*Shakes Head* Sigh, Bush what in the hell are you thinking?

[treis]

Allright Bush you made your case for war against Iraq. I agreed with you. The majority of America agreed with you. The U.N. on the other hand did not.

You say fine U.N. if you don't want to enforce your resolutions and let a Big Baddie stay in power we will take Saddam down. I agreed with you. The majority of America agreed with you. Alas again the U.N. did not.

You told us that it would take America's time, money, sweat, and blood to rebuild Iraq. I realized it and supported the war despite the cost. The majority of America realized it and supported the war. The U.N. also realized it and thought "No way in hell we are cleaning up that mess".

Now you are speaking to the U.N. about "duties" and "responsibilities" to rebuilding Iraq. I think that is by far the (note: this word pronounced like they for emphasis) stupidest thing I have ever heard. The majority of America realizes it and come November I think you will realize it too.

[Lord Ashtar]

IIRC, Bush was saying that he believes his administration has done a lot to quell the problems in the Middle East. Since many of the countries in the U.N. will benefit from this, he thinks they should pitch in.

[anewthought]

Originally posted by Lord Ashtar
IIRC, Bush was saying that he believes his administration has done a lot to quell the problems in the Middle East.
Yeah but this is only his opinion and an unproven one at that. The UN will not go along most likely because there is currently no proof showing that Bush's plan will really do anything but make the Middle East worst off.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=209624&highlight=bush

[World Eater]

Well it's agreed, he's a fucking idiot.

[Munch]

You told us that it would take America's time, money, sweat, and blood to rebuild Iraq. I realized it and supported the war despite the cost. The majority of America realized it and supported the war.

I disagree. I sincerely doubt a majority of America educated themselves on the potential costs of this war, nor do I think that the government did an adequate job of delivering that education; let alone present an accurate prediction of those costs.

[Soul Brother Number Two]

I second that.

[ElvisL1ves]

Yep. The war was sold on some fantasy about being welcomed as liberators, all existing institutions except for the Saddam family remaining intact, democratic elections resulting in the compliant Mr. Chalabi's anointment in a few months, and then Johnny comes marching home. Oh, and that would get the guy who was really responsible for 9/11 - that's the one Big Lie that Bush is still holding onto, although in an indirect way that lets him weasel out of the charge.

Enough people wanted to believe that Beatles-Saving-Pepperland-from-the-Blue-Meanies stuff so badly that they really did believe it, and there are dead-enders even today. I sincerely doubt that the war and occupation would have had widespread public support if enough of us had believed it would turn out that way (and a large number of us did, that's one of the many reasons we opposed it). Certainly (well, maybe something short of that) Congress would not have let themselves be strong-armed into writing a blank check.

[ElvisL1ves]

Bush is, however, still getting help in spreading the Big Lie - or perhaps we should call it the Big Insinuation?

Shelby, cut the shit, you dumb cracker: (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/bush.speech/index.html)But U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, said his first reaction to the speech was "that this is realism."
...
But he said terrorists in Iraq pose a threat to U.S. troops and the effort to pacify the country is part of the war on terrorism.

"We've got to finish the job. Otherwise, the damage that they did two years ago" in the September 11 attacks will have been just the beginning, Shelby said.

[elf6c]

Note fooling anyone, accept the "pre-fooled"

The speech came as the president is beset by problems. Allies, members of Congress, former members of his administration and Democrats campaigning for his job are complaining about Iraq. He faces foreign policy crises in North Korea, which is defying Bush by taking steps to become a nuclear power, and in the Middle East, where the resignation of Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has imperiled the peace process. The continuing jobs crisis in the USA is creating consternation among Republicans about Bush's chances of being re-elected next year.

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken two weeks ago found that most Americans did not think Bush had a clear plan for Iraq, but nearly two-thirds said the war was worth fighting, and 59% approved of the overall job he was doing. But a Zogby America poll released Sunday found that Bush's job performance rating is 52% and that just two in five people say he deserves to be re-elected.

When strategies sour and dissatisfaction builds, Bush often reacts the same way: He abruptly shifts his message, aggressively criticizes his detractors and tries to reframe the debate.



From those crazy president hating liberals at USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-07-bush-speech-analysis_x.htm

Just 2 in 5. Like Father like Son, I guess. Except his father didn't dodge the war and actually finished his military duty. . .

[Tars Tarkas]

what Bush was thinking:

[Squink]

This being the Pit, it's fair to point out that Wolf Blitzer's latest public opinion poll: "Should Congress approve $87 billion for efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan?" is running 12% yes, 88% No.
In other news, the pubbies seem to think that Gephardt's labeling of Bush as "a miserable failure" is nothing short of hate speech (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030908-121532-8118r.htm). Apparently all REAL Americans should love and embrace the president's failures. Rummy says that anything less amounts to giving giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/08/international/middleeast/08CND-RUMS.html?hp)

[Chefguy]

Originally posted by elf6c
Just 2 in 5. Like Father like Son, I guess. Except his father didn't dodge the war and actually finished his military duty. . .

