Osama, Saddam, WMD's and the 2004 election

[habilis]

First, the good news for Bush in 2004;

1. The war was won quickly and cheaply(in American lives)
2. There have been no new major terrorist attacks on American soil under his watch (which talks to the possibility that the Bush plan against terror is a success.)
3. There are now indications that a stable ground is in place for a bull market to develope in the next year and facilitate major economic rebound. (Bush admin will claim that winning the war quickly and tax cuts helped to create stability and activate the rebound - which isn't far from the truth). In other words, an improving economy under his watch.


Now, the bad news for Bush in 2004;

1.Where the hell is bin Lauden's dead body?
2. Where the hell is Saddam's dead body?
3. Where the hell are the WMD's? (This one being by far the worst issue; Bush's credibility is on the line big time with this one. If WMD's aren't found soon, this is the issue the Democrats - and a large part of the anti-American world out there - are going to forge into a sword and cut his head clean off with.)
4. The doom and gloomer economy & tax-cuts-for-the-rich crowd. (There's nothing new about this democrat strategy of charging Bush and the republicans with giving tax cuts only to the richest of Americans and running our economy into the ground, but they're going to be louder then ever this time. Bush admin will defend, saying it inherited the post dot-com crash/tech-bubble burst economy - which again isn't far from the truth.)

Of course a lot will happen before 2004. It will be an interesting comming year.

 

[Decado]

they better make sure that that i fthey find WMD there will be a lot of independent dudes around, or else they will have hell convincing everybody that they didnt plant it

 

[toast]

It is too late to find WMDs now that fights have more or less stopped. GWBush now has to succeed where his father did not: economy. Is tax cut what Americans really need and ask for ? Isn't the main desire of the population security ? And isn't social security a form of security ? What about job precarity after the dotcom crashes ? After the economic spasms and mini-crashes ?

The coming year will be interesting indeed. History rarely repeats itself, and I am curious to know how America is going to get through this Bush 2nd period.

 

[habilis]

Sidenote: An interesting poll in the New York Times today;

The question posed to people who claim democrat as their party was "Can you name 1 democrat presidential candidate?"
66% could not. 33% came up with a variety of candidates from John Carry to Joe Lieberman.

Of course things change in time, but one way to interpret those numbers is that 2 of every 3 democrats out there apparently have no urgent interest in replacing the current president. Another interpretation; the democrats don't have themselves a strong leader.

 

[ebolag4]

Originally posted by toast
It is too late to find WMDs now that fights have more or less stopped.

Why is it too late to find WMDs? Just because the major part of the battle is over, that doesn't mean finding them is no longer important. Now is the time to find them since the fighting is over. Now they have the time to concentrate on searching rather than fighting.

And why is it that the very people who were urging Bush to take more time before going to war are the same people who are in such and all-fired hurry to find the WMDs. These are the people who urged patience, but they have no patience themselves.

If the things are hidden, it's going to take time. I wouldn't doubt if most of the WMDs made it out of Iraq before the first shot was fired. The question is, what do we do about it if they ARE found somewhere else? I don't even want to think about that one, but we must face the possibility.

I, for one, am willing to be patient and let the record show for itself what the future for GW holds. I'm not going to let what MIGHT be happening now determine how I will vote in the future. I'm going to wait and see what DOES happen and then act accordingly.

 

[serpicolugnut]

hey toast - if I were you, I'd be more worried about how France will survive under continuous control of Chirac, now that he has successfully alienated your country politically from the big boys (US/UK).

As for the WMDs, we've found bits and pieces that suggest a lot of them were moved right before the war, possibly to Syria, possibly destroyed. I find it funny that no one seems to think it odd that over 100 Iraqis who looted a suspected Nuclear facility (read: illegal nuclear facility) now are sick with radiation poisioning. Now, how could that happen if there was no nuclear program?

