To those who think Bush failed in Iraq

Rob9874

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 1999
3,314
1
0
Sorry if this is a repost, I'm too lazy to search.

Marines and Sailors,

As we approach the end of the year, I think it is important to share a few thoughts about what you've accomplished directly, in some cases, and indirectly in many others. I am speaking about what the Bush Administration and each of you has contributed by wearing the uniform, because the fact that you wear the uniform contributes 100% to the capability of the nation to send a few onto the field to execute national policy. As you read about these achievements you are a part of, I would call your attention to two things:

1. This is good news that hasn't been fit to print or report on TV.
2. It is much easier to point out the errors a man makes when he makes the tough decisions, rarely is the positive as aggressively pursued.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1. . .
. . . the first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active duty.
. . . over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens.
. . . nearly all of Iraq's 400 courts are functioning.
. . . the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.
. . . on Monday, October 6, power generation hit 4,518 megawatts-exceeding the prewar average.
. . . all 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.
. . . by October 1, Coalition forces had rehab-ed over 1,500 schools-500 more than scheduled.
. . . teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.
. . . all 240 hospitals and more than 1,200 clinics are open.
. . . doctors salaries are at least eight times what they were under Saddam.
. . . pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing! to 700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons.
. . . the Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccinations to Iraq's children.
. . . a Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq's 27,000 kilometers of weed-choked canals which now irrigate tens of thousands of farms. This project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi men and women.
. . . we have restored over three-quarters of prewar telephone services and over two-thirds of the potable water production.
. . . there are 4,900 full-service telephone connections. We expect 50,000 by year-end.
. . . the wheels of commerce are turning. From bicycles to satellite dishes to cars and trucks, businesses are coming to life in all major cities and towns.
. . . 95 percent of all prewar bank customers have service and first-time customers are opening accounts daily.
. . . Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses.
. . . the central bank is fully independent.
. . . Iraq has one of the world's most growth-oriented investment and banking laws.
. . . Iraq has a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.
. . . satellite TV dishes are legal.
. . . foreign journalists aren't on 10-day visas paying mandatory and extortionate fees to the Ministry of Information for "minders" and other government spies.
. . . there is no Ministry of Information.
. . . there are more than 170 newspapers.
. . . you can buy satellite dishes on what seems like every street corner.
. . . foreign journalists (and everyone else) are free to come and go.
. . . a nation that had not one single element-legislative, judicial or executive-of a representative government, now does.
. . . in Baghdad alone, residents have selected 88 advisory councils. Baghdad's first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened when the city council elected its new chairman.
. . . today in Iraq, chambers of commerce, business, school and professional organizations are electing their! leaders all over the country.
. . . 25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq's history, run the day-to-day business of government.
. . . the Iraqi government regularly participates in international events. Since July, the Iraqi government has been represented in over two dozen international meetings, including those of the UN General Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank and IMF and, today, the Islamic Conference Summit. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs today announced that it is reopening over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world.
. . . Shia religious festivals that were all but banned, aren't.
. . . for the first time in 35 years, in Karbala thousands of Shiites celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.
. . . the Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects, large and small, as part of a strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.
. . . Uday and Qusay are dead-and no longer feeding innocent Iraqis to the zoo lions, raping the young daughters of local leaders to force cooperation, torturing Iraq's soccer players for losing games, or murdering critics.
. . . children aren't imprisoned or murdered when their parents disagree with the government.
. . . political opponents aren't imprisoned, tortured, executed, maimed, or are forced to watch their families die for disagreeing with Saddam.
. . . millions of longsuffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.
. . . Saudis will hold municipal elections.
. . . Qatar is reforming education to give more choices to parents.
. . . Jordan is accelerating market economic reforms.
. . . the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for the first time to an Iranian-a Muslim woman who speaks out with courage for human rights, for democracy and for peace.
. . . Saddam is gone.
. . . Iraq is free.
. . . President Bush has not faltered or failed.
. . . Yet, little or none of this information has been published by the Press corps that prides itself on bringing you all the news that 's important.

Iraq under US-led control has come further in six months than Germany did in seven years or Japan did in nine years following WWII. Military deaths from fanatic Nazi's and Japanese numbered in the thousands and continued for over three years after WWII victory was declared.

It took the US over four months to clear away the twin tower debris, let alone attempt to build something else in its place.

Now, take into account that almost every Democrat leader in the House and Senate has fought President Bush on every aspect of his handling of this country's war and the post-war reconstruction, and that they continue to claim on a daily basis on national TV that this conflict has been a failure.

Taking everything into consideration, event the unfortunate loss of our brothers and sisters in this conflict, do you think anyone else in the world could have accomplished as much as the United States and the Bush administration in so short a period of time?

These are things worth writing about. Get the word out. Write to someone you think may be able to influence our Congress or the press to tell the story.

