Its still not a credit to Bush Jr is it ? Like someone pointed out too… Clinton didn’t “gut” the military (as so many GOP implied) if they performed so well. Credited a far away Reagen might have made sense in 1991… but not 2003.
Still in the long term politicians in fact might affect military capabilities… which I ponder is the point you were trying to bring up and quite correctly.
d1a1s1, Bush’s alliance against terror has widened a rift within the EU.
Berlusconi, Aznar and Blair all jumped on the bandwagon, together with Poland and other soon-to-be EU members.
I cannot believe that they chose to follow the US rather than formulate a coherent Europe-wide policy only because they felt particularly threatened by Al Qaeda/Saddam Hussein/What Have You. Italy especially has a long history (post WW2 anyway) of appeasement, dialogue and neutrality towards some pf the most despicable characters in the international political arena.
It seems obvious to me that there has been a convergence of interests here.
On the one hand, Bush needed to show that his was a coalition of free/peace/democracy-loving countries; on the other, the smaller fish (not the UK, granted) in the EU finally got a chance to stand up to those countries that (in the eyes of some, anyway) have been bullying them around for decades now.
There were lots of “projected goals” for the Iraqi war. Some people have an odd blindness to other reasons in favor of the war, including the elimination of Hussein’s sponsorship and support of terrorism in the West Bank and elsewhere; the humanitarian end of freeing Iraq from the Hussein regime which engaged in things like murder and rape and torture; removing a dictator that had an inflammatory influence on Middle East politics; signaling to our enemies that we’re serious about combatting terrorism and regimes that support or foster terrorism; signaling to our allies that we will dictate our own foreign policy when our interests are implicated; fostering democracy in the Middle East; removing a threat to our allies in the region (like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait); giving us the ability to move our troops out of Saudi Arabia and Qatar; ending the “No Fly” zone patrols, which cost millions of dollars and put our soldiers’ lives at risk with no definable end to their patrols; stopping Iraq’s WMD development programs; signaling to the international community that we won’t put up with defiance of the UN’s mandates (at least where our interests are at stake); the chance to tell the French to piss off; etc.
We haven’t found any WMD, but that wasn’t the only reason for going into Iraq.
I agree with all of those reasons. However, the case that was brought before the UN in support of military action was in reference to WMDs. Of course removing a crazed lunatic like Saddam from power will yield positive gains. Maybe if Bush had gone into this with the above reasons you mentioned as his platform I would feel like we accomplished our goal. As far as linking the Iraq war with illiminating terror…no evidence of that either. Also, Im sure maintaining the no fly zone was cheaper and less risky than this war. In your defense you brought up some great points and I thank your that. Your right, there are some good things that have come out of the war. I think they could have been accomplished in a more UN friendly manner. Our reason for going it alone was because of the WMDs.
Going without the UN does not necessarily imply going it alone. There are other states’ soldiers there right now.
The reason that was given was WMDs. Maybe it made a better case for the US public? I don’t think it would have been easier to convince Americans to go to war by saying ‘guys, there’s this whole domino situation that we want to accomplish in the middle east and besides, we don’t trust the Saudis no more, gotta move the bases to some other place’ - for example.
Aeschines said:
Well, there’s a high quality rebuttal. Henceforth, am I allowed to respond to anything John Kerry proposes with, “He doesn’t mean it!”? And I’m curious as to how you know that he doesn’t mean it, seeing as the new vision was only announced a few months ago. What source for that do you have?
In fact, NASA is already undergoing rapid change, precisely because Bush DOES mean it. The new division in NASA is already up and running, and Shuttle flights are already being retasked to match the new vision. In addition, Bush asked for and got an extra billion dollars for NASA this year. Sounds like he means it to me. Now, if he DIDN’T mean it, he would have done what Clinton did - cut NASA’s budget, promote “Faster, better, cheaper”, and the long-term vision would consist of endless ‘studies’ for new craft that need breakthroughs to work properly, giving them a good reason to drag on forever without changing anything. In fact, the new proposal avoids all of those problems and uses off the shelf hardware precisely so it can’t bloat into a wishlist for everyone that needs magical technology to work.
And if you believe Bush doesn’t care about space, I suggest you go and look at NASA’s budget over the last 15 years. Under Bush I, NASA got significant increases. Under Clinton, its funding declined almost every year. Under Bush II, NASA has gotten funding increases in every budget.
d1a1s1 said:
BobLibDem said:
Both of these statements share a lack of understanding of just what the new ‘vision’ is. It’s not so much a big increase in funding for NASA as it is a re-allocation of funds from the hugely expensive (and increasingly useless) Shuttle and ISS programs into space exploration. There are modest funding increases of about 3% per year, which Bush IS funding.
