# Bush says attack would be bad
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [January 1, 2003, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989 "2003-01-01T04:13:51Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/1 "2003-01-01T04:13:51Z")
Usually I’m in the role of defending Bush, but today I say this:
[Bush says attack would cripple economy](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=2&cid=578&u=/nm/20030101/ts_nm/iraq_dc)
The gist seems to be that if Saddam Hussein or somebody else were to launch a catastrophic terrorist attack against us, it might very well be catastrophic… for the economy.
Ummm. Thanks.
I’m glad you figured that out for me.
'Prolly a whole bunch of people getting all killed wouldn’t be so good either, there’s that, too.
Important thing though is that it would be bad for the economy.
Keep that in mind and stay vigilante.
---
### Author:  [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/2 "2003-01-01T04:16:32Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _Originally said by George W. Bush_
> Our economy is strong, it’s resilient, we’ve got to continue to make it strong and resilient. This economy cannot afford to stand an attack.
Well, geez, which is it?
---
### Author:  [@Silentgoldfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silentgoldfish)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/3 "2003-01-01T04:19:43Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \*
> \*\*Well, geez, which is it? \*\*
Strong and resiliant beats out can’t stand an attack by one.
---
### Author:  [@Lure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lure)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/4 "2003-01-01T05:02:05Z")
The more this guy opens his mouth,the more I’m convinced he \*\* really \*\* doesn’t understand WTF is going on in any facet of the economy.
---
### Author:  [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/5 "2003-01-01T05:18:17Z")
Geez, that whole article is bizarre.
> [@](#):
>
> Asked by reporters about the potential cost of war against Iraq, Bush countered: "An attack from (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein or a surrogate of Saddam Hussein would cripple our economy.
A “surrogate” of Saddam? Like, one of those three body doubles? Or does he mean like Ruelian clones? Or what?
> [@](#):
>
> Bush’s warning raised the specter of an attack on the scale of September 11, 2001…U.S. officials have warned that Iraq could attack U.S. interests or supply weapons to extremist groups such as Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda …
Yes, we all noticed how 9/11 put the American economy straight into the toilet, 25% unemployment, people standing in bread lines and selling apples on street corners…
I mean, what? What?
> [@](#):
>
> Calling Iraq’s response so far “discouraging,” Bush said: “Saddam’s declaration was short, and the international community recognized that – that he wasn’t forthcoming.”
What? What? It was 10,000 pages or something, wasn’t it? “Short”? What?
> [@](#):
>
> But he added: “We hope to resolve all the situations in which we find ourselves in a peaceful way. And so that’s my commitment, to try to do so peacefully.”
So, that’s why 15,000 troops just left for the Persian Gulf, because we can’t possibly go to war with Iraq, because if Iraq attacked us by blowing up the Golden Gate Bridge or putting LSD into the Schoharie Reservoir, it would completely destroy our economy, so GWB wants to resolve it “peacefully”? By sending troops to the Persian Gulf?
\<\< sits down and starts to cry \>\>
WAAHHH! I want a _different_ president, Mommy! I don’t want this one any more, he’s _stoopid_…
\<\< throws Dubya Doll irritably across the living room \>\>
---
### Author:  [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/6 "2003-01-01T05:33:56Z")
Saddam’s declaration WAS short. In particular, it was ‘zero’.
The 10,000 pages were just bullshit. There’s an old lawyer saying, “If you can’t beat them with facts, bury them with bullshit”. The ‘declaration’ includes photocopied inventory pages from various warehouses that have nothing to do with anything, and even photocopies of records that had already been discredited back in 1994.
And 9/11 DID damage the economy heavily. Most estimates for direct and indirect losses go over a trillion dollars. That’s 1/10 of GDP. United Airlines is bankrupt because of 9/11. The Government had to borrow at least an extra 30-80 billion dollars to bail out New York, the airlines, etc.
Today the economy is barely struggling back to life, but consumer confidence is very low, and we just had the worst Christmas season in 30 years. I think it’s safe to say that a major terrorist attack right now could throw the U.S. back into a fairly steep recession.
And there is nothing contradictory about sending troops to try and force a peaceful solution. Sometimes the best way to avoid war is to be resolute and prepare for it, and convince your enemies that you are fully willing to destroy them. If Europe had shown some backbone to Hitler, WWII might have been avoided.
---
### Author:  [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/7 "2003-01-01T05:35:04Z")
Oh, and the ‘surrogate’ for Saddam would be al-Qaida, Hezbollah, or some other terrorist organization that he could funnel WMD to. Is this really so hard to understand, or are you just grasping at straws because you want to disagree with everything Bush says?
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/8 "2003-01-01T06:10:21Z")
Are you sure he wasn’t talking about the intercontinental drone aircraft armed with nuclear anthrax?