Above all, be proud that you are a part of this historical precedent.

God bless you all. Have a great Holiday.

Semper Fidelis,

LtCol Scot S Seitz
 

Now if Bush could only do those wonderful things to the good ol'e USA.


By the way, this belongs in Politics and News.
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
98
91
This should go in the Politics and News forum.

Suggested title: "To all those who are vulnerable to warmongering propaganda..."
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,211
11,695
146
Originally posted by: Roger
Now if Bush could only do those wonderful things to the good ol'e USA.
The fastest growth since 1984 isn't good enough for you? That's the fastest turn around in a recession is recent history.

It's kinda funny how people refuse to believe that EVERY economic indicator is up, and up big.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,211
11,695
146
Originally posted by: Roger
Amused, have you bothered to look at our national debt lately ?
Yes, I have. The deficit is due to be back in the black by 2005. Bush has not increased total federal spending at a rate any faster than Clinton did. The hard fact is, revenues go down in a recession, and pick back up with recovery. We are having the fastest recovery in recent history now.
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Originally posted by: Amused
And, as you note, they cannot and do not call it false. Because it is true.

Snopes has a bit of a liberal bent. They call it "incomplete" because it doesn't contain all the bad news we are constantly bombarded with.
And an op-ed piece by Caspar is, of course, completely unbiased. This is being forwarded around as a "letter from home" or similar BS. It's propaganda. "Scot Seitz" had nothing to do with this.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
It's not that he failed, it's that even if he succeeds, it's not worth the effort. Iraq was not a threat to the United States, and we can't go on nationbuilding adventures everytime we see a dictator we don't like.
A failure would be a complete waste of money, and we need to succeed to save face, but it's going to be a waste of money regardless. We are going to pour hundreds of Billions into Iraq when all is said and done, and the payoff in terms of security will be a lot smaller than if we focused it on Al-Qaeda.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,707
5
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Roger
Amused, have you bothered to look at our national debt lately ?
Yes, I have. The deficit is due to be back in the black by 2005. Bush has not increased total federal spending at a rate any faster than Clinton did. The hard fact is, revenues go down in a recession, and pick back up with recovery. We are having the fastest recovery in recent history now.
He did mention national debt, which is in the trillions- not the annual deficit/surplus of the budget. It's impossible for the national debt to be in the black by 2005, maybe 3005 if we start paying it off today.

But I wanted to ask, how is it a recovery when the dollar is sinking and gold is going up- symptoms of the fed printing lots of money, which may mean inflation ahead?
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Roger
Amused, have you bothered to look at our national debt lately ?
Yes, I have. The deficit is due to be back in the black by 2005. Bush has not increased total federal spending at a rate any faster than Clinton did. The hard fact is, revenues go down in a recession, and pick back up with recovery. We are having the fastest recovery in recent history now.
Please post link that the deficit will be back in black by 2005.
Bush administration officials are making rounds saying it will be cut in half by end of the decade, not totally eliminated in 2005.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Cutting deficit in half by end of decade, means we'll have:
500+450+400+350+300+250 Billions = 2.25 Trillion dollars in additional debt by then, and growing, that's if you stick with Bush admin projections.
2.25 trillion dollars at 5% interest divided by 300M Americans = $375 per every man woman and child in the US per year in perpetuity just to pay interest for the debt accrued by the Bush administration 2004 and after, if Bush is reelected and course not changed. That means in 2010, the average family of 4 will be happy to know that they are paying $1500 every year in taxes just to pay for the interest, not the principle on Bush's failed fiscal policies.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,211
11,695
146
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Amused
And, as you note, they cannot and do not call it false. Because it is true.

Snopes has a bit of a liberal bent. They call it "incomplete" because it doesn't contain all the bad news we are constantly bombarded with.
And an op-ed piece by Caspar is, of course, completely unbiased. This is being forwarded around as a "letter from home" or similar BS. It's propaganda. "Scot Seitz" had nothing to do with this.
Biased is one thing. Untrue is another. Caspar simply listed all the factual GOOD things that are going on that is NOT widely (and many not at all) reported in the press.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,211
11,695
146
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Roger
Amused, have you bothered to look at our national debt lately ?
Yes, I have. The deficit is due to be back in the black by 2005. Bush has not increased total federal spending at a rate any faster than Clinton did. The hard fact is, revenues go down in a recession, and pick back up with recovery. We are having the fastest recovery in recent history now.
Please post link that the deficit will be back in black by 2005.
Bush administration officials are making rounds saying it will be cut in half by end of the decade, not totally eliminated in 2005.
Here you go:

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/sheets/hist01z1.xls
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,211
11,695
146
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Cutting deficit in half by end of decade, means we'll have:
500+450+400+350+300+250 Billions = 2.25 Trillion dollars in additional debt by then, and growing, that's if you stick with Bush admin projections.
2.25 trillion dollars at 5% interest divided by 300M Americans = $375 per every man woman and child in the US per year in perpetuity just to pay interest for the debt accrued by the Bush administration 2004 and after, if Bush is reelected and course not changed. That means in 2010, the average family of 4 will be happy to know that they are paying $1500 every year in taxes just to pay for the interest, not the principle on Bush's failed fiscal policies.
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/sheets/hist01z1.xls

This clearly shows the rate of increase in federal spending is not rising any faster than during the Clinton years.

