You (And George Bush) Should Read This

bsnyder said:
We've been there and done that. The Republicans were outraged. The Democrats and the media weren't.


I, for one, am indignant at any politician that spends foolishly. Have a lot of Democrats been guilty? You betcha! But the spending always seems to be checked and balanced somehow. The difference is this President and Congress have gone so far over the line we will never get back to anything resembling a surplus ever again.
 
rayelias said:


I'm no blind Bush supporter. There are dozens of things I don't agree with him. The war is not one of them. I am VERY glad he is the Commander in Chief during these VERY important times rather than John Kerry.
/left]​


::yes::
 
“America, our coalition, and Iraqi leaders are working toward the same goal -- a democratic Iraq that can defend itself, that will never again be a safe haven for terrorists, and that will serve as a model of freedom for the Middle East.

We have put in place a strategy to achieve this goal -- a strategy I've been discussing in detail over the last few weeks. This plan has three critical elements.

First, our coalition will remain on the offense -- finding and clearing out the enemy, transferring control of more territory to Iraqi units, and building up the Iraqi security forces so they can increasingly lead the fight. At this time last year, there were only a handful of Iraqi army and police battalions ready for combat. Now, there are more than 125 Iraqi combat battalions fighting the enemy, more than 50 are taking the lead, and we have transferred more than a dozen military bases to Iraqi control.

Second, we're helping the Iraqi government establish the institutions of a unified and lasting democracy, in which all of Iraq's people are included and represented. Here also, the news is encouraging. Three days ago, more than 10 million Iraqis went to the polls -- including many Sunni Iraqis who had boycotted national elections last January. Iraqis of every background are recognizing that democracy is the future of the country they love -- and they want their voices heard. One Iraqi, after dipping his finger in the purple ink as he cast his ballot, stuck his finger in the air and said: "This is a thorn in the eyes of the terrorists." Another voter was asked, "Are you Sunni or Shia?" And he responded, "I am Iraqi."

Third, after a number of setbacks, our coalition is moving forward with a reconstruction plan to revive Iraq's economy and infrastructure -- and to give Iraqis confidence that a free life will be a better life. Today in Iraq, seven in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve even more in the year ahead. Despite the violence, Iraqis are optimistic -- and that optimism is justified.

In all three aspects of our strategy -- security, democracy, and reconstruction -- we have learned from our experiences, and fixed what has not worked. We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission. Yet there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq, we are winning the war in Iraq.

It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. We would abandon our Iraqi friends and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word. We would undermine the morale of our troops by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. We would cause the tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve, and tighten their repressive grip. We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us and the global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever before. To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor, and I will not allow it. “

- President Bush from the Oval Office Dec/2005

(I like this speech much better then that other guy’s speech)

(Hey don’t you love when Kerry makes up those flashy media catch phases ..what did he say about 50 times in his speech..oh yeah…” the Bush-Cheney Doctrine” ha ha ha )

.
 

eclectics said:
I, for one, am indignant at any politician that spends foolishly. Have a lot of Democrats been guilty? You betcha! But the spending always seems to be checked and balanced somehow. The difference is this President and Congress have gone so far over the line we will never get back to anything resembling a surplus ever again.

You obviously have a much shorter memory than I do.
 
eclectics said:
Just imagine the indignant outrage if the deficit was run up the way it has under a Democrat's watch instead of Bush.

bsnyder said:
We've been there and done that. The Republicans were outraged. The Democrats and the media weren't.
You know what bsnyder, you are absolutely right. This is exactly what happened. And now we have a situation where spending is even more out of control and deficits have risen to absurd levels and no one is outraged. Democrats aren’t saying much and neither are Republicans.

So I guess I should be thanking Bush for turning the Republicans in to Democrats when it comes to domestic spending. I guess that is what Bush was referring to when he talks about unity in government. Why oppose the Democrats when we can spend just like them. In fact, why spend like them when we can outdo them. Anything a Democrat can do, we Republicans should be able to do better.

So Thank-you President Bush. Thank-you for making 40 years of concerted effort by conservatives totally moot. Maybe one day we can just drop the name “Republican” and start calling ourselves “Democrats”.

In fact, why don’t you get a start on this process bsnyder and join the Democrats in preparation of this. At least that is what I would like to see happen. Bush and his followers should join the Democrats and leave the Republican party to us practical and hard-headed conservatives.
 
(interesting piece by a war hero from USA Today)

A Marine sees what defeatists don't

By Ben Connable

RAMADI, Iraq — This is my third deployment with the 1st Marine Division to the Middle East.