And now we have the spectacle of the gov't naming a ship after a mediocre one-term failure of a president. What's next, the U.S.S. Ashcroft?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I don't have a lot to add to this, except that I want to quote my favorite paragraphs from Squink's Washington Times link:

The Rev. Al Sharpton was the only Democratic candidate to miss the first debate, and during a dinner for the Central Virginia Business Construction Association in Richmond on Saturday criticized his party for treating black voters like a "mistress."
"A mistress is where they take you out to have fun but they can't take you home to Mama and Daddy.
Either we're going to get married in 2004, or we're going to find some folks who ain't ashamed to be seen with us," he said.

Way to court the religious vote there, Reverend! I never really thought I'd hear a Democratic candidate metaphorically call the entire Democratic party a Philanderer and his own interest group a hussy, but there's a first time for everything. :D

Daniel

[Tars Tarkas]

Originally posted by Squink
This being the Pit, it's fair to point out that Wolf Blitzer's latest public opinion poll: "Should Congress approve $87 billion for efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan?" is running 12% yes, 88% No.


Wow! I'm for spending the money, and i'm a Damn Liberal Pinko Demo-Rat! But i'm used to cleaning up after morons leave messes.

[smiling bandit]

You know, I strongly suspect the Iraqis are pretty glad we stopped Sadam from killing them. They seem to be pretty pleased with that.

Secondly, I say this is cheap at twice the price. This is a pretty comprehensive package, calling for more troops to keep security (an idea which Iraqis recently said saluted themselves!) and a lot of investment in rebuilding the infrastructure. A lot of other nations will be getting a lot of benefit from this, not that many of them will admit it.

This is a expense now, but hey, the future Iraq may repay us a hundred fold as a friend and partner. Aside from the y'know, humanitarian reasons.

I have a hard time understanding why all the "compassionate" liberals were so happy to let everyone else go hang why the "evil" conservatives wanted to stop the bloody tyrant.

Hypocrites, every last one of ya'.

Grantedm we seem to have been wrong about the WMD's. On the other hand, Saddam had them in quantity just a few years ago (hell, he used them openly) and either acted as if they were still there. He implicitly threatened us with them at times. Nevertheless, he did support terrorism financially. And again, it may be cruel to send servicemen to fight Baathist assassins, but better that than to let Mr. Coffee over there freely give money to people to attack us. As a side benefit, all the terrorists who otherwise might have been scheming another attack now have big, bright, heavily armed and armored targets. Who shoot back.

Asking for some aid from other nations is simply a recognition that (a) a couple of them will be openly outed as the baldfaced liars and selfish bastards they are: France and Germany and (b) gives those who've been shocked by the atack on the UN, or simply wanted to sit the fence, a face-saving chance to sign up at little risk.

[wring]

yep ,there were exactly two alternatives - either rush in and bomb the shit outta Iraq or send annual greetings praising Saddam. yeppers.

[Squink]

You wouldn't happen to have the Evil one's address would you wring? Ramadan's coming up October 27th, and I'd like to be sure Saddam gets his card this year. He's been having kindof a rough time. ;)

[wring]

of course I do, as a card carryin' liberal it seems to be the assumption that I routinely have such luminaries as Saddam and Ossama over for wine and cheese parties. We play "pin the tailiban on the ass" and several other parlor games.

[RTA]

but hey, the future Iraq may repay us a hundred fold as a friend and partner

Well, we ARE helping them train up the beginnings of a new military, and perhaps in the future the Iraqis can join a multinational force which can help us rout a dangerous and unelected despot who has a lot of weapons of mass destruction.

Personally, I'd prefer we voted him out next fall.

[InTheField]

IMO, Many countries CHOSE not to become involved in the Iraq debacle for some/all of the following:

1) they did not believe that there was good proof of WMD.
2) they did not buy into the US administrations not-so-subtle diversion of the "we're going after the terrorists" ploy.
3) they actually still operate under the assumption that they are still allowed to run their own foreign policy.
4) they thought that it was not the correct time to take this action.

Now that the US has:
1) not found ANY evidence of WMD
2) clearly not formulated any kind of exit strategy
3) found out that it will actually cost them $$$

They want help. $$ please. Oh, help us exit this god-awful mess we created please. Take this problem off our hands please. Because we really did a good thing here didn't we? The people of Iraq love us don't they? (It's great to hear that smiling bandit "strongly suspects that the Iraqis are pretty glad we stopped Sadam from killing them." Ya that's right. They're much better off being killed by terrorists, pissed off Baathists, escaped criminals, unexploded cluster bombs, and stressed out, nervous soldiers.

Ya, I'm sure that the world is going to "benefit" from this little action for years to come. I'm soooo fucking grateful!!

You know what?

Stick this request up your ass. The UN and many countries did not want this war. We told you it was an idiotic thing to do. We are not prepared to clean up because you did not listen to us.

You know...... yesterday my 4 year old son was in a store, and he broke an ornament accidentally. We told him that we had to pay for it. He was quite upset, until we explained calmly that everyone has to be responsible for their own actions, and everyone must clean up their own messes. Too bad nobody had this same talk with little Georgie when he was 4 years old.

[Kyuzo]

Originally posted by smiling bandit:
Secondly, I say this is cheap at twice the price.
It's not cheap at twice the price if it just gets added to our skyrocketing deficit. I agree we cannot pull out now. However, I want Bush to pay for it, and not put it on our credit card. If this is such a crucial duty of the American people, maybe we had better postpone or rescind the tax cuts he gave to the richest 1% to defray some of this cost.

