What do you think about the President's speech

[TangoCharlieOscar]

Ok. Let's get it started. Let's hear the pro's and con's about the President's speech.

How 'bout it Shaughn, Scooter, Artist Girl, Lady G, r8bull, sandbagger?

We'll let CX moderate. JB can throw in his opinions too, since this is his website.

Anybody looking to start a new career in N.O.?

I'm going back to working on the tile in my bathroom. I'll check back later.

Tim
TcO

[Sponsored Links]

[Shaughnn]

Hi Tango,
Didn't watch it. Took the baby and my wife to the local farmer's market and some Texican food instead. I heard one criticism that I thought was noteworthy though. Seems that the President's entourage found enough generators and commissary people to light up the scene real pretty and keep everybody (in the entourage) smiling and well-fed.
How amazingly leaderlike it might have been if, instead of flying over New Orleans days after the deluge hit town, he had landed at a local military base and made a sincere gesture of concern instead of a staged and politicized theater piece meant for the television audience and not the displaced and affected millions in Katrina's wake.
Maybe I'll read the transcript. It might be just slightly less predictable than a "Family Circus" comic,...might.
Is that what you expected from me, Tim?,
Shaughnn

[cx]

Always happy to moderate. :)

Gotta admit I didn't even know W was fixin' to speachify this evening. I generally make an effort to listen when he does, no matter how difficult I might find that.

But I'm sure he did a fine job and said many meaningful things. :rolleyes:

[muskymike]

I didn't watch it but what I wanna know is where does GB think he's gonna get alla money for that? Cuz the gummint is supposedly paying for it.

[Tool Guy - Kg]

Just stick on another $10/gal gas tax. That outta do it. :mad:

[Mike2]

As reported by the San Francisco Chronical today (read here) (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/16/national/w081536D48.DTL) the federal deficit this year projected at $333 billion before Katrina is going to become somewhat larger. :rolleyes:

[Scooter]

Did you hear his proposals? I thought I was listening to Bill Clinton or Howard Dean.

Big government has a place in national emergencies.

More federal govenment control.

Federal funding of low income housing.

Creation of jobs.

Then I heard something about $5,000 per person!!! ???

I listened in absolute amazement to the proposals he was making. There is absolutely, positively no way that Dennis Hassert or Trent Lott will allow any of these proposals to go forward.

These guys would rather build a school in Iraq than house a citizen in New Orleans.

Speaking of Iraq, how can we spend $20 Billion dollars a month over there indefinitely? Something has got to give, either raise taxes, get the heck out of there, or forget New Orleans. Pick 'em

[sandbagger]

... There is absolutely, positively no way that Dennis Hassert or Trent Lott will allow any of these proposals to go forward......I certainly hope you're correct, though our reasoning is undoubtedly different. :D

First, I didn't watch it or listen. Normally I try to listen on the radio so I'm not distracted by all the theatrics. And please, you're gonna get that no matter the party - it's the times we live in and there's way too much on appearances and too little on substance. nuff said.

as for the speech, from what I've heard so far, FDR would be proud. :bang:

This morning Bill Clinton was singin' the favorite liberal song, of course, and I'm sure we'll hear it loud and long - "RAISE THOSE TAXES!" He started with the easy target - those "rich" folks who "don't need" a tax break. But mark my words - it's just the first salvo.

The problem is not taxes - it's too #%&@ much spending! Did you know that revenues are UP considerably today over what they were when W took office? Exactly what happened under Reagan, for those who remember. And please don't blame Iraq, folks - that's a pittance compared to all the entitlement spending we keep adding. there's the Farm Bill, the Highway Bill, etc, etc - pork, pork, pork!!

did anyone catch my favorite RINO McCain a few days ago when he said the government had to take the lead by cuttiing back its own spending? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Scooter]

You know, we FINALLY found something we could agree upon.

I knew given enough time, or enough beer, we could agree and be friends. :yipee:

Iraq is not a pittance. I was wrong it is 5.8 billion dollars a month. Omigod.

Could you imagine what a single US City could do with just a month of that?

Or imagine the tax cut with the money?

Just do the math.

I say get the heck out of there, let them have civil war, and leave a note that if they find any WMD, to call us. Bring the troops home, have a parade. Mission Accomplished.

Let Congress figure out whether to spend the money-or not.