As for Usama and Saddam... Where are they? They are both dead. Until I see video footage of either of them with a current daily newspaper, I'm going on the assumption that they are both taking the eternal celestial dirt nap. Even if Saddam survived, he's not in command of his country, and there's no way in hell he or his sons/Baath party officials will ever run Iraq again.

 

[adambyte]

Anybody ever see "Wag The Dog?" Good movie

Granted, I'm not saying that the war is fake. Lost lives are a real thing. But when you're a lackluster president, you might as well go and be a good commander of the army. This was Bush's way of making an impression on the general population.

On a sidenote: About the dumbest thing Bush can do for the economy is cut taxes.... which is what he seems dead-set on doing.

btw, Vote for Dean. http://www.deanforamerica.com

 

[Gnomo]

Originally posted by ebolag4
why is it that the very people who were urging Bush to take more time before going to war are the same people who are in such and all-fired hurry to find the WMDs.

Hmm...let's think about this. Why on earth could people want the WMD to show up and in a hurry?

Um...here a shot in the dark: To Prove us WRONG~!

I don't know about all the other anti-war members of this forum or around the world for that matter, but I would love for Junior to prove us all wrong by finding (not planting) a large WMD cache. It would finally show that this war wasn't just a vandetta against Saddam, and that we actually had some intelligence rather than just propoganda. Iraq was claiming all along that "We don't have any" and so far it looks like they were telling the truth.

Now, I doubt that too many people in the world are really going to miss Saddam, but this will just add to the reasons that so many groups hate the US as it is. I mean we already (to some extent) alienated the French, Russians, and China (just to name a few) and we rendered the UN completely worthless (again). We aren't doing a very good job of making friends and we are upsetting the ones that we have.

If we don't learn our lesson soon and stop being the Bully of the world cramming our "be like us" doctrine down the throats of every other country and blowing them up if they refuse to listen to us (or even if they are and we just don't believe them), there are going to be more terrorist attacks and when there are, we might not have anyone to go crying to for help.

I love my country and I am thankful that I am American, but it is highly time that we realize that we are not Gods gift to the planet.

 

[serpicolugnut]

On a sidenote: About the dumbest thing Bush can do for the economy is cut taxes.... which is what he seems dead-set on doing.

Well, history teaches us that when the Government cuts taxes, people have more of their own money to spend and invest. Small business owners have more money to invest in their companies, usually in the form of adding employees, which in turn produces more jobs.

When JFK cut taxes, the economy took off.

When Reagan cut taxes, the economy took off.

When George Herbert Walker Bush raised taxes in 1991, the economy slid in to recession.

It's a proven fact that cutting taxes stimulates economic growth. But I'd love to hear your rationalization on why cutting taxes is bad.

 

[serpicolugnut]

I mean we already (to some extent) alienated the French, Russians, and China (just to name a few) and we rendered the UN completely worthless (again). We aren't doing a very good job of making friends and we are upsetting the ones that we have.

Reality check:

France had been providing Saddam with intelligence on the US since the early 90's. France had over $60billion in illegal oil contracts with Iraq.

Russia provided Iraq with much of it's weaponry post 1991. Russia also had illegal business dealing with Iraq to the tune of $8billion.

China also provided weapons to Iraq (Al Samoud missles, among other stuff). Don't forget that China now has several hundred ICBMs targeted on the US now, and please don't forget the intentional downing of our intelligence jet last year.

These are countries you consider "friends" of the US? I'm not saying they're our enemies, but by their own actions, they remove themselves from the friends label.

 

[serpicolugnut]

This was Bush's way of making an impression on the general population.

Funny, his approval ratings before/after the war are not that far apart. Sure, he got a bump, but nothing huge. The general population already had/have a positive impression of the guy. The only people with an unfavorable impression of GWB are extreme left partisans. There is noting GWB could do, short of curing AIDS or giving every American a $1 million check that would change these people's minds.