This is the third time I've heard the quavering cries of the talking heads predicting failure and calling for withdrawal.

This is the third time I find myself shaking my head in disbelief.

Setbacks and tragedy are part and parcel of war and must be accepted on the battlefield. We can and will achieve our goals in Iraq.

Waiting for war in the Saudi Arabian desert as a young corporal in 1991, I recall reading news clippings portending massive tank battles, fiery death from Saddam Hussein's "flame trenches" and bitter defeat at the hands of the fourth-largest army in the world. My platoon was told to expect 75% casualties. Being Marines and, therefore, naturally cocky, we still felt pretty good about our abilities.

The panicky predictions failed to come true. The flame trenches sputtered. Nobody from my platoon died. Strength, ingenuity and willpower won the day. Crushing the fourth-largest army in the world in four days seemed to crush the doubts back home.

Twelve years passed, during which time America was faced with frustrating actions in Somalia and the Balkans. Doubt had begun to creep back into public debate.

In the spring of last year, I was a Marine captain, back with the division for Operation Iraqi Freedom. As I waited for war in the desert, just 100 miles to the north from our stepping-off point in 1991, I was again subjected to the panicky analyses of talking heads. There weren't enough troops to do the job, the oil fields would be destroyed, we couldn't fight in urban terrain, our offensive would grind to a halt, and we should expect more than 10,000 casualties.

Remembering my experience in Desert Storm, I took these assessments with a grain of salt. As a staff officer in the division command post, I was able to follow the larger battle as we moved forward. I knew that our tempo was keeping the enemy on his heels and that our plan would lead us to victory.

But war is never clean and simple. Mourning our losses quietly, the Marines drove to Baghdad, then to Tikrit, liberating the Iraqi people while losing fewer men than were lost in Desert Storm.

In May of last year, I was sitting with some fellow officers back in Diwaniyah, Iraq, the offensive successful and the country liberated from Saddam. I received a copy of a March 30 U.S. newspaper on Iraq in an old package that had finally made its way to the front. The stories: horror in Nasariyah, faltering supply lines and demonstrations in Cairo. The mood of the paper was impenetrably gloomy, and predictions of disaster abounded. The offensive was stalled; everyone was running out of supplies; we would be forced to withdraw.

The Arab world was about to ignite into a fireball of rage, and the Middle East was on the verge of collapse. If I had read those stories on March 30, I would have had a tough time either restraining my laughter or, conversely, falling into a funk. I was concerned about the bizarre kaleidoscope image of Iraq presented to the American people by writers viewing the world through a soda straw.

Returning to Iraq this past February, I knew that the Marines had a tremendous opportunity to follow through on our promises to the Iraqi people.

Believing in the mission, many Marines volunteered to return. I again found myself in the division headquarters.

Just weeks ago, I read that the supply lines were cut, ammunition and food were dwindling, the "Sunni Triangle" was exploding, cleric Muqtada al-Sadr was leading a widespread Shiite revolt, and the country was nearing civil war.

As I write this, the supply lines are open, there's plenty of ammunition and food, the Sunni Triangle is back to status quo, and Sadr is marginalized in Najaf. Once again, dire predictions of failure and disaster have been dismissed by American willpower and military professionalism.

War is inherently ugly and dramatic. I don't blame reporters for focusing on the burning vehicles, the mutilated bodies or the personal tragedies. The editors have little choice but to print the photos from the Abu Ghraib prison and the tales of the insurgency in Fallujah. These things sell news and remind us of the sober reality of our commitment to the Iraqi people. The actions of our armed forces are rightfully subject to scrutiny.

I am not ignorant of the political issues, either. But as a professional, I have the luxury of putting politics aside and focusing on the task at hand. Protecting people from terrorists and criminals while building schools and lasting friendships is a good mission, no matter what brush it's tarred with.

Nothing any talking head will say can deter me or my fellow Marines from caring about the people of Iraq, or take away from the sacrifices of our comrades. Fear in the face of adversity is human nature, and many people who take the counsel of their fears speak today. We are not deaf to their cries; neither do we take heed. All we ask is that Americans stand by us by supporting not just the troops, but also the mission.


We'll take care of the rest.

Maj. Ben Connable is serving as a foreign-area officer and intelligence officer with the 1st Marine Division.

.
 
charlie said:
Blix Says Nix on Iraqi Disarmament Cooperation

By Kathleen T. Rhem
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27, 2003 -- After 60 days of inspections by U.N. officials, Iraq appears not to be cooperating with Security Council Resolution 1441.
"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace," chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix told Security Council members this morning.