[LadyGodiva]

No taxes?

Whatever.

Rebuild N.O.?

Get out of Iraq first.

What else did Dubya flap his gums about? I was playing with my dog at the time, and I have to tell you that this is one intelligent doggy :D

Taking the blame for how things were handled in N.O.? Oh, the poor sod. I just want to break down and cry. :cry:

[Shaughnn]

Mike,
The pre-Katrina debt of $333 Billion will now double. Let's see how the religious wack-jobs react when their posterboy brings them , "$666 billion, the Debt of the Beast" :D
Shaughnn

[sandbagger]

You know, we FINALLY found something we could agree upon.

I knew given enough time, or enough beer, we could agree and be friends. :yipee: ....... are you kidding? I disagree with my friends all the time - one of the better excuses (as if we need one) for a coupla cold brewskies. :yeah: Truth is, I've found the debates here both spirited and respectful - noticeably absent the name-calling and personal attacks so common on many of the boards. Speaks well for the folks who like to get a little "mud" on their hands, eh?

As for Iraq - well, I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree. Besides, I seem to recall another thread in here on that topic. :topicoff:

I'd rather imagine what any city - heck, any 3rd-world country - could do with the kind of money we are going to throw down this black hole in the Gulf in the name of "compassion." In one sense, it's like driving a car without insurance - because you had to have that new house or trip to Hawaii - and wrecking it. Then you go out and get insurance and expect the gecko to fix you car. :shake:

First of all, much of it was avoidable. I don't care who you want to blame (another thread also), but it didn't have to be nearly this bad.

Secondly, do we really want to rebuild NO the way it was? Besides the fact that most of the ground the outlying areas of the city was built on is sinking, NO has little to sustain the population it had. I heard NO unemployment was as high as 35%!! How is that going to change? I don't care how many tax breaks you give business to build there, more than likely there will be a net loss of jobs. Who cares about a tax break when you're at risk of being wiped out with another cat 5?

I say rebuild the "safe" parts of town and relocate everyone else. If you study your history you'd see we've done it before - Galveston/Houston about 100 yrs ago comes to mind. I resent the diversion of good money to cover for incompetence, but why follow Einstein's definition of insanity? (you know, expecting different results from the same behavior. :crazy: ) The most 'compassionate' thing you could do for those poor people is give them a fresh start in a new city where they at least have a chance. Many of the evacuees have already started this process. (let's see, 35% unemployment in NO or 4% in AZ, hmmmmmmm??)

call me cold and callous, but common sense is like that sometimes. This is not Holland where land is at a premium. If we all put aside our politics for a moment it's hard to make a rational argument in favor of building houses on sinking land that is already below sea level. in hurricane country to boot. Preserve the historical sections and rebuild as much of the port as cannot be moved. We've got a gazillion square miles for everyone else. And there's always room for a new cajun restaurant. :D

[r8ingbull]

Iraq is not a pittance. I was wrong it is 5.8 billion dollars a month. Omigod.

The interest alone on the military's portion of the National Debt is almost 30 billion dollars per month.

I wish I had a money machine and could raise spending anytime I wanted.

Is a basic requirement of employment for the federal government that you have no idea whats going on? When GW says it could cost 200b$ and no raises in taxes, where does he think the money is coming from?

We need a balanced budget ammendment to the constitution.

[sandbagger]

...Taking the blame for how things were handled in N.O.? Oh, the poor sod. I just want to break down and cry. :cry:
then cry about this:

Blanco Takes Responsibility (http://www.nola.com/newsflash/topstories/index.ssf?/base/news-19/1126743841129632.xml&storylist=)

:cry:

[r8ingbull]

"Sometimes enough water would pour out of the Mississippi and through Old River to quintuple the falls at Niagara. It was at Old River that the United States was going to lose its status among the world’s trading nations. It was at Old River that New Orleans would be lost, Baton Rouge would be lost. At Old River, we would lose the American Ruhr. The Army’s name for its operation there was Old River Control."

"On this day, he said, the water on the Mississippi side was eighteen feet above sea level, while the water on the Atchafalaya side was five feet above sea level."

"In time of thundering flood, the Atchafalaya was used as a safety valve, to relieve a good deal of pressure and help keep New Orleans from ending up in Yucatán."

