Bush-putting it in perspective
 

This may have been posted-don't know, but if there can be a zillion anti Bush threads, this should be OK. It's an e-mail so if you want to argue with it, I'll forward responses to the guy that sent it to me! :p

There were 39 combat related killings
in Iraq during the month of January.....
In the fair city of Detroit there were
35 murders in the month of January.

That's just one American city,
about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.

When some claim President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, state the following ...

FDR...
led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost,
an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman...
finished that war and started one in Korea,
North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,
an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy...
started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson...
turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,
an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton...
went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent,
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter
three times by Sudan and did nothing.
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us
President Bush has ...
liberated two countries,
crushed the Taliban,
crippled al-Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Libya,
Iran and North Korea
without firing a shot,
and captured a terrorist who slaughtered
300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining
about how long the war is taking, but...
It took less time to take Iraq
than it took Janet Reno to take the
Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of
chemical weapons in Iraq for less
time than it took Hillary Clinton to
find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division
and the Marines to destroy the Medina
Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to
call the police after his Oldsmobile
sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took
to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!
The Military moral is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

January is just one month. Add up all the casualties from March 2003-present if you want fair and balanced facts.

Iraq never attacked us, either.

Al-Qaeda is hardly crippled, seeing as how there are still threats of attacks and Osama is still at large.

We went into Bosnia, did what we had to do, and then got out. Most of the world was behind us.

Even if we did get Osama back during the Clinton administration, who's to say that Al Qaeda would have ceased attacks? If anything it would have provoked them. We're not talking about normal people here.

If by "liberated" you mean "totally destroyed and crippled" then I suppose you're right.

A lot of these comparisons are apples and oranges. And it's not just those horrible liberal Democrats who are complaining about the war and its length.

The Florida vote count took a couple weeks. The situation in Iraq is still far from resolved.

Personal attacks on people, ideologies, or groups automatically nullify any possible credibility of an argument.

Re: Bush-putting it in perspective
 

Well someone has to point out some flaws :) As the original poster said... it's all in the reporting, and information can be just as easily manipulated by conservative elements as they can by liberal ones.

Okay the Combat related killings for Jan:
True 39 US soldiers lost their lives... a little more than Detroit... but how many coalition or Iraqi civilians were killed during the same period in relation to combat operations?

Okay the WW2 one:
Japan attacked the US
German declared war
German subs attacked US shipping before the US offically delcared war on Germany.

Okay Veitnam:
This ones still debated, but obstensively Vietnam did attack a US ship in the Gulf of Tonkin.

Bosnia:
Clinton did commit US forces under the auspice of NATO, which had been given the authority of the UN - in co-operation with the French (unless all those guys in French uniforms were imposters).

Moral? Morale?

Potato? Potato?

I still don't like this "war."

Stuff could be added about the Republican Presidents as well. I wonder if certain people don't like this thread as well since it contains "half truths".

Being from Detroit, I'd really like to see some of my tax dollars going to stopping the murders in Detroit, rather than to another country. You think the people who have to live here are happy to see $78 billion going overseas? Who's protecting us here in the USA?

We were asked to help with WWII and with Bosnia. I think we had no business being in Korea or Vietnam or Somalia for that matter... wasn't Somalia under Bush the first?

More than a year after this war has been "over", there are still frequent black outs in Iraq. The people still have no clean drinking water. When we had a black out for 2 days last summer, the whole east coast was grinded to a halt. They've been dealing with that for almost a year and a half! I don't think I'd find that terribly liberating.

There was no evidence of Al Qaeda being present in Iraq before the war, but they appear to be now (claiming responsibility for some suicide bombings in Baghdad). Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for numerous bombings over the last few months.

North Korea has blatantly said "We have nuclear arms, what are you going to do about it?" and have refused to disarm.

How come nobody ever mentions the Iran-Contra Scam anymore?

Dee

Point out the half truths. How exactly do people respond to about 60 years of American history in one shot?

If you can't discriminate between a half-truth/lie/deception and not writing an entire history book in a post, then I don't know what to tell you.

-Rudey

This was in my local paper...now here is something to worry about if Bush is re-elected... (ETA: Not looking for an argument...just found this interesting)



Bush Plan Eyes Cuts for Schools, Veterans

ALAN FRAM

Associated Press


WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has told officials who oversee federal education, domestic security, veterans and other programs to prepare preliminary 2006 budgets that would cut spending after the presidential election, according to White House documents.