Security Council members unanimously approved Resolution 1441 on Nov. 8, 2002. The resolution lays out requirements for Iraq to declare its weapons and weapons programs and to assist inspectors in their verification of the declaration.

Iraq is failing in several specific areas, Blix explained today. The country has refused to guarantee the safety of missions by a U-2 aerial reconnaissance plane at the inspectors' disposal. Iraq has also failed to account for 6,500 chemical bombs and an unknown quantity of VX gas, a chemical nerve agent, some of which may have been weaponized.

Blix referred to the highly publicized discovery Jan. 16 of 12 empty chemical warheads and Iraq's subsequent disclosure of four more a few days later. He said the 12 discovered by inspectors were in a "relatively new" bunker.
"The rockets must have been moved (there) in the past two years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions," he said. Iraqi government officials claimed the warheads had simply been missed in accounting. "They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg," Blix said.
]
Investigators also have found small quantities of a mustard gas precursor and evidence that the country produced significantly more anthrax than it disclosed.

To date, inspectors have carried out roughly 300 inspections at about 230 different sites. Eleven scientists have declined to be interviewed without Iraqi government "minders" being present. Blix said this might be because they don't want government security officials to think they've disclosed anything.

He disclosed that inspectors found 3,000 pages of classified documents regarding enriching uranium in an Iraqi scientist's home. He said this supports a long-held concern that Iraq is hiding sensitive documents in the homes of private citizens.

He also expressed concern over a few acts of civil unrest that have occurred near the inspectors' offices in Baghdad and at inspection sites. "Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq without initiative or encouragement from the authorities," Blix said. "We must ask ourselves what the motives may be for these events."

In an impromptu press conference after the meeting, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte said nothing he heard today gives him hope Iraq intends to comply with Resolution 1441.

"What we have seen over the past 80 days is that, in spite of the urgency introduced in Resolution 1441, Iraq is back to business as usual," he said. He urged the Security Council members to face their responsibilities in disarming Iraq.

"It benefits no one to let Saddam think he can wear us down into business as usual as he has practiced it over the past 12 years," Negroponte said.
American officials in recent days have taken a hard stand that time is running out for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to disarm and that the United States isn't afraid to move ahead alone if need be. But White House spokesman Ari Fleischer today said President Bush still feels it's important to consult with world leaders on the issue.

"The president will continue, as I said, to consult and to talk to our allies," Fleischer said at the White House. "But I think it's important for the world to know what the president has said -- that time is running out."


:confused3


.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,917942,00.html
The UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, yesterday expressed sadness that he had not been allowed more time to complete his work, as foreign ministers from France, Germany and Russia condemned the US and British rush to war.
"I naturally feel sadness that 3 months of work carried out in Iraq have not brought the assurances needed about the absence of weapons of mass destruction or other proscribed items in Iraq," Mr Blix told the security council.

"Our experts have found so far that in substance only limited new information has been provided that will help to resolve remaining questions."

But he has become increasingly vocal in his criticism of the coalition's impatience for military action now that war appears inevitable.

"I do not think it is reasonable to close the door on inspections after 3 months," Mr Blix said on Tuesday, arguing that Iraq was providing more cooperation than it had in more than 10 years.

"I would have welcomed more time."

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1700881,00.html
A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.

But really, reprising this debate just exposes the fundamental differences in worldview. Morally, war is supposed to be last option, an acknowledged bad choice that a nation only resorts to when forced to. We changed that around in our debate here - the burden was on war opponents to come up with a good reason not to go to war, a war expected to be short and costless and roundly beneficial. There would be little impact on the fisc, troops would be out in two months, the rest of the world would come around to our wisdom and leadership, gas prices would drop, etc. Prove it wouldn't happen if you hoped to oppose the war.

That framing is what happened, and it's profane
 
bsnyder said:
You obviously have a much shorter memory than I do.


Not quite sure what point you are trying to make but I'll give it a shot. Have Democrats run up big deficits? Yes they have. Have Democratic Presidents left big deficits for Republicans to deal with? Certainly. Has a Democrat ever left a deficit so huge it could never be cleaned up? NO. That honor will apparantly go to George W. Bush.
 
MossMan said:
And now we have a situation where spending is even more out of control and deficits have risen to absurd levels...

Current deficits are managable, they are not absurd by historical standards. Where the problem lies is with future liabilities. Bush tried to move Social Security into the realm of fiscal sanity and your beloved Democrats denied there's any problem.
 
bsnyder said:
Current deficits are managable, they are not absurd by historical standards.