And, yes, **Sam** , I think that is _exactly_ what he means to imply by “surrogates”. He can’t prove any connection between Saddam bin Laden and Al-Queda, but that doesn’t mean…that doesn’t mean…well, proof don’t seem to mean much at all.
I kinda get the vision of the whole rest of the world standing there and staring at us with thier mouths agape and thinking “The most powerful country the world has ever known…and they’re crazier than a shithouse rat. Thanks, God.”
---
### Author:  [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/9 "2003-01-01T07:46:23Z")
\<\< Houston, we are implementing Heavy Sarcasm Mode \>\>
\<\< Roger that, Apollo, Heavy Sarcasm Mode implemented \>\>
Yes, Sam, I’m just grasping at straws because you know perfectly well that I’m one of the most notorious Anti-Bushistas on these boards, why, hardly a day goes by that I don’t find even the feeblest excuse to dress him down, 'specially in the Pit. :rolleyes:
“Surrogate”. “Is this really so hard to understand?” Don’t you DARE presume to tell me that I don’t know what “surrogate” means.
Do you think about what you post, at all? Or do you just fire off the cheap shots essentially at random?
> [@](#):
>
> Main Entry: 1sur·ro·gate
> Etymology: Latin surrogatus, past participle of surrogare to choose in place of another, substitute, from sub- + rogare to ask
> Date: 1533
>
> : to put in the place of another: a : to appoint as successor, deputy, or substitute for oneself b : SUBSTITUTE
It means a stand-in, and his remark was baffling. Who could he possibly mean as a stand-in for Saddam Hussein, other than his body doubles, or clones? Of course now that I have your mighty intelligence to explain things to me, all is now clear–he meant a Palestinian terrorist organization, of course, who would be only too happy to accept delivery (by UPS, I suppose) of Saddam Hussein’s inventory of anthrax missiles (which he may or may not have, but hey, that’s beside the point, isn’t it?) and fire them off towards the US, because that’s Hezbollah’s whole _raison d’etre_, isn’t it, to fire off WOMD at the U.S? Forget about Israel, it’s more important to take out D.C. with smallpox.
Or Al Qaeda, who would somehow miraculously coalesce from whatever wormholes they’re all skulking in, and somehow get around to blowing up the Golden Gate Bridge and putting LSD in the Schoharie Reservoir, acts which would of course bring the entire United States of America to its knees, economically speaking. Why, the casualty list from Westchester County alone, all those orthodontists and multi-level marketers and stockbrokers and lawyers, my god, the lawyers this great country would lose, and of course once the stockbrokers and orthodontists and lawyers of Westchester County were gone, the entire economy would tank, and we’d all be selling apples on street corners, I’m glad both of our cars are paid off…
And that’s not even mentioning the loss of work time out on the West Coast, all those Marin County folks unable to drive to their offices. We’d have to ask the UN for emergency humanitarian aid.
> [@](#):
>
> **And 9/11 DID damage the economy heavily…Today the economy is barely struggling back to life**
Piffle. Cite? Here are mine.
[http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html](http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)
> [@](#):
>
> The year 2001 witnessed the end of the boom psychology and performance, with output increasing only 0.3% and unemployment and business failures rising substantially. The response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 showed the remarkable resilience of the economy. Moderate recovery is expected in 2002, with the GDP growth rate rising to 2.5% or more.
[http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/glance.htm](http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/glance.htm)
> [@](#):
>
> GDP, Percent change at seasonally adjusted annual rate (unless otherwise noted)
>
> 2000 3.8
> 2001 0.3
> 2001 2nd Q -1.6 april may june
> 2001 3rd Q -0.3 july aug sep
> 2001 4th Q 2.7 oct nov dec
> 2002 1st Q 5.0 jan feb mar
> 2002 2nd Q 1.3 april may june
> 2002 3rd Q 4.0 july aug sept
This is as of December 20, 2002, figures for 4th quarter 2002 are not in yet.
In 2001 overall, the GDP was up 0.3% from the previous year. In the 2nd quarter of 2001 (April May June), which was _before_ 9/11, the GDP was down 1.6%, and in the 3rd quarter (july aug sept), it was down another 0.3%. Then in the 4th quarter of 2001 (oct nov dec), which was directly after 9/11, the GDP went **up** 2.7%, and it continued to **rise** all through 2002.
Gross domestic purchases follow this same pattern–a slump in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2001, and then a rise.
9/11 did not “damage the economy heavily”, and the economy is not “barely struggling back to life”.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*United Airlines is bankrupt because of 9/11. \*\*
Piffle. Cite? Here’s mine. The airlines were already in trouble before 9/11.