The programs facing reductions - should President Bush be re-elected in November - would also include the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department.

Many of the targeted programs are widely popular. Cuts could carry a political price for a president who has touted his support for schools, the environment and other domestic initiatives.

A spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget said the documents, obtained by The Associated Press, contained routine procedural guidelines so officials could start gathering data about their needs for 2006.

Decisions about spending levels "won't be made for months," said the spokesman, J.T. Young. "It doesn't mean we won't adequately fund our priorities."

Democrats said the papers showed the pressures that a string of tax cuts Bush has won from Congress have heaped onto the rest of the budget.

"The only way we can even begin to pay for these huge tax cuts is by imposing cuts on critical government services," said Thomas Kahn, Democratic staff director of the House Budget Committee.

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., in a teleconference set up by Democratic presidential contender John Kerry's campaign, called it the end of an administration "hide the ball" budget strategy.

"The ball is now out for everyone to see," Graham said. "The only thing that's left in place is the part of the ball that is labeled 'tax cuts for my rich friends.'"

A May 19 memorandum from the White House budget office to agencies said they should assume 2006 spending levels specified in an internal administration database that accompanied the 2005 budget that Bush proposed in February. The government's 2006 budget year begins Oct. 1, 2005.

"If you propose to increase funding above that level for any account, it must be offset within your agency" by cuts in other accounts "so that, in total, your request does not exceed the 2006 level assumed for the agency," the memo read in part.

The memorandum and portions of the internal database were obtained by The Associated Press from congressional officials who requested anonymity. The officials read other portions of the database to a reporter.

Congress is just beginning to consider the 2005 federal budget, which will total about $2.4 trillion. About two-thirds of it covers automatically paid benefits like Social Security, and the remainder - which Congress must approve annually - covers agency spending.

According to the database, that one-third of the budget would grow from the $821 billion Bush requested for 2005 to $843 billion in 2006, or about 2.7 percent.

But that includes defense and foreign aid spending, which are both slated for increases due in part to wars and the battle against terrorism.

The remaining amount - for domestic spending - would drop from $368.7 billion in 2005 to $366.3 billion in 2006. Though that reduction would be just 0.7 percent, it does not take into account inflation or the political consequences of curbing spending for popular programs.

"Continuing the strategy of last year's budget, the 2006 budget will constrain ... spending while supporting national priorities: winning the war on terror, protecting the homeland and strengthening the economy," the memorandum said.

The documents show spending for:

_Domestic security at the Homeland Security Department and other agencies would go from $30.6 billion in 2005 to $29.6 billion in 2006, a 3 percent drop.

_The Education Department would go from $57.3 billion in 2005 to $55.9 billion in 2006, 2.4 percent less.

_The Veterans Affairs Department would fall 3.4 percent from $29.7 billion in 2005 to $28.7 billion.

_The Environmental Protection Agency would drop from $7.8 billion in 2005 to $7.6 billion, or 2.6 percent.

_The National Institutes of Health, which finances biomedical research and had its budget doubled over a recent five-year period, would fall from $28.6 billion to $28 billion, or 2.1 percent.

_The Interior Department would fall 1.9 percent from $10.8 billion in 2005 to $10.6 billion.

_The Defense Department would grow 5.2 percent to $422.7 billion in 2006, and the Justice Department would increase 4.3 percent to $19.5 billion in 2006.

The documents were first reported by The Washington Post.

Interesting article. What are the figures for each department for *this* year. Will they remain steady between now and '05? Have there been any drastic cuts since Bush took office? All these things are necessary before anyone can judge. Even still, I can't fathom how there could be any further cuts into some of the programs that are already suffering for funding. Also somewhat suspicious of the fact that these decisions won't be made until after the election.

Hmmmm....sure is ;)

That is something to worry about if Bush is re-elected??

-Rudey

One important thing to note is, when articles such as these talk about "cuts", the departments in question are not going to be losing money. They are not going to be getting $10 billion dollars this year and 5 billion next. Every year, departments get increases based on.... something (sorry, don't know that). When you hear about cuts being made to departments, they are talking about cuts in those increases. So instead of getting $10 billion this year, and $15 billion next year, they will only get $12.5 billion or something like that. I think that's often misunderstood.

Interesting. Thanks.

Re: Bush-putting it in perspective
 

In truth, President Eisenhower sent the first U.S. troops in as "advisors."

It is an interesting study in propaganda, however, to see how both sides can come up with documents like this.