So... would you say Clinton's policies are failures too? Putting a Democrat in office will net you exactly zero decrease in federal spending. They'd simply shift it from military to social programs. Or in the case of more than one Dem candidate, no shifting would occur. They'd simply raise spending across the board.

Bush's tax cut has led to the fastest turn around of any recession in recent history. This WILL lead to increased revenue, as it has every time taxes have been cut.
 

outriding

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2002
2,677
1,497
136
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Cutting deficit in half by end of decade, means we'll have:
500+450+400+350+300+250 Billions = 2.25 Trillion dollars in additional debt by then, and growing, that's if you stick with Bush admin projections.
2.25 trillion dollars at 5% interest divided by 300M Americans = $375 per every man woman and child in the US per year in perpetuity just to pay interest for the debt accrued by the Bush administration 2004 and after, if Bush is reelected and course not changed. That means in 2010, the average family of 4 will be happy to know that they are paying $1500 every year in taxes just to pay for the interest, not the principle on Bush's failed fiscal policies.
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/sheets/hist01z1.xls

This clearly shows the rate of increase in federal spending is not rising any faster than during the Clinton years.

So... would you say Clinton's policies are failures too? Putting a Democrat in office will net you exactly zero decrease in federal spending. They'd simply shift it from military to social programs. Or in the case of more than one Dem candidate, no shifting would occur. They'd simply raise spending across the board.

Bush's tax cut has led to the fastest turn around of any recession in recent history. This WILL lead to increased revenue, as it has every time taxes have been cut.

Clearly it is a budget it has numbers.


This might surprise you...

President Clinton signed into law the largest deficit reduction plan in history, resulting in over $600 billion in deficit reduction.
Again what law did bush sign into to drop the defict ???

It looks like to me the R's are just taking Clintons Accomplishments for themselves.

Also the link you gave just does the spending it says nothing about dropping the defict.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,211
11,695
146
Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Cutting deficit in half by end of decade, means we'll have:
500+450+400+350+300+250 Billions = 2.25 Trillion dollars in additional debt by then, and growing, that's if you stick with Bush admin projections.
2.25 trillion dollars at 5% interest divided by 300M Americans = $375 per every man woman and child in the US per year in perpetuity just to pay interest for the debt accrued by the Bush administration 2004 and after, if Bush is reelected and course not changed. That means in 2010, the average family of 4 will be happy to know that they are paying $1500 every year in taxes just to pay for the interest, not the principle on Bush's failed fiscal policies.
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/sheets/hist01z1.xls

This clearly shows the rate of increase in federal spending is not rising any faster than during the Clinton years.

So... would you say Clinton's policies are failures too? Putting a Democrat in office will net you exactly zero decrease in federal spending. They'd simply shift it from military to social programs. Or in the case of more than one Dem candidate, no shifting would occur. They'd simply raise spending across the board.

Bush's tax cut has led to the fastest turn around of any recession in recent history. This WILL lead to increased revenue, as it has every time taxes have been cut.

Clearly it is a budget it has numbers.


This might surprise you...

President Clinton signed into law the largest deficit reduction plan in history, resulting in over $600 billion in deficit reduction.
Again what law did bush sign into to drop the defict ???

It looks like to me the R's are just taking Clintons Accomplishments for themselves.

Also the link you gave just does the spending it says nothing about dropping the defict.
Why don't you whip out that letter making the rounds listing all the cuts Bush has made, and portraying them as a BAD thing? Every good Democrat has a copy. There are your cuts.

And since you refuse to believe the government's own budget numbers, I guess it will do no good to prove, yet again, that the rate of spending increases since Bush took office have NOT outpaced the rate of increases during the Clinton years. Of course you don't believe facts. They get in the way of your fantasy.

And read the link again, genius, it shows past and projected deficits.

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/sheets/hist01z1.xls
 

outriding

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2002
2,677
1,497
136
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Cutting deficit in half by end of decade, means we'll have:
500+450+400+350+300+250 Billions = 2.25 Trillion dollars in additional debt by then, and growing, that's if you stick with Bush admin projections.
2.25 trillion dollars at 5% interest divided by 300M Americans = $375 per every man woman and child in the US per year in perpetuity just to pay interest for the debt accrued by the Bush administration 2004 and after, if Bush is reelected and course not changed. That means in 2010, the average family of 4 will be happy to know that they are paying $1500 every year in taxes just to pay for the interest, not the principle on Bush's failed fiscal policies.
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/sheets/hist01z1.xls

This clearly shows the rate of increase in federal spending is not rising any faster than during the Clinton years.