If the Army hadn't interfered 40 years ago, New Orleans would have already been deserted and we wouldn't be talking about this now.

So 'ole GW wants to stick another band-aid on it.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?050912fr_archive01

The article is from a book by John McPhee "Control of Nature". Long but great read.

[jvcstone]

When GW says it could cost 200b$ and no raises in taxes, where does he think the money is coming from?

We need a balanced budget ammendment to the constitution.

I do believe the way this debt thingy works is our kids and grandkids will get to pay it back. That is if all those foreign countries holding the paper don't call it in first. ( we would be in one hell of a mess if that happens).

I agree on the balanced budget--something that should have happened a long time ago. But what do a bunch of rich guys who can (and do) vote themselves a pay raise any time they feel like it know about spending limits.

I know if I spend more than I bring in, I can get away with it for a little while, but it will bite me in the butt sooner rather than later. Time for the people to take control of their government back from the professional politicians. :mad:
JVC

[sandbagger]

.....We need a balanced budget ammendment to the constitution.
Wasn't that part of Newt's Contract with America? one of the few parts that didn't get through Congress, as I recall. (not that Clinton would have signed it, mind you)

It's awfully hard to balance a budget year in and year out when over 60% is mandated by law (ie, entitlements). (FY '06 data) That means any spending cuts must come from the 40% that is "discretionary." So let's say you want to cut spending by 10% overall. Doesn't sound too tough, you say. Well, if you only have 40% to work with, that means you need a 25% cut in discretionary spending! You wanna try 20%?? then cut discretionary in half!

welcome to the United Welfare States of America. :bonk:

[r8ingbull]

I know if I spend more than I bring in, I can get away with it for a little while, but it will bite me in the butt sooner rather than later. Time for the people to take control of their government back from the professional politicians.

Sounds like these rich politicians have never had a rough couple of months and struggled to pay the bills. Most working types know exactly what happens; phone calls, negative credit, interest raises, etc.....

Senate Leadership
Majority Leader - $175,600
Minority Leader - $175,600

House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $203,000
Majority Leader - $175,600
Minority Leader - $175,600

[r8ingbull]

then cut discretionary in half!

OK.

You know how everytime Congress goes in session we get a few new laws passed? I say before a new one gets passed they have to pick two old ones to repel.

[Eric Philson]

So, when was the constitution amended to allow for the federal gov to bail out (pardon the pun) victims of natural disasters? Also, if the government should involve itself in these type of affairs then where should Jack sign up for funding to replace his stolen G-2? After all, they were probably just misplaced looters who took it anyway. :D

[oma]

Didn't listen to the speech, didn't wanna listen to the speech. Bush has, imo, joined the ranks of the great democrats of history, and is sounding just like one these days. It disgusts me. The current belief seems to be "just throw some money at it and it will go away." Sorry guys, we've thrown way too much money at way too many problems, and the crap keeps getting deeper. Didn't someone say something about the true definition of insanity? When I watch the news lately, I feel like I'm watching some dream where everyone is completely crazy and I'm the only one who can see it. Problem is, I don't wake up. We're spending ourselves right out of a great country, and we're gonna wake up one day flat on our behinds.

[LadyGodiva]

Oma, as the saying goes 'all good things must come to an end." Maybe it's our turn?

[TangoCharlieOscar]

Wow, I leave for a day and look at what kinds of dust I stirred up.

Shaughn, your response didn't disappoint me. It's exactly what I expected and I laughed when I read it. :D
It's ironic....I went for TexMex last night too, with my wife and daughter. Except I think my daughter is about 15 years older than yours. (Hope I'm not confused - don't you have a new daughter?...anyway...)

I think he picked Jackson Square to emphasize to the folks of N.O. that we're not giving up on the city. I took your suggestion and read the transcript from the web. Of course, it was from FoxNews so that might not be a reliable source. :D http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169514,00.html
I took notes today at work during lunch and much of it has been hashed here today. But, I'll take the opportunity to add my $0.02.

Here's one quote that I found particularly interesting:
"The federal government will be fully engaged in the mission, but Governor Barbour, Governor Blanco, Mayor Nagin, and other state and local leaders will have the primary role in planning for their own future."

I hope they do a better job than they did being prepared for the hurricane.