I’m betting neither of you have even bothered looking at the new plan, other than reading some hit piece about it somewhere, right? Because if you go look at the actual project plan, you’ll see that there is no area on it which says, “To be funded somehow”. The Shuttle costs 4.5 billion dollars a year. In 2010, that ends and all that money will be diverted into the Office of Exploration Systems. Scaling down ISS will free up another 3 billion a year. Elimination of other redundant programs such as the Shuttle recertification program frees up even more. By 2016, when ISS operations end, the Office of Exploration Systems will be funded to the tune of about 15 billion dollars a year, WITHOUT major new NASA funding other than the 3% per year already mentioned. 15 Billion a year is a LOT of money. Three times the funding for Shuttle.
If you’re actually interested in the new program, and not just in bashing George Bush, I suggest reading the material on this page NASA Exploration Vision.
If you want to cut right to the plan itself, Here’s a PDF file describing the new initiative in detail. Some things to note for those of you who think that this is ‘empty rhetoric’: There are many intermediate and near-term benchmarks, uncliding an unmanned flight of the new Crew Exploration Vehicle by 2008. That’s a VERY short time frame, and it means that the engineering work is starting immediately.
I find this argument to be the finest in revisionist history. d1a1s1 pointed out that the argument put to the UN focused on WMD. In the speech in which he presented the argument to us, (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.bush.transcript/), it is inescapable that the primary, overwhelming, nearly singular purpose of our planned action is to eliminate the risk presented to the US by WMD. Spin as you wish, but WMDs were the name of the game, at least in Bush’s eyes.
You know what…your damn right. I dont care about populating Mars when we cant even populate earth successfully!
Sorry about the language…this topic gets me going. So far the only positive thing Bush has done (as far as this thread goes) is redirect NASA’s vision. Ill give him that. Thats one.
Although I was far from clear, I was not equating being a Xian in the US with being a redneck. I’m saying that any Xian who would vote for Bush can safely be called a redneck. Even this is not quite accurate, though. My mom is a Xian and is ga-ga over Bush–yet she is not a redneck.
I don’t get it. I do think it comes down to culture war reasons, however. The Dems are the party that approves of things that “we” don’t approve of. They also want to redistribute income–that ain’t right!
Actually, the UN presentation primarily referred to WMD-development programs. I think it’s understandable to tailor your message to your audience. Do you think they’d give a crap about whether the dangers inherent in patrolling the No Fly zones? After all, it wasn’t their pilots that were getting shot at by Hussein’s SAMs. So Bush focussed on the things the UN should care about: defiance of UN mandates, WMD development programs, and humanitarian reasons. If I remember correctly, he even downplayed the idea that they actually had WMD, and played up their ongoing defiance of UN regs and warnings.
There is at least some evidence that Hussein was involved with terrorists and terrorist activities, even if he didn’t send his own people to partake in them. For example, he paid $10,000 to $25,000 dollars to the families of suicide bombers in the West Bank (a total of $35 million paid out between 2000 and 2003), giving them another reason to commit in their grisly crimes. Some links discussing Hussein’s terror connections are: here:
here:
[:
[url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/238dkpee.asp]here](]this 1998 State Dept. report[/url):
and a lengthy summary of many of Hussein’s ties to terror is here.
I’m not saying that Hussein was definitely training terrorists, or that he was behind 9/11, but there is some evidence that he was involved with terrorist groups, and he was definitely supporting terror in the West Bank.
Cheaper in the short term, sure. But we didn’t really have an exit strategy from the No Fly zones. We were stuck patrolling them forever, or at least until Hussein either died or converted his stance on cooperation with the UN (and that didn’t seem too likely until we had a gun to his head). So we definitely spent more money this year (and will spend more money for quite a few years), but in exchange, we get an exit strategy from Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which could save money in the long run.
And thank you for your willingness to look at the issue rationally. But especially, thank you for your service to the country.
I’m engaging in revisionist history?
Even you admit that WMD wasn’t Bush’s only reason for going to war. Why else would you say it was the “primary” purpose, unless there were other “secondary” purposes? Why else would you say that it was the “overwhelming” purpose unless there were other purposes to overwhelm? Why else would you say that it was the “nearly singular” purpose unless it was not the “wholly singular” purpose?
Of course there were other reasons for going to war. You can argue WMD were the center piece of Bush’s case for war, you can focus on it and point to the absence of WMD and gesticulate until your arms fall off, but that doesn’t mean the other reasons weren’t either important or reasons for going to war.
And lest we forget what Bush’s speech actually said, please note that he also talks about defiance of UN sanctions and regulations, Iraq’s history of aggression against the US and our Middle Eastern allies, humanitarian violations against Iraq’s people and their neighbors, and the creation of a democracy in Iraq.
I will weep, but I won’t be surprised. The country is deeply divided over what kind of country it wants to be: a modern nation, in step with the “kindler, gentler” nations of Europe and elsewhere, or a fascist plutocracy. Not the fascism of Hitler, mind you, but more like that of Franco: an alliance of the supporters of “traditional values” (Catholics in Franco’s spain, the Evangelicals now in the US) and the megacorp power brokers. No, I will not be surprised if fascism triumphs in the US.