I'm also dissapointed, although I know Kerry would have done the same thing in the same circumstances, that President Bush made the commencement speech at the U.S. Air Force Academy today into a very thinly disguised political speech opportunity. The power of the incumbancy.

Believe me....I totally understand that! I work in a job funded by a grant from the Federal Government....we were just cut 40% for the 2004 program year!! To be technical we were cut one full time secretary and a part time counselor...leaving us with two counselors and a program coordinator....the kids I work with have also been cut (we cannot sign up any new kids for our program this summer nor can the kids work full-time jobs through us this summer since we subsidize their pay with the grant....we can only afford to pay them for 10 hours per week)!! So I understand the cuts....but thanks for the info!!

(Not trying to be crappy....just stating my understanding of it since it has hit home so hard!! I am lucky to still have my job!!)

Hearing things like this makes me wish we could adopt an Isolationist policy similar to that of the late19th century (pre-Spanish-American war). We could straighten up our own act and to hell w/ all the other countries that mostly hate us anyways. All the repealed foreign aid could go towards domestic concerns. And at least we're not taking verbal pot shots from other countries and then turning around and filling their coffers.
</end rant>

We actually discussed this post on another message board I post at . . . as pointed out, it contains a lot of half-truths, blatant lies, ambiguous phrasing and misresearched facts. I'm trying to remember all of them but here are a few:

As AGDee pointed out -- the first statistic about Detroit can actually work against the writer's point. Why should we be spending all this money in Iraq when our own cities apparently have bigger problems to be cleaned up? Plus, what the author means by "combat-related killings" isn't exactly clear. There could be a lot of deaths tied to the US's precense in Iraq that might not fall under the category of "combat-related killings."

It was actually Eisenhower, not Kennedy, who got us involved in Vietnam.

Comparing the war in Iraq to WW2, Korea, Vietnam or any of the other above wars is comparing apples to oranges. I'm not sure what point they're trying to make . . . not to mention that these days, it's pretty widely considered a mistake that we were in Vietnam in the first place -- not something I think anyone who supports this war wants to compare it to.

People can blame Clinton for not catching Osama but the truth of that matter is that during Clinton's presidency we had much bigger stuff to deal with than Osama. Bin Laden was involved with the death of about 35 Americans during Clinton's time in office. Bin Laden was connected to the deaths of thousands during Bush's presidency . . . and he hasn't caught Osama yet either. Do I blame Bush for that? No . . . but you also can't blame Clinton for it. Hindsight is 20/20, but before 9/11, we had no clue that bin Laden was going to be as big as a threat as he was. There was more important stuff going on.

Bush has hardly "crippled" the al-Quaeda . . . the most recent reports say that they are stronger than ever and are planning more attacks on the U.S., possibly as early as this summer.

Again, comparing the "liberation" of Iraq to other situations is hardly an accurate measure. When you're looking at something like the Waco situation -- it took so long because they didn't want to injure anymore of the kids! If the American army had tried to free Iraq without harming any children, you can bet it would have taken a little bit longer. ;) Plus I think that anyone educated can see that the "taking of Iraq" was purely symbolic and that what matters more is the fact that our troops will be involved there for years.

One of the people on the other board posted that military morale is actually lower than it has been in a long time, and from articles I've read I would tend to agree, but I don't have data to back this up so I don't know what the truth is on that.

I watched Oprah yesterday...she covered the story of a young boy named Ali...the story was so sad I almost cried...

During the opening days of the Iraqi war, a stray American missile obliterated a civilian home outside Baghdad. Ali Ismail Abbas's family was asleep, and the boy thought it was a dream until he realized that both of his arms were missing. His parents were killed in the bombing, and Ali was covered with third-degree burns.

Ali is now living in London, where he lives with his friend Ahmed (who also lost a leg and a hand in a bombing). Ali has been fitted with artificial limbs, and he is learning English as well as playing soccer. To the world, he offers a simple message (above) of pursuing peace.

Great post sugar and spice !
:)

IT WAS AN e-mail guys!!!
 

Half truths or half lies-Lot's of this floating around GC of late.
Why should Scary Kerry supporters have all the "Fun with Facts"? What is, is. Or is it? What it is, is SPIN. :D (HAD to get my Clinton dig in)

I think many are focusing on the wrong meaning behind the e-mail. I was MOST interested in the TIME ALLOTMENTS. Now THOSE are rather difficult to argue since they are historical records. My favorites are the Sillary comparison and Florida vote count.

Anyway-propaganda is flying around GC like flies around..well YOU know. Lot's of political BS lately...

The content holds two major points-IMHO
As discussed on other threads, "news formats" are increasingly
editorializing. The media, which IS mostly liberal, has crossed the line as they try to shape opinion rather than report events.
AND-"Rome wasn't built in a day." We are bombarded (by the media) with heartbreaking tales of death and destruction. We have "bad news" streaming 24-7. It makes every day loom larger and longer. This wasn't the case prior to the Gulf War.
In a way, our resolve as a nation is being tested much harder than it was in the past.

I honestly wonder if we will ever see a REAL, DEFINABLE end to this war. I am willing to give Bush the time he needs because I believe this is every bit as important and ANY war we have fought.

There was more important stuff going on??? OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHH yeah...MONICA!:p

Re: IT WAS AN e-mail guys!!!
 

Coming from both sides of the aisle. I wouldn't exactly call this reasonable political discourse, JAM. I think W is an embarassment to America and I have lots of nasty names I could call him, his wife, etc, but I try to stay away from that. I've got real, valid, factual reasons I think he's a bad president.

I think in the initial post it was clear that it was an E-MAIL forwarded to me. I guess I wrongly figured the intro to the post would keep it on the lighter side.

Me-"This may have been posted-don't know, but if there can be a zillion anti Bush threads, this should be OK. It's an e-mail so if you want to argue with it, I'll forward responses to the guy that sent it to me!:p " No rolling eyes or red faced smilies. No serious intro...

Honestly, it wouldn't bother me one bit if you DID refer to Bush or Laura any way you desired.

On the "political discourse" point-
I think I recall a thread about how Laura MURDERED someone in a car accident??? Now that's real relevant.

I totally agree with you on your point of coming from BOTH sides of the Isle. Indeed it is.

I don't like this war either.

Laura Bush did kill someone in a car accident. I think that's relevant if we're going to attack Kerry for mundane things, like marrying a rich woman or looking "Scary."

LOL sorry justamom. I just made a comment because everyone seems to have a comment about liberal propaganda.

Remind me again, how many lives were lost during Monicagate?

The1calledTKE, I bet YOU can see the subtle humor of this situation! ;)


GP-
Point-Kerry is rather handsome, it's his political acrobats and policies that are scary to ME.

Since you really seem to want to make this into something bigger than it was-like a mountain out of a mole hill, I will offer my profound apology for being incredibly insensitive to you and ALL those I have offended. I will get down on my knees and ask nay, beg for forgiveness from the great GC mods. Now, since this was such an outrageous display on my part, can this horrific thread please be deleted before irreparable harm is done? I could not bear thinking I had inflicted damage upon unsuspecting readers.

AND, you know what GP, I promise I won't make one more post. So, like when I was a kid, you post next and that way, you can have the "last word".

This is the most ridiculous exchange I've ever had on GC.

I'm not a moderator of this forum, nor have I ever been, nor do I ever want to be. I personally think that DeltAlum and KillarneyRose should be the only moderators on GC's more heated forums. I co-moderate my little piece of land in the Gamma sectionand that's it.

I just want to get all the facts out there. If you want to criticize Kerry, go ahead. I just think there's criticisms for Bush that should be aired too. Do I have a lot to say about this? Of course. It's my field of study, what I plan to do with my life. If I didn't have opinions in this area I'd be better suited studying mathematics or finance. There's a reason I'm not.

I'm just going to attack one thing that seems to encompass a lot of what is being discussed on this thread:

Troop morale -- how it really is vs. how it is reported in the media.

I did a google search for "Troop Morale". What I came up with was MANY hits that contained the same headline. "Troop Morale Hits Rock Bottom". Strange. So I decided to check it out.

The poll that the "Low Morale" story was based off of surveyed 2000 troops (a decent sample, however, no info was given as to where they were deployed, except the Iraq theater). The results of the survey said that the troops rated their morale in the following ways:

34% low OR very low
39% average
27% high or very high

The way I read it is that 66% of the troops that are actually deployed are average to high. I would HARDLY call that "Rock Bottom" as many of these headlines have.

(Just do the google search and you'll see what I mean)

***

I then plugged in "High Troop Morale" and came accross a very interesting survey.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2004/0...ion_iraqi.html

While the sample may be slightly less reliable (only taken of 389 troops, it may be more representative of our actual troops on the ground because it takes into account the actual location in the theater because they were stationed in either Iraq, Qatar or Kuwait (42% were in central Iraq/Baghdad). This survey made some interesting correlations. One thing that stood out was that their findings were not much different than what we found in WWII which was anything but a quagmire.

The results are also broken down into categories, and I don't feel like averaging the categories out, but let me just say that combining the category that responded the most negatively to the question: "How do you feel about the decision to deploy US forces in Iraq?" -- these were reservists mind you, combining the disagree/strongly disagree categories, you have only 21%.

Another interesting response was to the question "How do you think Iraq is compared to how it was before?" The group that responded the most in the negative (Active duty) had a whopping 13% say that it was worse off -- 62% said better off.

The rest of the survey goes in much the same way -- the troops overwhelmingly seem to believe in what they're doing. A few don't, but when the numbers are similar to what we found in WWII, I have to say that what some of them are feeling is just a natural reaction to being somewhere besides home -- it may have little/nothing to do with what they're actually seeing on a daily basis.

I don't know, who should I trust? The media? Or the troops that are actually on the ground? The folks that make up VERY misleading headlines? Or the people who are over there trying to stabilize the region?

I tend to side with the majority of the troops on this one. What we're doing over there is a good thing.

If you take your statement, and switch the words Kerry and Bush, I think you'll get to what JAM is saying. There's 5 million and 3 threads out there criticizing Bush, mocking him, etc. Is it so wrong for there to be one doing the same about Kerry?

Hillary and Bill Clinton wanted the war in Iraq even while Bush was in power. Last I checked John Kerry voted for the war but didn't want to fund it afterwards. What does that mean?

-Rudey
--And it's not Bush's war because Bush isn't the only person running the entire country.

So if al Qaeda is 'stronger than ever', why is it that every time the terror alert is raised, its 'just the Republicans trying to scare the general public'?

We don't have that luxery without collapsing our economy, and allowing terrorists to develop resources with which to attack us. As long as we have the biggest economy, there will always be people who hate us just because they are jealous.

With all due respect Just A Mom, the people on this board aeem very passionate about their politics, on both sides and if you didn't want a heated political debate to start you shouldn't have posted this.

Completely specious argument. The Middle East has to be remade, and going into Iraq was a geopolitical decision. That region was not going to change while Sadam was in power, and after 9-11, Iraq became the #1 nation in the world that funded radical Palestenian organizations. Sadam was destabilizing the region, and he had to go. If the region doesn't change, we may see an attack on American soil that would dwarf the number of homocides in Detroit that occur in a decade, let alone a month. These myopic analogies are par for the course with most of the criticism of the current American strategy.
What was more important than going after the only entity in the world that actually attacked the US during the Clinton presidency? If getting Osama was so lacking in importance, than why do Bush critics point to the fact that Clinton warned Bush that Osama was America's biggest threat before he took office. You can't have it both ways. Clinton did recognize that Osama was a huge threat, and the plain simple truth is that his inaction was the catylyst that caused 9-11.[/B][/QUOTE]Actually when it comes to operating on American soil, it looks like Bush has been very effective. Al Qaeda continues to operate, but its safe to say that they would rather kill Americans on American soil, than Muslims on Middle Eastern soil. Bush has crippled their effectiveness on our soil, and that's an effective defense of the American people in my book. Will Al Qaeda attack here before the elections? It could happen, but they better do it more than two months before the election. When this nation, or the president, is attacked, the "rally 'round the president" effect kicks in, and the president's popularity jumps up.[/B][/QUOTE]Awww, how nice of Clinton to worry about the kids in Waco. He also took his sweet time to helping the kids who were being raped or murdered in Bosnia. Oh yeah, he completely stuck his head in the sand when it came to the worst genocide of his tenure; Rwanda.Or truly educated people will actually study the region, and understand that it wasn't purely symbolic.

We should have nuked vietnam and we should have nuked Iraq as well.

-Rudey

The only bad thing about that is the radiation cloud. What if the wind was blowing in the direction of Isreal or Jordan?

Well, with all of the money we've already spent over there, we could have built a giant solar powered fan to make sure the radiation cloud blows towards Iran.

:D

Because weather patterns move from West to East. That's why, during the cold war, the placement of tactical nuclear weapons in Central Europe freaked the Russians out. Plenty of the really nasty radioactive material would have descended on Russian cities.

^ and palestine and Oman and Qatar .....