I have never heard one economist even remotely come close to saying that.
 
deficits_gdp.gif
 
bsnyder said:
Current deficits are managable, they are not absurd by historical standards. Where the problem lies is with future liabilities. Bush tried to move Social Security into the realm of fiscal sanity and your beloved Democrats denied there's any problem.
That is such a stupid statement. You have no idea what you are talking about
 
DawnCt1 said:
Yup, whatever side of the issue you're on, He's there! :rotfl2: And did you know that he was in Viet Nam?

Yup, them wishy, washy politicians. Gotta love 'em.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." —Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

And you did know that he (GW) was NOT in Viet Nam.
 
bsnyder said:
Current deficits are managable, they are not absurd by historical standards. Where the problem lies is with future liabilities. Bush tried to move Social Security into the realm of fiscal sanity and your beloved Democrats denied there's any problem.
You're joking, right?

And after over 25 years of actively working in the Republican party, I doubt many Democrats would consider me as someone who beloves the Democrat party. In fact, the only people who seem to make this suggestion are Republicans who would rather shoot the messenger than listen to the message. George Will, Bill Buckley and Peggy Noonan (to name a few prominent conservatives) are in agreement with what I'm trying to tell other conservatives. Of course they're being attacked from the right for having the gall to stay true to conservative ideals even if it reflects badly on some Republicans.

Again I will suggest to you bsnyder that old school practical conservatives are ussually the types who are willing to listen to bad news and not hide themselves from uncomfortable truths. Either our party wakes up and start to recognize some unfortunate truths or we are going to pay for it upcoming elections. Then where will conservatives be?
 
MossMan said:
You're joking, right?

And after over 25 years of actively working in the Republican party, I doubt many Democrats would consider me as someone who beloves the Democrat party. In fact, the only people who seem to make this suggestion are Republicans who would rather shoot the messenger than listen to the message. George Will, Bill Buckley and Peggy Noonan (to name a few prominent conservatives) are in agreement with what I'm trying to tell other conservatives. Of course they're being attacked from the right for having the gall to stay true to conservative ideals even if it reflects badly on some Republicans.

Again I will suggest to you bsnyder that old school practical conservatives are ussually the types who are willing to listen to bad news and not hide themselves from uncomfortable truths. Either our party wakes up and start to recognize some unfortunate truths or we are going to pay for it upcoming elections. Then where will conservatives be?

I read them all the time, and none of them are as over-the-top hysterical about President Bush as you are. Not a one of them.

I don't disagree with you on the spending. It's a huge disappointement.

But why don't we go back to the post where you asked me about Bush's accomplishments. I named some that every conservative should be proud of. And you had no comment?
 
charlie said:
(interesting piece by a war hero from USA Today)

A Marine sees what defeatists don't

By Ben Connable

RAMADI, Iraq — This is my third deployment with the 1st Marine Division to the Middle East.

This is the third time I've heard the quavering cries of the talking heads predicting failure and calling for withdrawal.

This is the third time I find myself shaking my head in disbelief.

Setbacks and tragedy are part and parcel of war and must be accepted on the battlefield. We can and will achieve our goals in Iraq.

Waiting for war in the Saudi Arabian desert as a young corporal in 1991, I recall reading news clippings portending massive tank battles, fiery death from Saddam Hussein's "flame trenches" and bitter defeat at the hands of the fourth-largest army in the world. My platoon was told to expect 75% casualties. Being Marines and, therefore, naturally cocky, we still felt pretty good about our abilities.

The panicky predictions failed to come true. The flame trenches sputtered. Nobody from my platoon died. Strength, ingenuity and willpower won the day. Crushing the fourth-largest army in the world in four days seemed to crush the doubts back home.

Twelve years passed, during which time America was faced with frustrating actions in Somalia and the Balkans. Doubt had begun to creep back into public debate.

In the spring of last year, I was a Marine captain, back with the division for Operation Iraqi Freedom. As I waited for war in the desert, just 100 miles to the north from our stepping-off point in 1991, I was again subjected to the panicky analyses of talking heads. There weren't enough troops to do the job, the oil fields would be destroyed, we couldn't fight in urban terrain, our offensive would grind to a halt, and we should expect more than 10,000 casualties.

Remembering my experience in Desert Storm, I took these assessments with a grain of salt. As a staff officer in the division command post, I was able to follow the larger battle as we moved forward. I knew that our tempo was keeping the enemy on his heels and that our plan would lead us to victory.

But war is never clean and simple. Mourning our losses quietly, the Marines drove to Baghdad, then to Tikrit, liberating the Iraqi people while losing fewer men than were lost in Desert Storm.