Anybody ever see "Wag The Dog?" Good movie

Anybody remember the way in which Clinton handled Iraq? The day of his testimony in the Paula Jones case he decided to lob a few cruise missles at some non essential targets in Iraq.

Wag the dog - indeed.

 

[edX]

from habilis
Another interpretation; the democrats don't have themselves a strong leader.

that's the one i would go with. right now the democrats don't have a 'name brand' candidate. Lieberman would probably be the closest, but i doubt he would stand a real chance. Unfortunately, some of the best democratic choices are women. while i would still vote for them, i don't think average america is quite ready. perhaps as a VP, but even that seems optimistic.

from serpicolugnut
The only people with an unfavorable impression of GWB are extreme left partisans.

no, there are still plenty of others who don't have favorable impressions of him. i know you probably consider me an extreme liberal, but the truth is i'm very middle-of-the-road. i even know republicans who don't like him and didn't support the war. so, again, please don't try and reduce things down to categories and labels. it doesn't help your argument any. essentially you are saying "if you don't agree with me, this is what you are."

as for the whole tax cut issue, i think tax cuts would be great. only they need to be for middle class americans, not for corporations and millionaires. reagonomics proved that money doesn't 'trickle down'. it flows upwards. if the guy at the bottom doesn't have any money to spend, there won't be anyone buying the products and services, hence no new jobs and increased productivity. no one is going to invest in creating jobs if they can't expect to profit from it. which leads to the wealthy retaining as much of their money as possible in order to maintain and/or increase their wealth. the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. even the middle class gets poorer.

the fact is that i wish trickle down economics did work. it sounds great in theory. but all too often it becomes a protection for maintaining corporations and businesses that really don't have a product to compete with. in the end, no matter which direction you butter the bread from, what's really needed are innovations and shared confidence from both ends of the spectrum. better education and skills development are essential. and realizing that social services are also an important part of the economy. cutting out the jobs in that area effects the overall economy just like any other sector of it. there is no reason to sell out the future to the present. small adjustments are what are needed, not big headline gathering promises of a better economy thru tax restructuring. personally, i would rather see more changes in how those tax dollars get spent than on how they are collected.

 

[serpicolugnut]

that's the one i would go with. right now the democrats don't have a 'name brand' candidate. Lieberman would probably be the closest, but i doubt he would stand a real chance. Unfortunately, some of the best democratic choices are women. while i would still vote for them, i don't think average america is quite ready. perhaps as a VP, but even that seems optimistic.

As a Bush supporter, I sincerely hope Lieberman gets the nomination from the Dems. Seriously. He's a good man. If I had to a live under another Dem pres, I would hope it would be Lieberman.

As for the other contenders... Edwards has no real ideas. Kerry seems to think that just because he was in Vietnam he's qualified to be President. Dean's antiwar/anti-military views are out of step with the majority of America. Al Sharpton is definitely the most charismatic of the bunch, and definitely has the biggest ideas (none of which I agree with, unfortunately).

So which women do you think to be most qualified Ed? Surely you don't mean Hillary - do you?

no, there are still plenty of others who don't have favorable impressions of him.

If by "plenty" you mean around 30-35% of the American public, then you are correct...

 

[Cat]

France had been providing Saddam with intelligence on the US since the early 90's. France had over $60billion in illegal oil contracts with Iraq.

Insert proof here -->

Didn't the US supply most of the WMD Iraq had?

Russia provided Iraq with much of it's weaponry post 1991. Russia also had illegal business dealing with Iraq to the tune of $8billion.

You mean those highly dangerous and threatening old army trucks, left over from WWII, that were nearly falling apart?

China also provided weapons to Iraq (Al Samoud missles, among other stuff). Don't forget that China now has several hundred ICBMs targeted on the US now, and please don't forget the intentional downing of our intelligence jet last year.

And where does the US point its ICBMs right now?
China intentionallt shot down the intentionally illegally spying US spy plane, which was intentionally illegally spying. You have a problem with that? Would you like a chinese spy plane reading your license plate?