Another concept I found interesting was the Gulf Opportunity Zone.
"Within this zone, we should provide immediate incentives for job-creating investment … tax relief for small businesses … incentives to companies that create jobs ... and loans and loan guarantees for small businesses, including minority-owned enterprises, to get them up and running again"

If this is such a good idea (and I do think it will be necessary), then why don't we make the whole U.S. an opportunity zone with the same incentives?

I think some pressure will need to come from WDC to the banking industry to get them to "reinvest" some of their huge profits they've been making these past few years back into the area. The oil companies are definitely going to be spending some of their funds to rebuild facilities. Hopefully, they will be able to rebuild bigger and more efficient refineries.

Worker Recovery Accounts
Up to $5,000 for evacuees for job training, education and child care.
Good idea.

Urban Homesteading... just where exactly is this federal property that they want to build homes on? Having groups like Habitat for Humanity involved is a great idea I think. Just don't know if it will be enough. Of course, if we turned it into a tv reality show it would probably work. :D

Responsibilty
This part concerns me:
"Yet the system, at every level of government, was not well coordinated, and was overwhelmed in the first few days. It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces – the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment’s notice"
So, do this mean the Federal Govt getting into more of the State and Local govt's business? I hope not.

"When the federal government fails to meet such an obligation, I as President am responsible for the problem, and for the solution. "

Does it get any plainer than this? (For some reason, I don't think this will make any of my "left wing" friends any happier. :stick: )

What do you think the terrorist learned from all this?
Answer: If we blow up their fuel supply lines, they'll be in heap big do-do.

Scooter...I agree with you...sounds like Clinton/Dean/FDR

Can we repeal that last federal transportation spending bill? I think there was a lot of pork in there that we could use.

Sanbagger...
"I'd rather imagine what any city - heck, any 3rd-world country - could do with the kind of money we are going to throw down this black hole in the Gulf in the name of "compassion.""

Sandbagger - you better be careful, somebody might accuse you of being a "racist". By Gulf, did you mean the one one the southern part of the U.S. or the one in the middle east? :stick:

Regarding your comment about "safe parts of town", I heard an interesting theory put forth on Rush Limbaugh's show. A caller, who sounded African American and was defending Lewis Farrakan (sp?), made the point that he felt the governor was somehow responsible for the hole in the levee that caused all the flooding in the black neighborhoods. The reason...this would force all the lower income people (ie welfare) to have to evacuate (hopefully the state of Louisiana) and get on someone else's welfare roles. Interesting theory. I think it's a bunch of hogwash that the governor would intentionally do this. But it does bring up a good point. How many of the people that left do you think will come back? And, what "type" of people will that be? I'm not talking about color here. I'm talking about work ethic. How many of the "non-working" type will remain in Texas?

Oh well, that's all I have for now. The one thing I took from reading all these posts, is that no one that participated in the discussion liked the way our federal government is spending our money. What are we going to do about it?

Finally (thank goodness, you say), why is it that every time I measure something for this bathroom and get it almost all put together it doesn't fit?
I think I'm going to have to get a new tape measure! I finished putting up the knee wall (why do they call it that?) around the whirlpool tub on Wednesday night. When I stepped back and looked at it, the area around the tub looked to be bigger than the 4x4 tile that I'm using. Sure enough, it was 3/4" too long. So last night, I spent 3 hours "fixing" it.
Maybe I need to spend more time "standing around" as John discusses in his book? Maybe not, my wife is going to kill me if this takes much longer. Hey, at least the tub works!!!

Tim
TcO

[sandbagger]

...A caller, who sounded African American and was defending Lewis Farrakan (sp?), made the point that he felt the governor was somehow responsible for the hole in the levee that caused all the flooding in the black neighborhoods. The reason...this would force all the lower income people (ie welfare) to have to evacuate (hopefully the state of Louisiana) and get on someone else's welfare roles. Interesting theory. I think it's a bunch of hogwash that the governor would intentionally do this.....I think "hogwash" is the better summation. C'mon - a little common sense, please! :)

The Governor (and mayor) are....... democrats, right? The group he's talking about (poor, welfare, primarily black) votes for ........ democrats! (90%) If anything, you're going to see these folks fight against permanent displacement of a huge voting block.

[oma]

LG, you guys had your turn for 40 years, and what I see currently is a continuation of the same old social engineering and money wasting on programs that don't effectively work. I've come to the conclusion that most politicians are the same, and the really decent ones get out because they can't stomach the corruption and general rot they see.