In May of last year, I was sitting with some fellow officers back in Diwaniyah, Iraq, the offensive successful and the country liberated from Saddam. I received a copy of a March 30 U.S. newspaper on Iraq in an old package that had finally made its way to the front. The stories: horror in Nasariyah, faltering supply lines and demonstrations in Cairo. The mood of the paper was impenetrably gloomy, and predictions of disaster abounded. The offensive was stalled; everyone was running out of supplies; we would be forced to withdraw.

The Arab world was about to ignite into a fireball of rage, and the Middle East was on the verge of collapse. If I had read those stories on March 30, I would have had a tough time either restraining my laughter or, conversely, falling into a funk. I was concerned about the bizarre kaleidoscope image of Iraq presented to the American people by writers viewing the world through a soda straw.

Returning to Iraq this past February, I knew that the Marines had a tremendous opportunity to follow through on our promises to the Iraqi people.

Believing in the mission, many Marines volunteered to return. I again found myself in the division headquarters.

Just weeks ago, I read that the supply lines were cut, ammunition and food were dwindling, the "Sunni Triangle" was exploding, cleric Muqtada al-Sadr was leading a widespread Shiite revolt, and the country was nearing civil war.

As I write this, the supply lines are open, there's plenty of ammunition and food, the Sunni Triangle is back to status quo, and Sadr is marginalized in Najaf. Once again, dire predictions of failure and disaster have been dismissed by American willpower and military professionalism.

War is inherently ugly and dramatic. I don't blame reporters for focusing on the burning vehicles, the mutilated bodies or the personal tragedies. The editors have little choice but to print the photos from the Abu Ghraib prison and the tales of the insurgency in Fallujah. These things sell news and remind us of the sober reality of our commitment to the Iraqi people. The actions of our armed forces are rightfully subject to scrutiny.

I am not ignorant of the political issues, either. But as a professional, I have the luxury of putting politics aside and focusing on the task at hand. Protecting people from terrorists and criminals while building schools and lasting friendships is a good mission, no matter what brush it's tarred with.

Nothing any talking head will say can deter me or my fellow Marines from caring about the people of Iraq, or take away from the sacrifices of our comrades. Fear in the face of adversity is human nature, and many people who take the counsel of their fears speak today. We are not deaf to their cries; neither do we take heed. All we ask is that Americans stand by us by supporting not just the troops, but also the mission.


We'll take care of the rest.

Maj. Ben Connable is serving as a foreign-area officer and intelligence officer with the 1st Marine Division.

.

Excellent article. Thanks for posting. :sunny:

Thanks to our brave troops and the perseverence of the Iraqi people, the terrorists will lose and America, its allies, and Iraq will prevail. :sunny:
 
bsnyder said:


First; That graph is from 2004. God only knows what it is now. Second; The man didn't start from zero. He went from a 2.5 surplus to a 4.43 deficit in less than four years. Factoring that in, he sure went over the 6.0 mark, and that was from 2004! I'm sure we broke some sort of record by now.
 
bsnyder said:
I read them all the time, and none of them are as over-the-top hysterical about President Bush as you are. Not a one of them.
You may be right. I'm awfully passionate about my country. But I would rather be "over-the-top hysterical" in opposition to an obviously incompetent administration than "over-the-top hysterical" in defense of said administration.

But listen, this country is going to require "REAL" conservatives to dig us out of the mess Bush is creating. Democrats may oppose this administration, but they do not have them means to fix these problems. But here is the conservative dilemma. The longer misguided conservatives continue to support this President, the longer it will take for Americans to start trusting conservatives again. And thus the longer it will take for "REAL" conservatives to have the freedom to govern effectively again.

If you seriously can't see that, then you probably need to re-consider your definition of over-the-top and hysterical.
 
eclectics said:
First; That graph is from 2004. God only knows what it is now. Second; The man didn't start from zero. He went from a 2.5 surplus to a 4.43 deficit in less than four years. Factoring that in, he sure went over the 6.0 mark, and that was from 2004! I'm sure we broke some sort of record by now.


One of the biggest things I am not happy about with the Bush administration is the spending.

But, in his defense (I cannot believe I am actually defending the spending!) since 9/11 we've had to (1) rebuild New York (2) fight a war in Afghanistan (3) fight a war in Iraq (4) rebuild New Orleans, among other things.

And, if you're curious, other than the spending, I am not happy at all about the open door policy for illegal immigrants. The borders should be secured.

There are two major things I seriously disagree with the administration with, so I can't be labeled a blind Bush supporter. I do support the war.
 

New Posts


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top Bottom