By the way, if your economical reasoning doesn't get beyond "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" then it's not worth much ... there are tons of data to be taken into account and `rebound' and `recession' are to be used with great care. What was the emplyment rate before and after the tax cuts / raises? What were the house prices? What were the average wages, rents, gas costs? What were the long term credits? The interest rate? etc.

In different economical climates tax cuts nad rises have very different effects. Bush just generate a huge loss for the economy and is goint to aggravate that by reducing the state income. This could turn out to be a wise investment, or a potential disaster. It's very hard to tell, but on short term it doesn't really look good. Either way, he gets four more years to make up for it (or be blamed for the bad economy) or his rival will have the task to clean up after him.

 

[serpicolugnut]

Didn't the US supply most of the WMD Iraq had?

From what I've read (and feel free to provide resources to prove me wrong), the US provided Iraq during the 80-88 Iran/Iraq war with Sarin and Mustard gas. The reasoning behind this was that Sarin and Mustard don't keep all that long, and Iraq was an ally at the time. Hindsight is always 20/20, but Reagan clearly thought hedging his bets against Iran was a good thing.

Iraq developed most of it's WMD on it's own (Anthrax, VX, Botulin Toxins). Germany has been shown to have a hand in their nuclear programs, as did France. Remember - France provided Iraq with a small nuclear reactor in the early 80's, that thankfully, Israel was able to destroy before it went online.

You mean those highly dangerous and threatening old army trucks, left over from WWII, that were nearly falling apart?

No, I mean the Scud missles that were lobbed in to Kuwait (that exceed the UNs limits on missle range). I also mean the RPGs, the SAMs, and other solider's munitions.

And where does the US point its ICBMs right now?

Actually, most US ICBMs are sophisticated enough that they don't require any hard programming like in cold war days. They can be targetted in seconds. I would guess the older ICBMs are still targeted at Russia.

China intentionallt shot down the intentionally illegally spying US spy plane, which was intentionally illegally spying. You have a problem with that? Would you like a chinese spy plane reading your license plate?

Every story I read said that the US plane was in international air space - but if you have a different source, please provide it (I could be wrong). I have no problem with a Chinese spy plane reading my license plate, if they can do it from International Air Space. Chinese spies working within a corrupt Democratic administration to obtain the technology to actually target ICBMs on the US is something I do have a problem with (as should every American).

By the way, if your economical reasoning doesn't get beyond "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" then it's not worth much ..

Hey, I'm just providing examples of when tax cuts have worked in stimulating the economy, and where tax hikes have not. If we want to deal in minutia I can provide stats with regard to inflation, housing prices, fuel prices, stock market, employment, etc... But the overall statements are true. In the situations listed - taxes were cut, and the economy (job growth, corporate earnings, lower inflation, increase in new home sales, etc) improved.

Bush just generate a huge loss for the economy and is goint to aggravate that by reducing the state income.

With regard to increasing Federal deficits - I can understand running them in the short term. Even though the deficit now is quite large in monetary terms, it's still a small part of the GDP. However, I would like Bush to layout a plan to reduce them soon, and return to a balanced budget.

As for the states income... If taxes are cut, the states benefit just as much as the Federal government does. People spend more, and states with sales taxes benefit tremendously from that. Companies hire more employees, and the states with income taxes benefit there too. More people buy houses, and the state benefits there as well...Most of the states facing money problems are due to over spending on their part, not decreased federal subsidies.

 

[serpicolugnut]

i know you probably consider me an extreme liberal, but the truth is i'm very middle-of-the-road.

Nah, Ed - I don't consider you an extreme liberal. Left leaning, definitely... But even for a left leaning guy, you seem pretty level headed.

 

[toast]

Originally posted by ebolag4
Why is it too late to find WMDs? Just because the major part of the battle is over, that doesn't mean finding them is no longer important. Now is the time to find them since the fighting is over. Now they have the time to concentrate on searching rather than fighting.