Hmmm…great cites, and thanks for your support. I think my problem with the war in Iraq lies in the reasons we went in. Ive read Colin Powells address to the UN and it really was focusing on WMDs…we all know this. There was some mention of possible terrorist involvements with Iraq but primarily it was the WMDs. I cant help but think there were some less noble reasons motivating Bush. Maybe we’ll never know or maybe Mr. Clarke will bring them out, but the bottom line is that the reasons Bush gave the American public for going to war in the first place (sans UN) were never realized. So in the end some good came of it, which is expected when you remove a man like Saddam from power. I just feel that with the proper backing of the UN we may have been able to avoid the position our military is in now.
Bush calls for broadband [internet access] for all by 2007
It’s a good goal, but I’m hesitant to call it something he’s “doing right” since he doesn’t seem to have actually done anything about it yet.
[Inigo Montoya]This word. I do not a-think it means what a-you think it means.[/IM]
I didn’t make either point. I think the way the whole security thing is being handled in the US is a pain and looks inept, but I really don’t have enough information to judge at this point. Some of what they’re doing looks a little authoritarian for my taste, but that’s not why I think Bush is a fascist. I think he’s fascist because…
He supports big business and the rich to an extreme extent (no tax on dividends, no estate tax, lower tax rates for top income brackets, soft on corporate crime, etc.)
He manifests a jingoistic, quasi-religious patriotism.
He engages in aggressive war without sufficient cause.
He supports aggressive policies against the poor and working class of the US (e.g., the “War on Drugs”).
He is to the far right on every social issue.
Yes, if you are arguing that Bush presented WMD as only one among many reasons to invade Iraq. He gave lip service to every other issue. Yet now you attempt to spin it as if he had a laundry list that he went through regularly, WMD being only one item.
Because he did spend two clauses of one sentence on a topic other than WMD. It’s kind of like explaining the success of LeBron James’ high school basketball team. He was “primarily” responsible, the fifth kid on the depth chart was “secondarily” involved, the success was almost “wholly singularly” LeBron’s skills.
If there were important other reasons, Bush should have given them more than a portion of one sentence. We can easily do a content analysis of the speech to identify the percentage of time Bush gave to WMD versus other topics. We can let his words speak for themselves regarding the relative importance. Clearly, simply reading it is not something you can honestly do in an impartial fashion.
Yes, as regards WMD.
Yes, by saying
Clearly the point is that his history of aggression towards others suggests that he will use his WMDs in a hostile fashion.
Again, he does spend part of sentence on humanitarian violations, but I cannot see where he talks about humanitarian violations against any neighbors.
In two sentences.
Anything but a completely biased and revisionist reading of this speech and the point of all communications on the topic would conclude that the threat of WMD is the sine qua non of Bush’s argument.
So are you saying that the majority of Christians who support Bush are rednecks?
I expect this to fall on deaf ears on this board, seeing as how it has become the Democratic Underground lite, but here goes anyway…
There are some of us who do want government to do everything for us. We don’t want big taxes and big benefits. We don’t want our businesses regulated to death. We don’t want some central planner telling us what is or isn’t good for us. We don’t want the government to tell us what we can eat, where we can smoke, who we have to go to for health care, how much we can pay for it, who we can hire, who we can sell goods to, or where our kids must be educated.
In our personal lives, we believe in personal responsibility. We believe that freedom also means the freedom to fail, and that the Democrats, with their endless serious of outcome-equalizing programs, do grave damage to the dynamic that pushes people to achieve. The left wants to tell us who can own guns, what cars we must drive, and how much money we can make.
THIS is fascism - the creeping fascism of a growing nanny-state.
Europe is a good example of where this leads. Look at France or Germany. High taxes, burdensome regulations, high unemployment, and a growing divide between those who produce the revenue required to run government, and those who live off of government benefits. And are the people happier? Judging by the number of protests I see in both of those countries on an ongoing basis, it sure doesn’t seem that way.
The other vision is one of laissez-faire - a country which understands that government exists to maximize individual freedom, and not to take it away. Government as the last resort, not as the mommy that makes sure our skinned knees are taken care of.
Bush, for all his failings, is closer to that ideal than is John Kerry, who never saw a government program he didn’t like, or a tax hike he didn’t approve of. John Kerry wants to re-regulate business. He wants not equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome. He is the epitome of the rich New England snob who thinks the rest of us are not capable of running our lives without his benign assistance. He thinks that he knows what business should do better than businessmen. He thinks he knows what technologies business should invest in. He thinks he knows how to run health care better than do doctors and patients. He thinks he can micro-manage the economy. God save us from people like him.
Who do NOT want government to do everything for us