Besides, I am of the opinion that the costs will spirial even further without international help. Bush is already asking for twice what he asked for at first. Has the administration shown any inclination that it really knows what the costs will end up being?

They don't have a clue, and they've underestimated what is necessary almost every step of the way.

Originally posted by smiling bandit:
I have a hard time understanding why all the "compassionate" liberals were so happy to let everyone else go hang why the "evil" conservatives wanted to stop the bloody tyrant.

Hypocrites, every last one of ya'.

Hypocrites, huh? Well, fuck you. How many brutal tyrants are in the world right now? How many are not being invaded? (Hint: lots.) How long did Bush let people suffer and starve in Liberia before an extremely limited force was sent? (Hint: a brutally long period of time.)

It is such bullshit to put even a part of this in humanitarian terms.

Do you know how many countries are controlled by brutal tyrants? I guess you support invasions into all of them? Or are you the hypocrite?

Originally posted by smiling bandit:
Asking for some aid from other nations is simply a recognition that (a) a couple of them will be openly outed as the baldfaced liars and selfish bastards they are: France and Germany...

I've got news for you...you can't insult other countries and expect them to help you out when things arent going the way you want any more.

I hope we get the help we desperately need. I feel for the soldiers in our two wars that are dying every day as the chickenhawk Rumsfeld tries to prove his theories on new warfare(on the cheap) with the blood of our Armed Forces. I want to do things right.

That's why Bush needs to give up his precious monopoly over Iraq control and share of profits. He needs to go to the U.N., hat in hand, and contritely apologize and give up whatever he needs to to get help. He is never going to get help otherwise, and more of our soldiers and innocent Iraqis will suffer and die every day while Bush fundraises and vacations.

[Jack Batty]

Yeah, I thought it was hilarious how Bush basically forgave "our friends" (France and Germany) for disagreeing with him and how he gave them this golden opportunity to ... agree with him now.

Cowboy. He's making our country look like a pack of arrogant cowboys.

"I know you didn't want us to be here, but that doesn't matter. It is now your duty to give us your money and your troops and we'll tell them what to do and decide where the money goes, okay. Good, now shut up and start agreeing."

Arg.

[Squink]

Originally posted by Kyuzo
Besides, I am of the opinion that the costs will spirial even further without international help. You mean like this ? Rebuilding Iraq could cost as much as $75bn (€68bn), even without counting military spending, the White House said on Monday.
The estimate, which came with the Bush administration's detailed accounting of its request for emergency spending next year of_ $87bn to finance operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, is the first time the White House has put a figure on the rebuilding efforts. Washington says Iraq costs could climb further (http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059479654915&p=1012571727088) (Financial Times September 8, 2003)

The president probably just forgot to mention this picky detail last night. Rather than dotting I's and crossing t's, Bush is more into the "big picture" style of leadership. :dubious:

[pantom]

21 billion now for reconstruction is a joke. A very bad joke, at that.
We're in it up to our necks, and what we need now is a leader who will actually lead - you know, level with us about how much it will cost, pick the most competent people on the planet to get the job done, and then get it done.
Instead, we've got the Shrub.
Of course, a leader is what we needed after 9/11 too. Afghan reconstruction ain't going too well either. And in case you missed it, a piece of this pie is going there, to ratchet up the reconstruction of that country.
Of course, we should've at least finished that job first. But that would've meant actually thinking about what we're doing to the extent of setting goals and accomplishing them within the limits of our resources and the time we have before our enemies can take advantage of our dilatoriness (if that's a word) and persuade the people (of Afghanistan and now Iraq) to go over to their side.
Sigh. I would give, oh I don't know, something substantial, just to have a real leader with a brain and a heart in the White House. Just for as long as it takes to clean up this mess.

[ElwoodCuse]

Originally posted by Chefguy
And now we have the spectacle of the gov't naming a ship after a mediocre one-term failure of a president. What's next, the U.S.S. Ashcroft?

"No sir, we'll be landing on the USS Walter Mondale. It's a laundry ship. They'll take you the rest of the way."

/Bart vs. Australia

[RobertP]

Makes me laugh.... Bush thinks we are helping *quell* the problems in the Middle East? They don't look very *quelled* to me.

Oh, and the other thing: *terrorists* in Iraq? Since when is someone defending their country from foreign invaders considered terrorism? The US is an illegally occupying force in Iraq, with neither a UN mandate or even a real plan.

Why the hell doesn't someone in the American public wake up to this??

[World Eater]

Originally posted by RobertP
Makes me laugh.... Bush thinks we are helping *quell* the problems in the Middle East? They don't look very *quelled* to me.

Oh, and the other thing: *terrorists* in Iraq? Since when is someone defending their country from foreign invaders considered terrorism? The US is an illegally occupying force in Iraq, with neither a UN mandate or even a real plan.

Why the hell doesn't someone in the American public wake up to this??

Too busy watching Joe Millionaire.

[Brutus]

Originally posted by RobertP
...The US is an illegally occupying force in Iraq, with neither a UN mandate or even a real plan...

