 Billion official estimate. Gee, another instance of perfect timing there eh? Seems to be a refrain with this administration doesn't it?

Either way you look at it, the numbers are far beyond the administration's official estimates to Congress and the American Public and in line with Lindsay's estimates.

And from this we conclude that both O'Neill and Lindsay were fired on this basis.

And where did I state that O'Neill lost his job because of this? O'Neill got into trouble because he was going around in his last days saying that he didn't think the tax cut being bandied about in the white house, which was eventually passed this spring, would do enough to stimulate the economy wrt the larger deficit hole it'd create.