[Scooter]

I'd rather imagine what any city - heck, any 3rd-world country - could do with the kind of money we are going to throw down this black hole in the Gulf in the name of "compassion." :D

Thank you, we agree again. :yipee:

I agree that we should be not spending the billions of dollars on the Gulf in the name of compassion--let them pay for reconstruction themselves. Really, screw them. Finally, we are starting to make headway. :yipee:

I also agree that the Gulf it is truly a black hole-- an endless siphon of money going out, no taxes coming in, with little or no benefit to our country. I'm starting to really like you, Art. :wave:

And I also agree with you that the Gulf isn't deserving of our monies. The place is a hell hole. I agree that local government won't help, and it seems they want only our government monies thrown out without accounting safeguards. The monies we spend on the Gulf will be, and indeed already have been, squandered, and pilfered by graft, local political cronnies and end up in the pockets of criminals and thieves. To spend another penny on the Gulf makes no sense whatsoever--let it stay the way it is now, and recall all the Federal Government presence. We have more important things to do. Wouldn't you also agree? :yipee:

We could be there 15 years from now and it won't make a difference. It will still be civil war and chaos. Meanwhile, our own citizens are starving and we need our own reconstruction.

Oh, I'm sorry, by the term "Gulf," did you mean Persian Gulf? :confused:

[sandbagger]

there is a slight difference in the two GULFS, in case you haven't noticed.

Persian Gulf (Iraq)> economy run into toilet by unelected dictator and friends (Chirac, Putin, Schroeder, et al).

US 'Gulf' (Louisiana)> economy run into toilet by corrupt and negligent politicians voted into office by a community looking for a handout and expecting Big Government to take care of them.

careful, Scooter, that brewskie I mentioned is gettin' warmer and flatter by the minute. :moon:

[Scooter]

there is a slight difference in the two GULFS, in case you haven't noticed.

Persian Gulf (Iraq)> economy run into toilet by unelected dictator and friends (Chirac, Putin, Schroeder, et al).

US 'Gulf' (Louisiana)> economy run into toilet by corrupt and negligent politicians voted into office by a community looking for a handout and expecting Big Government to take care of them.

careful, Scooter, that brewskie I mentioned is gettin' warmer and flatter by the minute. :moon:

But other than that, they are both black holes for our money, troops, and aid effort? Should we be building bridges and schools and repairing roads and airports in Iraq but not Louisiana and Missippi? Constructing a multi-billion dollar superhighway in Afghahistan ($1 billion), but not to rebuild a school in Mississippi. Why is one OK, but other is not? Help me understand--I am trying to be a conservative and need some help here.

What are your priorities? Schools, Bridges, and Highways in the Gulf? or Schools, Bridges, and Highways in the Gulf? Pick one, both or none.

[sandbagger]

.....What are your priorities? Schools, Bridges, and Highways in the Gulf? or Schools, Bridges, and Highways in the Gulf? Pick one, both or none.
Easy. Let's check that Constitution thingy. OH! It says the Federal Gov is responsible for national defense! And I didn't find the Article or Amendment that says the Federal Gov is responsible for bailing out local or state governments that do really stupid things. Do your parents bail you out when you do something stupid? :shake:

But look, I have no problem helping the folks in the US Gulf get back on their feet, and there's plenty of money in the budget being wasted on entitlements and pork-barrel projects to put some senator's name on a library or bridge in his/her state. (Have you been to West VA lately?)

you're absolutely correct, Scooter, it's a matter of priorities. :yeah:

[Scooter]

Art:

So because of the US Constitution, you believe that there is a higher priority building schools in Afghansitan and Iraq, then rebuilding local schools and libraries in Louisiana?

The former is "National Defense" and the latter is "Pork"?

Please clarify.

[sandbagger]

Art:

So because of the US Constitution, you believe that there is a higher priority building schools in Afghansitan and Iraq, then rebuilding local schools and libraries in Louisiana?

:topicoff: not sure entirely how this relates to the speech, but I'll bite. It's actually a no-brainer. National Defense always trumps building/rebuilding anything local. Civics 101. :nod:

we're going to have to agree to disagree whether helping Iraq build a democracy contributes to our own national defense - there's another thread for that debate. One thing that history teaches, however, is that 2 democracies have never gone to war.