The United States and Great Britain are recognized as the legitimate authorities in Iraq, by UNSCR 1483. It is endlessly amusing that you UN-fanboys ignore that little fact, as if to show that you are all rah!rah! for the UN, unless it isn't in your interests to do so. 'Hypocricy' comes to mind.

[World Eater]

Legitimate or not we are looking like a bunch of asses right now.

[Evil Captor]

Before the 2000 election I was posting "Vote Republican ... lose all your money."

Boy, was I right. Looks like I'll be able to make the same point in the 2004 election. Sadly, the media is so deep in Dubya's lap that even in 2004 I doubt it'll help.

Sheeple or people. The 2004 election will show which one the American people are. Sadly, the smart money is on "sheeple."

Still, I can always hope I'm wrong.

[RobertP]

Originally posted by Brutus
The United States and Great Britain are recognized as the legitimate authorities in Iraq, by UNSCR 1483. It is endlessly amusing that you UN-fanboys ignore that little fact, as if to show that you are all rah!rah! for the UN, unless it isn't in your interests to do so. 'Hypocricy' comes to mind.

Umm, if I'm not mistaken, UNSCR 1483 came *after* we took over the sovereign nation formerly known as Iraq. It's constitutes particularly shameless kissing of American ass by the UN and is a clear contradiction of their earlier opposition to the invasion.

Nope, the UN is not immune to my scorn either, but at least they do occasionally try to stand up to the global bullies.

[World Eater]

Originally posted by Evil Captor
Boy, was I right. Looks like I'll be able to make the same point in the 2004 election. Sadly, the media is so deep in Dubya's lap that even in 2004 I doubt it'll help.

The media?

Blaime the fools who vote for him in 2004.

[elf6c]

Enjoy the irony of the President who skipped out on his remaining National Guard duty extending the terms of others in the National Guard and the Reserves to serve in Iraq. Maybe if they come serve on his re-election campaign (and their daddy is the Texas governor) they don't have to serve their country as well?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&e=2&u=/ap/20030909/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_us_military

The subject of U.S. troop rotations has been a sensitive one in the Iraq campaign, with some active-duty soldiers and their families complaining bitterly about delays in their homecoming. Members of the 3rd Infantry Division, for instance, fought their way to Baghdad in late March and were told they'd be going home, only to remain in Iraq for months afterward because of continuing problems the coalition has encountered in ending the violence there.

The extended tours may not be any more welcome among guardsmen and reservists, called "citizen soldiers" because they have civilian jobs they must be away from while they serve in the military. Currently there are 181,500 on duty from all services — including some 129,000 in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve — and they are serving overseas as well as on homeland security missions.



And for our resident "pulling stuff out of my ass and calling it facts" military expert:

Earlier in the summer, the Pentagon spent weeks struggling to come up with a troop rotation plan because the Army has become so stretched during the Bush presidency, with major commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq in addition to peacekeeping in Bosnia and Kosovo and long-standing deployments in South Korea, Japan, Germany and the Sinai peninsula.

The Army, the largest of the armed services, has had portions of every major active-duty combat unit committed to either Iraq or Afghanistan, with the exception of the 2nd Infantry Division, which is in Korea.


So, if you don't know what the hell your talking about, you may want to stick with pointless personal insult based drive-bys. :rolleyes:

But how could have poor little George known that this would cost so much in American lives and money? Well, maybe read the damn intelligence reports beings sent to him, rather then using Cheney to cook up a bunch bogus WMD and Al Queda ties claims:

Among the threats outlined in the intelligence agencies' reporting was that "Iraqis probably would resort to obstruction, resistance and armed opposition if they perceived attempts to keep them dependent on the U.S. and the West," one senior congressional aide said. The general tenor of the reports, according to a senior administration official familiar with the intelligence, was that the postwar period would be more "problematic" than the war to overthrow Hussein.

As U.S. military casualties mount and resistance forces wage a campaign of targeted bombings in Iraq, some administration officials have begun to fault the CIA and other intelligence agencies for being overly optimistic and failing to anticipate such widespread and sustained opposition to a U.S. occupation. But several administration and congressional sources interviewed for this article said the opposite occurred. They said senior policymakers at the White House, Pentagon and elsewhere received classified analyses before the war warning about the dangers of the postwar period.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45455-2003Sep8.html

Once again the chickenhawks only listened to reports they liked, and did not distract them from their idiotic "pie-in-the-sky" promises regarding Iraq and Afganistatan.

Experts:

However, the prevailing view within intelligence agencies, including the DIA, was that there would be resistance. Officials said this explained the thinking behind Shinseki's congressional testimony earlier this year. A DIA memo last fall said postwar Iraq would be "highly complex and driven by political and religious factions," according to one former Pentagon analyst. "They [Defense Intelligence Agency analysts] said it would be hard to keep the lid on and to keep the various areas of the country from falling apart."


Chickenhawks:

Speaking of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, White said, "Their view of the intelligence was much different. Their notion of it was resistance would run away as the few remaining Saddam loyalists were hunted down."

White said on NBC's "Today" show Thursday that the postwar planning assumptions approved by senior Pentagon civilians were based on U.S. troops being "greeted in the streets by a euphoric public, glad of being rid of Saddam Hussein, and consequently we could very rapidly draw down the force structure."