[http://www.cnn.com/2002/TRAVEL/12/31/airlines.reform.ap/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2002/TRAVEL/12/31/airlines.reform.ap/index.html)
> [@](#):
>
> That gap grew but was not obvious during the 1990s, when rising costs at carriers such as American, United and Delta were offset by increasing demand for air travel and passengers’ willingness to pay more for tickets – luxuries they could afford when the economy was expanding.
>
> But when the economy soured, family vacation budgets shrank and corporate travelers had a tougher time getting approval for trips that previously were not an issue.
>
> The decline in spending by corporations was particularly painful for the major airlines because business travelers often purchased tickets at the last minute, thus paying several times more per ticket than leisure travelers. To continue traveling, many business fliers began behaving more like cost-conscious leisure fliers, searching for cheap fares on the Internet, booking far in advance and scheduling itineraries that included a Saturday night stay.
>
> Then came September 11, 2001, and demand was further crimped by fears of terrorism and the perception that new security measures made air travel more of a hassle than it was worth. Almost immediately American, United and Delta cut back on capacity and jobs, while the industry secured $5 billion cash in emergency funding from the federal government.
That reference to when the “economy soured” means beginning in the summer of 2000. June. Remember the Dot Com Bust? It took 18 months to finish shaking out, affected the entire economy, and the figures are reflected in the GDP percentages. The 2001 GDP was only up 0.3% overall from 2000, and it wasn’t until the 4th quarter of 2001, which was _after_ 9/11, that it started to pick up again.
From August 2001.
[http://www.business2.com/articles/web/0,1653,16894,FF.html](http://www.business2.com/articles/web/0,1653,16894,FF.html)
> [@](#):
>
> Dotcom Magazines Fizzle Out
> Why many Web companies fail in their attempts to find revenue offline.
> By Jane Hodges, August 27, 2001
>
> Wedding Gowns Magazine isn’t your mother’s bridal magazine.
>
> \< snip \>
>
> Like many Web-based companies that launched brand-extending magazines during the dotcom boom, the Knot’s founders planned for their print foray to build the company name and generate revenue streams through newsstand sales and advertising.
> \< snip \>
>
> The Knot quickly boosted its presence in the offline world when, in 2000, it bought Weddingpages Inc…
>
> \< snip \>
>
> **But as the economic downturn continues,** Liu’s pride about his company’s success with Web-to-print branding is the exception among Web brands, not the rule. According to the Magazine Publishers of America in New York, as many as 14 Web-based magazine brands graced newsstands during the past 18 months – most of them built as brand extenders.
>
> **But as the economy soured throughout 2000 and into this year,** Web-related magazines got tossed out as their creators folded or merged to survive. Notable closings: [Garden.com](http://Garden.com)’s Garden Escapes, [Pets.com](http://Pets.com)’s pets zine, and [Inside.com](http://Inside.com)’s bimonthly Inside.[bolding mine]
The economy soured _before_ 9/11.
And BTW–
\<\< \*Monty Python Holy Grail reference \>\>
“…I’m not dead yet…” \*
United Airlines isn’t dead yet–they’re in Chapter 11, which means “reorganization”, not “last rites”. From the [CNN.com](http://CNN.com) link:
> [@](#):
>
> Both United and US Airways hope to emerge from Chapter 11 as sleeker airlines and, if they’re successful, analysts say it could encourage further cost savings within the beleaguered industry. Assuming United and US Airways reorganize with lower cost structures, analysts expect executives at other airlines to have increased leverage during contract negotiations with their own workers and vendors.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*we just had the worst Christmas season in 30 years
\*\*And this is related to 9/11–how? Cite?
Here’s mine.
[http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/27/ip.pol.opinion.Christmas.spending/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/27/ip.pol.opinion.Christmas.spending/index.html)
> [@](#):
>
> For the third straight year, the growth in holiday sales has slowed. Cut in half each year. Why?
>
> Retail consultant Howard Davidowitz had an explanation. “There’s no job growth,” he said. "There’s lower bonuses, there’s less job possibilities, there’s lower corporate profits, there’s less corporate spending, ergo: no jobs. It’s a slow economy.’’
>
> A lot of people have a hangover from the spending binge of the 1990s stock market floor, especially since the drop in the stock market has made them feel less financially secure.
>
> Shopping habits have changed radically. Most shopping is now done in discount stores. And it’s done later and later in the season because consumers are savvier.
Christmas sales have been falling for three straight years now, which puts it back to Christmas 1999, which, um, was _before_ 9/11.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*If Europe had shown some backbone to Hitler, WWII might have been avoided.
\*\*Oh boy. :rolleyes: So Saddam Hussein = Adolf Hitler? You flatter him. He’s a tinpot dictator, just another Third World strongman.