The former is "National Defense" and the latter is "Pork"?

Please clarify. clarify what? the fact that you misquoted me? tsk, tsk - you've been doin' pretty well to this point, Scooter. :shake:

I said "and there's plenty of money in the budget being wasted on entitlements and pork-barrel projects to put some senator's name on a library or bridge in his/her state." but I'll state it another way anyhow. There's plenty of wasted money in the non-defense portion of the Federal budget to pay for Katrina reconstruction and then some.

It's like Reagan said in one of his first Cabinet meetings after listening to his new Secretaries argue for several minutes. "If we don't take care of our National Defense, it won't matter how many social programs we have." :)

[Scooter]

So (and I won't quote here) do you favor building schools, bridges, roads, libraries in Iraq in the name of national defense instead of the same in Louisiana and now perhaps Texas?

Its a direct question and I'd like a direct answer. Really.

[sandbagger]

about 4 yrs ago Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt were complaining about the GOP blocking one of their veiled tax hikes - they said the GOP was using a "Constitutional technicality."

I favor adhering to the Constitution. I know that concept is not fashionable among liberals and frankly not among enough conservatives. National Defense is a Constitutionally-mandated obligation of the Federal government. Putting some senator's name on a library somewhere is not. :shake:

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping those in need - after we take care of National Defense.

clear enough? :bang:

[sandbagger]

at least there is some discussion

Katrina Costs Could Cut Senators' Pet Pork Projects (http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/9/22/94228.shtml)

but don't hold your breath. :cry:

[Scooter]

No, you are not clear. My question was a yes or no. The way you wiggle out of a question is awesome. You should go into politics.

So you do favor building schools in Iraq over schools in Louisiana, if the ones in Iraq are built under the guise of "national security."

I won't beat a dead horse, and if you chose to answer in a narritive instead of answering the question, I'll know you are ducking the question. Simple yes or no will suffice, if thats not too dificult.

[oma]

Well, at least in Iraq they seem to appreciate what we do a little.

[sandbagger]

..... built under the guise of "national security."

I won't beat a dead horse, .....
but dead horse is exactly what you are beating. You are the one who is attempting a clever disguise of your real question. In effect you are suggesting that the work in Iraq and Afghanistan is in some way phony (that's what "guise" means, after all). Your question is based upon a premise with which I cannot agree. Therefore it is not possible to answer as it's stated. That's not evasion or politics, it's recognizing an old - but still much-used - journalism trick to trap the target. It's like the old "wife-beater" joke I'm sure you recognize; it goes something like this:"hey, Scooter, are ya still beatin' the wife and kids every night? or just on weekends?" Since I seriously doubt that you beat up anybody - let alone wife and kids - you can't answer that question any more than I can answer yours. So if I say "yes" to your question the way it's phrased I would in effect be agreeing to your premise that it's a phony war and it's all for oil or Halliburton or yada yada yada........

nice try. :tongue:

I don't support anything under the guise of anything.

I DO support spending for National Defense over domestic spending. Last time I checked, that was what the Constitution says. Even the socialist-leaning FDR understood that simple fact, as did every President and Congress until ol' "guns-n-butter" LBJ.

The Federal government should always spend first on National Defense, then allocate what's leftover for domestic spending. That means, for example, you chose between a bridge to nowhere in Alaska or repairing bridges to homes and business in New Orleans. You do NOT choose between new school busses and new Bradleys for the troops defending this country. :shake:

I can't make it much clearer than that. :bang:

I happen to think success in Iraq/Afghanistan is critical to our long-term national defense and well-being. I take it from your comments you do not. That is a different question, and the subject of a different thread. By mixing the two in the manner you've attempted it is you who's being evasive. :laugh2: But hey - if you decide to give up the remodeling, logic like that might land you a gig on the LA Times staff. :rolleyes:

[Scooter]

Art, you can post the smiley faces you want and head crashing icons you want, and the fact remains that you won't answer very simple questions posed three times. Cute icons won't let you wiggle out of that fact, and neither will I.

The fact remains, to my stupification, we are building roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and all sorts of infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan without anyone questioning it. Congress just writes blank checks to Haliburton to build these things.