So... would you say Clinton's policies are failures too? Putting a Democrat in office will net you exactly zero decrease in federal spending. They'd simply shift it from military to social programs. Or in the case of more than one Dem candidate, no shifting would occur. They'd simply raise spending across the board.

Bush's tax cut has led to the fastest turn around of any recession in recent history. This WILL lead to increased revenue, as it has every time taxes have been cut.

Clearly it is a budget it has numbers.


This might surprise you...

President Clinton signed into law the largest deficit reduction plan in history, resulting in over $600 billion in deficit reduction.
Again what law did bush sign into to drop the defict ???

It looks like to me the R's are just taking Clintons Accomplishments for themselves.

Also the link you gave just does the spending it says nothing about dropping the defict.
Why don't you whip out that letter making the rounds listing all the cuts Bush has made, and portraying them as a BAD thing? Every good Democrat has a copy. There are your cuts.

And since you refuse to believe the government's own budget numbers, I guess it will do no good to prove, yet again, that the rate of spending increases since Bush took office have NOT outpaced the rate of increases during the Clinton years. Of course you don't believe facts. They get in the way of your fantasy.

And read the link again, genius, it shows past and projected deficits.

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/sheets/hist01z1.xls
Well you are saying that Bush is just about god.

by your numbers you say that it is just about impossible to achieve the goverment running in the black.

but with the sheet you provided clinton did it.

it is nice to have the goverment running in the black but what about the total debt which is more important.

in the few years bush has been in office the total debt rose about 1 trillion dollars!!!

total debt by year

nice graph
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Cutting deficit in half by end of decade, means we'll have:
500+450+400+350+300+250 Billions = 2.25 Trillion dollars in additional debt by then, and growing, that's if you stick with Bush admin projections.
2.25 trillion dollars at 5% interest divided by 300M Americans = $375 per every man woman and child in the US per year in perpetuity just to pay interest for the debt accrued by the Bush administration 2004 and after, if Bush is reelected and course not changed. That means in 2010, the average family of 4 will be happy to know that they are paying $1500 every year in taxes just to pay for the interest, not the principle on Bush's failed fiscal policies.
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/sheets/hist01z1.xls

This clearly shows the rate of increase in federal spending is not rising any faster than during the Clinton years.

So... would you say Clinton's policies are failures too? Putting a Democrat in office will net you exactly zero decrease in federal spending. They'd simply shift it from military to social programs. Or in the case of more than one Dem candidate, no shifting would occur. They'd simply raise spending across the board.

Bush's tax cut has led to the fastest turn around of any recession in recent history. This WILL lead to increased revenue, as it has every time taxes have been cut.
I am a pay as you go type of guy, not a put it on your credit card type of guy. Clinton made getting into black a priority. It's not even on Bush's radar in a meaningful way.
 

Crazee

Elite Member
Nov 20, 2001
5,736
0
76
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Roger
Amused, have you bothered to look at our national debt lately ?
Yes, I have. The deficit is due to be back in the black by 2005. Bush has not increased total federal spending at a rate any faster than Clinton did. The hard fact is, revenues go down in a recession, and pick back up with recovery. We are having the fastest recovery in recent history now.
Please post link that the deficit will be back in black by 2005.
Bush administration officials are making rounds saying it will be cut in half by end of the decade, not totally eliminated in 2005.
Here you go:

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/sheets/hist01z1.xls
It would help if you would actually get some more recent numbers. There have been revisions since the horribly inaccurate numbers you linked above. The numbers you have are still showing an estimate for 2002. The actual deficit for 2002 was 153,000 (in millions of $) versus the estimate on your link of $106,184 which means that the estimate you have linked was off by $46,816 or 44%. I wouldn't call that terribly accurate.

The deficit for 2003 is $374,200 (in millions of $) which means your number linked above is off by $294,030 or 367%. Also this is by far and away the largest deficit in U.S. History. The hard facts are that even the White House believes that the deficit for next year will exceed 500 billion.

White House budget director Joshua Bolten said much the same but also conceded that worse fiscal numbers were on the horizon, estimating the gap for the new year "will likely exceed $500 billion even with the strengthening economy." Bolten said spending restraint and policies aimed at bolstering the economy can wrench the budget onto a course to halve deficits by 2009.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
. . . teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.

My uncle WAS a professor @ University of Baghdad (I think that is the one...I'll check) with a PhD in Economics however he was a member of the Baath party (for reasons against his own) and they kicked him out because of that.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY