Bush-putting it in perspective

[justamom]

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!

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.

[swissmiss04]

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.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by justamom
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!

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.

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).

[GeekyPenguin]

Moral? Morale?

Potato? Potato?

I still don't like this "war."

[The1calledTKE]

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".

[AGDee]

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

[Rudey]

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
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".

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

[ADPiAkron]

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.

[swissmiss04]

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.

[ADPiAkron]

Originally posted by swissmiss04
Also somewhat suspicious of the fact that these decisions won't be made until after the election.

Hmmmm....sure is

[Rudey]

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

-Rudey

Originally posted by ADPiAkron
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)

Originally posted by swissmiss04
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.

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.

[swissmiss04]

Interesting. Thanks.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by justamom
John F. Kennedy...
started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.

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.

[ADPiAkron]

Originally posted by Ginger
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.

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!!)