Yet, when some poor schlubs in Louisiana, Mississippi or Texas want their cities rebuilt after two hurricanes, you conservatives ask, "Well How We Gunna Pay for It?" "Bulldoze New Orleans and Houston--those morons shouldn't live there." "How do we pay for it?"

Duh--the same stupid way you are paying for infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, I'm not against fixing Iraq--Lord knows they need it, after we bombed the shit out of it. But Jesus F'ing Christ, why do our own citizens have to rate 2nd place to a bunch of ex Taliban and Baathists? I don't get it. Neither our beloved President, nor Congress has explained that to me. We have to justify repairs to our own country but not to Iraq? .

I'm outa this thread. I've tried to post the same question three times, and I know why you have't answered it, because you, like I, don't like the answer.

Nixon is starting to look good.

[sandbagger]

well, Scooter, just in case you're still lurkin'.

your "question" was more of statement - based upon a premise that I cannot accept. You can repeat it a bazillion times if you like, but it's unanswerable in it's present from. You are asking me if I support spending on a "phony war." of course not - but I don't believe Iraq is a phony war.

What it all boils down to is something pretty simple that should be obvious to all - you and I have distinctly different positions regarding Iraq and the whole Middle East, and probably the whole War on Terror for that matter.

Let me sum it up:

I believe Iraq under Saddam was a threat to the US. Maybe not "iminent," but neither was Hitler in 1933.
Fixing Irag is in the best interests of peace in the Middle East, which is directly related to our National Defense.
National Defense spending trumps domestic spending at the Federal level.
If you want to get into the silliness about Halliburton, I could throw back the list of "no-bid" contracts Clinton passed out, but that's really old news. Besides, I believe there's another thread for "the War."

the jury is still out I freely admit, but the signs are much more positive than under Saddam. Time will tell. But like Oma says, at least they seem to appreciate it. In the meantime, you and I will just have to agree to disagree.

so for now, I will not decrease the portion of defense spending that is rebuilding Iraq to build NO - especially the parts below sea level. that's just nuts. I DO support redirecting money from pork, entitlements, and bloated beuracracies to help the folks in need. That's called "common sense" - something sorely lacking in the world today (especially in guvmint!!)

[r8ingbull]

# I believe Iraq under Saddam was a threat to the US. Maybe not "iminent," but neither was Hitler in 1933.

How? He was a threat to our national interest. Not security though. What was Saddam gonna do? Kill a few thousand more americans? Wait we did that for him. Whats the count now 1900 dead?

[sandbagger]

...He was a threat to our national interest. Not security though.... yep, that was certainly our boy Adolf in 1933. :shades:

fact is, Saddam was much more open than Hitler in his intent to attack the US and its allies. His attempted assassination of a US President (Bush41) alone constituted an act of war. Whether or not he had specific capability on a given date is irrelevant.
What was Saddam gonna do? Kill a few thousand more americans? sooo.... as long as it's not American soldiers Saddam is killing, we shouldn't care how many Iraqies he kills, usually after horrendous torture?? You didn't really mean to say that, did you?

[jjwq8]

Iraq:

Immediately prior to the last invasion Saddam (via legitimate business contacts) implored the US administration to give him their wish list of changes (other than regime change) as well as his assurances that the wishes would be granted without shedding a drop of American blood.

At that time he still had the wherewithall to keep his promises.

Colin Powell went on record as stating that if the US broke Iraq they had bought it.

Far from being a threat to America, Saddam and his governance of the ungovernable was probably one of your best friends. Zarqawi and co. could never have set up shop while he was in power.

Do the math. The cost of containing a damp squib under the auspices of the UN against the cost of totally rebuilding a smashed country and economy.

Then ask if the money could have been better spent at home.

[jvcstone]

as long as it's not American soldiers Saddam is killing, we shouldn't care how many Iraqies he kills, usually after horrendous torture?? You didn't really mean to say that, did you?

I quess it doesn't matter how many Iraqies we kill in the name of democracy. And I'm talking the estimated 150,000 non combatants. A lot of them being women and children. Thats just collateral damage , eh sandbagger. :crazy:

And don't you think that Saddam was just a little ticked at Bush the elder. After all, Our ambassador sort of gave him permission to take kuwait. and then we kicked his butt for doing it.

Fact is that during the first Gulf War, our troops were under direct orders not to take Saddam out, and afterwards, we failed to back revolts from both the south and the north. Why ?? you might ask. Because we knew Saddam, we knew he was contained, and we knew if he was taken out all hell would break loose in the area. Some within the current administration were idiots, and now we get to pay for it. Those with no respect for history are doomed to repeat it. :bang: :bang:
JVC

[sandbagger]

I quess it doesn't matter how many Iraqies we kill in the name of democracy. And I'm talking the estimated 150,000 non combatants. A lot of them being women and children. Thats just collateral damage , eh sandbagger. :crazy:
your'e kidding, right? That "study" - which actually claimed 100K, not 150 - has been acknowledged as bogus by all but those on the far reaches of the left. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've been too busy makin' your next million to pay much attention to these things. :DFact is that during the first Gulf War, our troops were under direct orders not to take Saddam out, and afterwards, we failed to back revolts from both the south and the north. Why ?? you might ask. well since you asked. The first part is quite simple - the UN resolution only authorized ousting Saddam from Kuwait. This is one of my favorites from the left - on the one hand you criticize Bush41 for adhering to the UN resolution to leave Saddam in power, then turn around and slam Bush43 for actually doing it!!

as for not backing the Sunnis and Kurds, I have no idea - and it frankly pisses me off to no end. :bang:

[sandbagger]

Immediately prior to the last invasion Saddam (via legitimate business contacts) implored the US administration to give him their wish list of changes (other than regime change) as well as his assurances that the wishes would be granted without shedding a drop of American blood.

At that time he still had the wherewithall to keep his promises.then why didn't he? It was very simple - complete and unfettered access to ANY AND ALL sites we selected - without prior notice - for inspection. Plus a complete accounting of the inventory of WMD he had admitted having. He refused. Guess there were a few other restrictions on that "wish list," eh?

Far from being a threat to America, Saddam and his governance of the ungovernable was probably one of your best friends. Zarqawi and co. could never have set up shop while he was in power.HUH?? Just because you refuse to acknowledge simple facts doesn't mean they didn't happen. Zarqawi, Abu Nidal, and several others we regular "guests" in Iraq long before the invasion.

[jvcstone]

your'e kidding, right? That "study" - which actually claimed 100K, not 150 - has been acknowledged as bogus by all but those on the far reaches of the left. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've been too busy makin' your next million to pay much attention to these things. :

Just who has debunked the "study", and what study. These are the numbers wispered in the halls of the pentagon.
BTW still working on the first. :cry:
JVC

[Shaughnn]

Art, Now you are being just plain silly. Imagine the Middle East as one HUGE political and social poker game. Are YOU going to be the only player with his entire hand open to the table? "Complete and unfettered' access was granted though the pretence of obstruction and deception was maintained to keep the neighboring wolves at bay. It was a desperate bluff and the Neo-Con agenda called him on it. Too bad the ante has been the lives of so many coalition servicemen and women and innocent civilians, huh?
:shake:
Shaughnn

[sandbagger]

Just who has debunked the "study", and what study. These are the numbers wispered in the halls of the pentagon.
BTW still working on the first. :cry:
JVCThe study I believe you are referring to was published about a yr ago by the Lancet and came from Johns Hopkins. It was not a true statistical study but a survey of about 1000 households in the most violent cities in Iraq. Tabloid reporting - not research by any means.

There were lot's of articles, but here's one by the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm) last year. We all know how the BBC loves the US and the war, yet they were pretty straight with the story and pointed out the flaws in the methodology employed. They also provided links to sources even they described as "well-respected." Here's one from an anti-war group called Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/), which even today says the number is under 30K. Too many, but not 150K, either. :shake:

[jjwq8]

Art

Abu Nidal was a resident guest under Saddam. He was allowed to stay on the strict understanding that he ceased and desisted from his previous activities. Given that the PFLP, which he headed, was dormant if not dead for a decade or two, it would seem that he abided by the conditions of his residence.

Zarqawi a regular guest? If you have proof please share as it is news to me. If however you mean he regularly slipped across the border then maybe. But to be a guest of a regime requires formal invite and official sanction to stay. Given that the Baathists in general and Saddam in particular are entirley secular, something totally alien and contrary to the propaganda espoused by Zarqawi/Al Qaeda, it strikes me as unlikely that such sanction would:
a) have been forthcoming
b) have been accepted if it were.