Gee, guess who was right, again.

Reactions "lukewarm" to latest "come bail my ass out" speech by Bush.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45485-2003Sep8.html

What $87 Billion costs, relatively (not too mention his idiotic and ill-concieved tax cuts):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/87billion.htm

Even the horrible (for the most part) Democratic candidates are finally calling Curious George out (not as well as John McCain, of course):

Yet as the projected federal budget deficit for 2004 exceeds $500 billion, officials have not changed their assessments of the United States' fiscal health or the White House's economic plans. Just days before he disclosed his Iraq spending request Sunday, the president demanded that Congress pass hundreds of billions of dollars in additional tax cuts.



Gee, you think this might be an issue?

Bush administration officials said yesterday they see no contradiction between pursuing a massive but temporary increase in defense spending and pushing for tax cuts that they believe will revive the moribund job market.

But Democrats are already planning to exploit what they see as a policy "disconnect" to damage the president politically and secure funds for their domestic priorities, even as they concede they will ultimately fund Bush's request.
. . .

"We're into a guns-and-butter scenario here, and I think it's appropriate the president has recognized the policy he's led us into has had far greater consequences than he wanted to present at the outset," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who is flirting with a presidential bid next year. "The administration is now going to have to produce a budget that has some realism in it."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45117-2003Sep8.html

[jjimm]

For once (http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,1036207,00.html) (twice (http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,1038512,00.html) actually), Steve Bell sums up how I feel on this issue.

There's an even better one from yesterday (not online) - Bush is holding UN toilet paper, saying "wipe my ass".

[Ben Hicks]

originally posted by smiling bandit
I have a hard time understanding why all the "compassionate" liberals were so happy to let everyone else go hang why the "evil" conservatives wanted to stop the bloody tyrant.

Hypocrites, every last one of ya'.


In other words, the ends justified the means. :rolleyes:

According to Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net) the civilian deaths stand at a minimum figure of 6118 which doesn't include all those left maimed and orphaned.

I guess the question is "How many people get to be sacrified for our version of humanitarianism?" Who decideds what an "acceptable amount' is? It all sounds suspiciously like the rationale of some villianous corporate bean counter who claims that such and such and amount of deaths is balanced by the bottom line.

The people killed, many of which were children, were unable to make conformed consent to take the risk.

There's a name for that kind of high-handed unilateral decision making: Imperialism. And there is a name for one-sided utilitarian thinking that ruthlessly applies the concept of "the greatest good for the greatest number": Fascism. You can see how the very idea is almost, by definition a tyranny.

Who gets to decide if having that sort of casual attitude towards slaughter, for the "greater good" or not, is actually worse than the problem you are trying to solve?

I think for the Iraqi dead the solution was worse than the problem. And we didn't have the right to make that decision for them.

[ElvisL1ves]

More "perspective" on the meaning of $87,000,000,000 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/87billion.htm) in this budget:

Homeland Security: $41.3b
Health and Human Services, including $27.7b for NIH: $66.2b
Education including $29.5b for K-12 education: $53.1b
State Dept and foreign aid: $27.4b
Highway and road construction: $29.3b
Bush's proposed tax cuts: $107.3b

Something's gotta give, George. One item really sticks out there, too, doesn't it? Or do you propose to pass the bill on to our children and grandchildren instead?

[elf6c]

Lots of links and reactions to the Bush speech here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47145-2003Sep9.html

As well as a discussion the the Bush teams growing fear of Dean.

Which brings us to how Bush's big-bucks pitch on Iraq is playing. "Members of Congress said today that President Bush would get the $87 billion he requested for Iraq and Afghanistan, but that he would have to walk through a bit of fire first," says the New York Times. "Lawmakers said they expected sharp questioning of the request and a renewed debate about the effect on federal spending, taxes and the record-setting deficit.

"Many members predicted pressure will immediately build on non-defense programs, including the proposal to add a drug benefit to Medicare. Lawmakers noted that the amount requested in this single bill represented a fifth of all money to be spent next year on non-defense programs like education, housing and veterans affairs, many of which are already being squeezed by a deficit that will reach $480 billion."

Looks like the White House background briefers were out briefing, according to the Boston Globe:

"One day after President Bush gave the nation a cautious view of rebuilding efforts in Iraq, senior administration officials for the first time acknowledged that they vastly underestimated the damage to the country's infrastructure and greatly overestimated the amount of oil revenue that could be used to help rebuild the war-torn country."

And the Wall Street Journal finds one fat target: "Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz faces a growing fury among Democrats and some conservatives at the optimistic projections he gave lawmakers just months ago. Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.), a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee and strong ally of Mr. Bush's father in the Gulf War, said flatly, 'Wolfowitz is gone.'"



and with regards to Dean:

Now even some conservatives are saying: watch out. And there's a Web site called Republicans for Dean.

The new perspective may be driven in part by Bush's declining popularity (45 percent, says Zogby) as Iraq turns from glorious victory to albatross. But it also reflects a realization that Howard III is hard to pigeonhole as an unabashed lefty.

Yes, he was against the war, wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts and approved gay civil unions in Vermont. But he also governed as a fiscal conservative, won business support and got high marks from the NRA.



The article is huge with lots of cites and links. Take a click!

[cowgirl]

Lord Ashtar IIRC, Bush was saying that he believes his administration has done a lot to quell the problems in the Middle East. Since many of the countries in the U.N. will benefit from this, he thinks they should pitch in.

Isn't that like your cable company giving you a service you never wanted, needed or asked for, ignoring your pleas to remove it, and charging you up the ying-yang for it?

[World Eater]

Originally posted by cowgirl
Lord Ashtar

Isn't that like your cable company giving you a service you never wanted, needed or asked for, ignoring your pleas to remove it, and charging you up the ying-yang for it?

What?!?! You have Cablevision too?

[ArrMatey!]

Okay, so am I the only one who's thinking, "Hrm. Huge spending bill. Unpopular, but politically dangerous not to back at the moment. Let's see how many other 'little' projects get suddenly piggybacked onto this one!"?

[elf6c]

Hmm, looks like not too many people are biting on the official line.

WASHINGTON - More people now think the war in Iraq has increased the risk of terrorism in the United States than think it has reduced that risk, a major shift on this issue since mid-April, says a new poll released almost two years after the Sept. 11 attacks.

In April, almost six in 10 thought the war in Iraq had reduced the risk of terrorism in this country, twice the number who thought it made the risk higher. But in the ABC News poll taken Sept. 4-7, about half, 48 percent said the war increased the risk, while 40 percent said it reduced the risk.

Overall, the public's perception of the Bush administration's handling of terrorism is still positive, though it has slipped in the last year.

Just over half, 55 percent, in the poll said the Bush administration is doing a good job dealing with the war on terrorism, while 44 percent said it has not done such a good job. That's down from 73 percent who said a year ago that the Bush administration had done a good job.



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=22&u=/ap/20030909/ap_on_re_us/attacks_polls_2

[seal_cleaner]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/10/binladen.tape/index.html

Great. Now that it's "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, we have PLENTY of time and troops to handle Bin Laden. Wait, wasn't he the problem to start with? That can't be right..........

Fuckin' shrub.

[ccwaterback]

I see the future as Iraqi people all driving SUVs and wearing blue jeans.

<<< Typical American Idiot

[elf6c]

As usual, The Onion is right on point:

"We've tried reasoning, but Their agendas are in direct opposition to ours," Vice-President Dick Cheney said. "They stand in stark defiance of stated U.S. policy. We cannot and will not allow Them to dictate global policy."

Many current U.S. policies regarding Them are outlined in a recent State Department report titled "Long Term Organizational And Regulatory Governmental Procedures: U.S. vs. Them." According to the document, the standoff is a result of Their continued economic encroachment, Their ongoing reluctance to allow U.S. military bases on Their lands, and the refusal of many of Them to speak English.

"The U.S. is surrounded on all sides by Them," Rumsfeld said. "Over 90 percent of the planet's land mass is controlled by Them, and the territories immediately south, west, east, and north of the U.S. are all occupied by Them. Until we can correct this risky state of affairs, it is vital that we maintain our military readiness to intervene whenever and wherever They oppose us."

Another key factor in the standoff is U.S. dependence on Them-controlled resources.

"The world's petrochemical supplies are nearly exhausted," National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said. "If we allow Them to control the only remaining fossil-fuel sources, how are we supposed to get our oil? By buying it from Them?"


http://www.theonion.com/3935/top_story.html

The fact that the article is a little to close to the truth is more then a little sad though.

Bonus Humor about Bush's lackluster appeal to the UN:

http://www.theonion.com/3935/wdyt.html

Enjoy!

[RTFirefly]

Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me the Pliers[/i])]
"...and I would not in any way want to put myself in a confrontatory position, either with the United Snakes, or with Them. And you can believe me, because I never lie, and I'm always right."


How Can You Be in Two Places At Once[/i])]
"Yes, Them too! A lot of Them, mostly Them and not many of Us! And that's why we're here and they're there! So there, Mr. Monday Morning Quarterback, Mr. Wheelchair General!"


The Onion's good, but Firesign Theatre had a thirty year head start. :)

[RTFirefly]

BTW, I betcha Bush on the aircraft carrier under the "Mission Accomplished" banner will be part of some major Democratic TV ads next year.

[elucidator]

Georgieeeeee Tirebiter!

"He's not insane!"

[Cargogal]

Does everyone have such a short memory that we forget when Saddam was the touchyfeely good friend of ours in the '80s? We knew he had chemical weapons then - he was using them on his own people. But heck, nobody's perfect...

Amercans have very, very, very short memories. And none shorter than our fearless (and clueless) leader.

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by RobertP
Why the hell doesn't someone in the American public wake up to this?? This being one of the more devisive issues in American politics, and on this very message board, I'd say many a American are hip to this fact.

[Seven]

Wait. I seem to recall a very large "Mission Accomplished" and a Mr Bush in a flight suit.

Doesn't Mission Accomplished mean it's over?

If it's not over why would Mr Bush say Mission Accomplished?

I don't get it. He couldn't have LIED to us could he?

Naaaaa.

[RedFury]

Originally posted by spooje
This being one of the more devisive issues in American politics, and on this very message board, I'd say many a American are hip to this fact.

You might be right -- in fact, I hope you are. But a full 70% remain in a hazy stupor:

A poll released Saturday indicated that nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that Saddam was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, which were carried out by al-Qaida, even though terrorism experts and others describe only loose links between al-Qaida and Saddam.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39597-2003Sep7.html)

[World Eater]

70%? Yikes, what fucking idiots.

[seal_cleaner]

Well, everytime shrub talks about the war in Iraq, it's the "War on Terror." He deliberately wants that misunderstanding to continue. As I said in another thread, even if you don't think he lied in the SOTU address, isn't it alarming that public support of his policies is so dependent on the ignorance of the electorate? As president, shouldn't at least a SMALL part of his responsibility involve honestly educating the public about world events?

[RedFury]

Well, seal_cleaner, if I was to give the Bush cabal any credit at all, it would have to be the way they've manipulated the American public ever since that fateful morning of exactly two years ago today. Sure, its been dishonest as hell, but it has been of the essense in pushing forth their agenda. And most people still don't realize that said agenda had not only been written years ago, but that one of its contingencies for application was a 'Pearl Harbour-like' event.

Please note that I am not subscribing to any conspiracy theory vis-a-vis the attack; simply noting that this whole Iraq plan had been in the works for quite some time. And marketing it became that much easier after 9/11. From an outsiders perspective, it has been fascinating and repulsive all at once, to watch them put their plan into action. Fascinating to watch them manipulate the information to fit their purpose, repulsive to watch them succeed.

As to why only Americans bought it wholesale, I have my own pet theory, but that's a topic for another thread.

[seal_cleaner]

Originally posted by RedFury
As to why only Americans bought it wholesale, I have my own pet theory, but that's a topic for another thread.
I was speaking gently to ward off the neocon hijack.

So, start the thread. I have a few ideas of my own as to why many americans bought into the lies.
1. Racism
2. Manifest destiny lives!
3. Widespread ignorance about world affairs in general.
4. No sense or understanding of history.
5. Lazy, compliant media.
6. Intolerant evangelical streak in american character.

[Evil Captor]

I think you should investigate the media angle very carefully. American media report on world events VERY differently than virtually all world media. It's almost like they are being controlled by the Repubs. The 70 percent of idiots are simply the ones who get all their news from TV, radio and the papers. The Repubs do not control the Internet, but that is because they have correctly divined that the Internet doesn't deliver enough votes to matter.

Plus, it would require massive reorgnaization of the Internet to control it the way the other media are controlled. Which the Patriot Act kinda gives them. They just havent tried to do it yet.

[Brutus]

Originally posted by Evil Captor
...Which the Patriot Act kinda gives them. They just havent tried to do it yet.

Which section of the Patriot Act specifically allows the gov't to 'reorganize the Internet', etc? Shouldn't be hard to provide a cite...

[Squink]

7. Inchoate fear of the unknown, morphed by 9/11 into xenophobia.

[elucidator]

Whats truly surpassing strange about the "70% believe..." thing is that I have seen any number of news reports, even front page, saying just that: 70% believe Iraq had a hand in 9/11, and it just ain't so. So faulting media slant gets problematic when the media is reporting that people believe something thats not true.

Has this poll been updated lately? Has the number remained at 70% while the other poll numbers do imitations of David Caruso's career?

[glee]

Originally posted by smiling bandit
You know, I strongly suspect the Iraqis are pretty glad we stopped Sadam from killing them. They seem to be pretty pleased with that.


Do you mean the Iraqis who died over a decade ago with poison gas that the US sold Saddam (to use on Iran)?
Or are there some recent massacres you have in mind?
I understand that more US troops have died since the war ended, than died in the war. This is your definition of 'pretty pleased' with the US?

Originally posted by smiling bandit
Secondly, I say this is cheap at twice the price. This is a pretty comprehensive package, calling for more troops to keep security (an idea which Iraqis recently said saluted themselves!) and a lot of investment in rebuilding the infrastructure. A lot of other nations will be getting a lot of benefit from this, not that many of them will admit it.


Oh, so Bechtel, Halliburton and a few other Republican Party contributors aren't getting all the contracts?

Originally posted by smiling bandit
This is a expense now, but hey, the future Iraq may repay us a hundred fold as a friend and partner. Aside from the y'know, humanitarian reasons.


Especially if the US decides who is allowed to rule Iraq (no religious parties for a start).
And you think Bush invaded for 'humanitarian reasons'.
That's so sweet (and naive).

Originally posted by smiling bandit
I have a hard time understanding why all the "compassionate" liberals were so happy to let everyone else go hang why the "evil" conservatives wanted to stop the bloody tyrant.


Of course! For example, that picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam (having just sold him weapons of mass destruction) proves that the Republicans have been out to overthrow Saddam for decades. Their cunning plan has finally succeeded.

Originally posted by smiling bandit
Hypocrites, every last one of ya'.


Please don't talk to yourself.

Originally posted by smiling bandit
Granted we seem to have been wrong about the WMD's.


:eek:
You don't know anything, do you?! Of course there are WMD's in Iraq. That's why Bush invaded. Plus of course Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

Originally posted by smiling bandit
On the other hand, Saddam had them in quantity just a few years ago (hell, he used them openly) and either acted as if they were still there.


Yes, we know he had them. Rumsfeld sold him some, for example.
And they are still there. Didn't you read the intelligence reports just before the war started?

Originally posted by smiling bandit
He implicitly threatened us with them at times.


Yes, his possession of inter-continental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads showed he was ready to invade the US.
And he was responsible for 9/11. :smack:

Originally posted by smiling bandit
Nevertheless, he did support terrorism financially.


Well that alone justifies the invasion. Why on earth Bush had to mention UN resolutions, or that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, I don't know.
So when should the US invade Iran? Syria? N. Korea? Palestine?

Originally posted by smiling bandit
And again, it may be cruel to send servicemen to fight Baathist assassins,


A point frequently made by left-wingers on this very board, no doubt. :wally
Still at least the US public know that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, thanks to the Bush administration's 'regard for the truth'.

Originally posted by smiling bandit
As a side benefit, all the terrorists who otherwise might have been scheming another attack now have big, bright, heavily armed and armored targets. Who shoot back.


You forgot the other 'benefits' of the Bush strategy.
- Arab nations know that Bush will not hesitate to invade them, especially if 'they were responsible for 9/11' and have WMD's (or Bush says they have them). That alone makes the region safe.
- the UN now knows that Bush is 'the man', and will unhesitatingly co-operate with him.
- several big Republican donor companies have recieved juicy contracts from Bush, so they will make further donations
- the World knows that Bush has eliminated all weapons of mass destruction, and the War on terrorism is nearly over

Originally posted by smiling bandit
Asking for some aid from other nations is simply a recognition that (a) a couple of them will be openly outed as the baldfaced liars and selfish bastards they are: France and Germany and (b) gives those who've been shocked by the atack on the UN, or simply wanted to sit the fence, a face-saving chance to sign up at little risk.

Ah, that wonderful phrase 'face-saving'. Do you think it applies to Bush first saying to the UN "we can invade without you bastards" , and now begging for UN help?

[RedFury]

Originally posted by elucidator
Whats truly surpassing strange about the "70% believe..." thing is that I have seen any number of news reports, even front page, saying just that: 70% believe Iraq had a hand in 9/11, and it just ain't so. So faulting media slant gets problematic when the media is reporting that people believe something thats not true.

Has this poll been updated lately? Has the number remained at 70% while the other poll numbers do imitations of David Caruso's career?

Indeed it has. The Post poll of 1,003 adults was taken Aug. 7-11 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. (http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2003/09/07/news/breaking_news/f197c9bbd027626d86256d9900439017.txt)

People believe what they want to believe. And in this case blaming Saddam -- and satisfying the latent bloodthirst for revenge after 9/11 -- is less painful than admitting thousands of Iraqis were butchered for no particularly good reason.

----------------------

seal_cleaner, I'll take you up on that thread as soon as I have some free time to put together a fairly cohesive OP. I do think the topic is worthy of discussion -- much to be learned from it.

[RedFury]

Originally posted by elucidator
Whats truly surpassing strange about the "70% believe..." thing is that I have seen any number of news reports, even front page, saying just that: 70% believe Iraq had a hand in 9/11, and it just ain't so. So faulting media slant gets problematic when the media is reporting that people believe something thats not true.

Has this poll been updated lately? Has the number remained at 70% while the other poll numbers do imitations of David Caruso's career?

Indeed it has. The Post poll of 1,003 adults was taken Aug. 7-11 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. (http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2003/09/07/news/breaking_news/f197c9bbd027626d86256d9900439017.txt)

People believe what they want to believe. And in this case blaming Saddam -- and satisfying the latent bloodthirst for revenge after 9/11 -- is less painful than admitting thousands of Iraqis were butchered for no particularly good reason.

----------------------

seal_cleaner, I'll take you up on that thread as soon as I have some free time to put together a fairly cohesive OP. I do think the topic is worthy of discussion -- much to be learned from it.

BTW, this is the kind of goodwill the US had in its time of need two short years ago. Amazing how it's been squandered since.

When Words Fail Us (http://www.privilogic.com/wordsfail/)

[RedFury]

On the second anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, George Bush will publicly mourn the nearly 3,000 men and women we lost on that terrible day. But there are others who have paid an equally high price for that tragedy whose names the president is not likely to include in his speeches. The 288 American soldiers and countless Iraqis who have since died in a pointless, bloody war will not be mentioned, nor will the administration's own responsibility in their deaths.


For those in the White House who have long supported regime change in Baghdad, the national tragedy was a window of opportunity through which they aggressively, repeatedly, and ruthlessly rammed their plans for a spectacular sequel to the first Gulf War.


The story of the war in Iraq begins on Sept. 11. It is a story of how a small group of men within the Bush administration led a frightened nation down a long, treacherous road from Ground Zero to a bloody, no-exit war on the streets of Baghdad.

Path of lies; 9/11 to Iraq (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16747)

[Seven]

Originally posted by RedFury
....but that one of its contingencies for application was a 'Pearl Harbour-like' event.

Please note that I am not subscribing to any conspiracy theory vis-a-vis the attack;......

Don't worry. I have that subscription if you ever need to borrow an issue.