Some people were doing this before the UN had to evacuate them. Remember ? Hint: one was called Hans.

More seriously, WMD are the excuse for this war. They embody the legitimity of it all: WMDs are dangerous for unprotected states, the US is an unprotected state, WMDs are dangerous for the US.

It would have been very interesting for M. Bush to find some WMDs during the war. "You see ? I was right, the had some ! This pre-emptive war was a right one." The war being over, where is the need for legitimacy ? The whole legitimity process is now concentrated in the American ability to turn Iraq into a democracy. That would be a unique move in this part of the world, and in a Muslim country of this type. I have very little hope this happens, but there is still_a slight, slight chance.

 

[Arden]

Originally posted by habilis
First, the good news for Bush in 2004;

1. The war was won quickly and cheaply(in American lives)
2. There have been no new major terrorist attacks on American soil under his watch (which talks to the possibility that the Bush plan against terror is a success.)
3. There are now indications that a stable ground is in place for a bull market to develope in the next year and facilitate major economic rebound. (Bush admin will claim that winning the war quickly and tax cuts helped to create stability and activate the rebound - which isn't far from the truth). In other words, an improving economy under his watch.


Now, the bad news for Bush in 2004;

1.Where the hell is bin Lauden's dead body?
2. Where the hell is Saddam's dead body?
3. Where the hell are the WMD's? (This one being by far the worst issue; Bush's credibility is on the line big time with this one. If WMD's aren't found soon, this is the issue the Democrats - and a large part of the anti-American world out there - are going to forge into a sword and cut his head clean off with.)
4. The doom and gloomer economy & tax-cuts-for-the-rich crowd. (There's nothing new about this democrat strategy of charging Bush and the republicans with giving tax cuts only to the richest of Americans and running our economy into the ground, but they're going to be louder then ever this time. Bush admin will defend, saying it inherited the post dot-com crash/tech-bubble burst economy - which again isn't far from the truth.)

5. Where the hell is all our money?

Bush must improve the economy he tore down in the first place. Remember what the economy was like under Clinton? Lots of jobs, people spending money, a surplus... and the first thing Bush did after *ahem* stealing the office was to spend the surplus on tax breaks for the rich, who are not going to give it up. Now we are deficit spending, increasing the National Debt dramatically (although not as much as Reagan did, thankfully), and people are out of jobs, prices are skyrocketing, states are cutting oodles of programs to balance their budget (far too many from education), and everything it seems is just spiraling. That's why I'd rather have a Democrat in office: he won't give away all the peoples' money to his rich friends.

Of course a lot will happen before 2004. It will be an interesting comming year.

Straight up.

 

[toast]

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
1. hey toast - if I were you, I'd be more worried about how France will survive under continuous control of Chirac, now that he has successfully alienated your country politically from the big boys (US/UK).

2. As for the WMDs, we've found bits and pieces that suggest a lot of them were moved right before the war (...) Now, how could that happen if there was no nuclear program?

3. As for Usama and Saddam... Where are they? They are both dead.

1. If you think one disagreement about one 3-months punctual event can alienate an international order built on 60-yrs old multilateral (UN, NATO) and supranational (EU) relations, then I suggest you think back of other conflicts such as Chechnya where disagreements were much more stronger and which have not broken the half-century-old bonds (esp. economical ones) between European or Western countries.

2. WMDs are not the only source of radiation on Earth. Iraq had an energy nuclear program, as most countries in this region of the world have.

3. Usama may be dead, Al Qaeda is not (eg: Saudi Arabia events this week). Saddam may be dead, 'Baathism' is not.

 

[toast]

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
It's a proven fact that cutting taxes stimulates economic growth. But I'd love to hear your rationalization on why cutting taxes is bad.

- Redistributive social justice suffers from tax cuts.
- NASDAQ just lost 0.3% tonight. USD/Euro: -0,16% (1.14). I don't see any stimulus.