---
### Author:  [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/10 "2003-01-01T07:48:55Z")
…and I will cruelly deprive you of another opportunity to take a pointless cheap shot by adding, “Yes, I realize that Hezbollah is Lebanese, not Palestinian”.
😛
---
### Author:  [@Silentgoldfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silentgoldfish)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/11 "2003-01-01T08:00:17Z")
I know I’m going to come off as a raging sycophant but I always get the giggles when **DDG** gets involved in a factual thread. I hope never to challenge her and have to brave the post of 1000 cites! 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/12 "2003-01-01T08:04:36Z")
It’s a red letter day here at Goose Corners when VBulletin gives me the error box that says “your post is too long”.
Doesn’t happen often, and it’s a thrill every time. 😃
---
### Author:  [@jkirkman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jkirkman)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/13 "2003-01-01T08:16:45Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Scylla \*
> \*\*Keep that in mind and stay vigilante. \*\*
I just _have_ to break in here to say that turn of phrase was sheer genius. And, since it is the Pit, I can also say it was fucking poetic.
…and if it was a typo please don’t tell me…
---
### Author:  [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/14 "2003-01-01T08:18:04Z")
Oh, joy… Bush is trying his own version of “_It’s the economy, stupid!_”, changing tacks again to try and sell a pre-emptive strike to a greater market share – oops, I mean _percentage_ of the population.
Unfortunately (for him, anyway), it’s a weapon he wields very clumsily. For those of us watching, though, it’s amusing to watch him try.
---
### Author:  [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/15 "2003-01-01T08:18:32Z")
Her cites are good, but it’s irrelevant because they don’t refute my point. The prime economic effect of the attack was budgetary, because various state governments and the feds picked up the check. The result of that is that New York is almost bankrupt (granted it was in pretty bad shape before the attacks), and the federal deficit ballooned. Part of that was the military buildup, but a good chunk of it was also the airline bailout and aid to New York. Then there was the hundreds of billions of dollars insurance companies lost. My own company was one of the insurers, and our stock took a big hit directly as a result of a huge amount of money we paid to claimants.
The economy was already weak, and 9/11 made it worse. Now it’s still weak, but with less confidence. In fact, consumer confidence is even worse than the economy - no one predicted the horrible Christmas season, as far as I can remember. People are wary. If there’s another serious attack, it could cause a serious recession. It would have to be a major attack - not just 80 people in a disco or something. Biological, chemical, dirty nuke, that sort of thing.
And another annoying thing about arguing about DDG is how she presumes to re-interpret things you say in order to twist them into something she can rebut. For example, this:
> [@](#):
>
> ## quote:
>
> ## If Europe had shown some backbone to Hitler, WWII might have been avoided.
>
> Oh boy. So Saddam Hussein = Adolf Hitler? You flatter him. He’s a tinpot dictator, just another Third World strongman.
Is a completely _useless_ response. The snide littlle re-interpretation misses the point entirely, and intentionally.
---
### Author:  [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/16 "2003-01-01T08:22:32Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \*
> \*\*Is a completely _useless_ response. The snide littlle re-interpretation misses the point entirely, and intentionally. \*\*
That may be the case (or not), but since the comment **DDG** was referring to (bringing up Hitler in reference to Iraq) was completely useless in the first place, **DDG** ’s dismissal of it was entirely appropriate.
---
### Author:  [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/17 "2003-01-01T08:35:21Z")
Just wanted to say that I’m in complete awe. Please, dear lord, don’t ever let me get on the wrong side of a **Duck Duck Goose** smackdown.
Re: the OP, after reading that article, I’m speechless. If the words coming out of Bush’s mouth somehow accurately reflect what is going on in his head, then I too want to go hide under the bed and sob uncontrollably until the next election.
Not that one T. Blair of the UK isn’t above a bit of unintentional hilarity, you understand. From the linked article:
> [@](#):
>
> “I cannot recall a time when Britain was confronted, simultaneously, by such a range of difficult and in some cases dangerous problems,” Blair said.
Yeah, right. This beats the holy hell out of the problems Britain had in, say, 1940.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/18 "2003-01-01T13:42:01Z")
**Duck Duck Googlemeister**
---
### Author:  [@woolly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woolly)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/19 "2003-01-01T14:05:09Z")
The context is totally wrong but somehow Bush reminds me of the quote (from Walt Whitman??)
“I want to fight some small man and lick him”.
---
### Author:  [@Catamount](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Catamount)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2003, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989/20 "2003-01-01T15:15:00Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Lure \*
> \*\*The more this guy opens his mouth,the more I’m convinced he \*\* really \*\* doesn’t understand WTF is going on in any facet of the economy. \*\*
_Just_ the economy? I’m still not convinced he’s even living in the same reality as the rest of us.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-attack-would-be-bad/145989.md?page=2)