Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,858 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I think George W Bush should get 100000% of the credit ... :thumbsup:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) stopped just sort of calling President Barack Obama a hypocrite on Iraq and says Obama should be giving credit to former President George W. Bush for the war's successes.

Obama — a vocal critic in the Senate and on the campaign trail of the Iraq troop surge — plans to highlight its success in his second speech from the Oval Office. But McConnell, in a speech in Lexington, Ky., planned to say that credit should be given to "another president," George W. Bush, who had the "determination and will to carry out the plan that made [this] announcement possible."

"It sure makes things easier when you reject your own campaign rhetoric about how the surge — the Petraeus plan — shouldn't happen and wouldn't work," McConnell said at the Commerce Lexington Public Policy Luncheon. "[And] it makes it easier to talk about fulfilling a campaign promise to wind down our operations in Iraq when the previous administration signs the security agreement with Iraq to end our overall presence there."

"You might recall that the surge wasn't very popular when it was announced. You might also recall that one of its biggest critics was the current president."

With his remarks Tuesday, McConnell joined other leading Republicans, including 2008 GOP presidential nominee John McCain and House Minority Leader John Boehner, in praising Bush while calling into question Obama's foreign policy vision.
"Some leaders who opposed, criticized, and fought tooth-and-nail to stop the surge strategy now proudly claim credit for the results," Boehner said in a Tuesday speech. "Today, we mark not the defeat those voices anticipated, but progress.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs made the morning talk show rounds Tuesday trying to set the tone for the evening speech. With GOP leaders attacking Obama for being a flip-flopper just hours before a major Oval Office address, Gibbs maneuvered to deflect criticism by attempting to get Republicans on the record as to how they stand on the landmark decision to withdraw 90,000 troops from the region.
Gibbs also echoed Defense Secretary Robert Gates's message Tuesday, downplaying "premature victory parades or self-congratulations" — a not-so-veiled reference to Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech in May 2003.
"I think what the American people would like to know with Congressman Boehner is: Do you support the withdrawing of 90,000 troops that the president is marking today?" Gibbs told ABC News.

For his part, McConnell said the returning of troops from Iraq was "welcome news" but also conceded that "much hard work remains in Iraq. And this president could very well find himself negotiating a new security agreement next year."
Members of the Democratic Caucus, such as independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, also praised the surge, but was careful to emphasize Obama's resolve in continuing the strategy and making good on his promise to end combat in the region.

"The remarkable turnaround in Iraq is due to many factors, but it would not have been possible without the courageous decision of President Bush to launch the surge in 2007 — initiating a set of policies that President Obama, to his great credit, has sustained and built upon to bring us to this day," Lieberman said Tuesday in a statement. "I do not hesitate to say that we and our Iraqi allies have won the war in Iraq. The question now is whether we together have the strategic patience and fortitude to secure the peace in Iraq. I am confident that we can — and I know that we must."


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41625.html#ixzz0yKPhEFsk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,277 Posts
Yeah I saw this ... unbelievable ... :crazy:


How'bout Ari Fleischer ...



Paul Begala To Ari Fleischer: We’ll Give Credit For Surge If Bush Takes Some Blame For Lies


Today

http://www.mediaite.com/online/paul...or-surge-if-bush-takes-responsibity-for-lies/




Former Clinton adviser Paul Begala and White House Press Secretary under President Bush Ari Fleischer took the occasion to debate (or re-debate) the many complex and unsettling issues that made the Iraq War such a lightening rod for criticism for both sides of the political aisle.



Fleischer ~ My first thought 7 1/2 years ago i was in the oval office when the president gave a speech committing us to Iraq, and it’s appropriate.

Americans don’t like to commit troops abroad.
When we do, we want to win and we want to come home.

I think president bush is the one because of the surge.

2008, when the shoe thrown at him announcement of the security agreement with the Iraqi government to bring troops home at the end of 2011.
The day had to come.

I’m glad the day was able to come and President Obama gave a speech where he could thank the troops who also made this possible, who deserve all of the credit for making it possible.

Cooper ~ Do you think he should have said more about President Bush?

Fleischer ~ It would have been gracious of him if he mentioned the surge but the problem he has, for President Obama to put President Bush in Iraq and anything good in the same sentence, the democrat base, which doesn’t want to show up in November, so — I wish he was more gracious but it but he’s his own democratic comparative and he followed those tonight.



Aha!
So while Fleischer somewhat gracefully claimed that the speech was “appropriate,” he also wished that Obama had mentioned “the surge” – the occupational strategy that many feel was an integral part of the stabilization of the situation of Iraq (a policy that Obama himself was opposed to.)



A deft political thrust, that Begala was all to ready to parry:




Cooper: Paul, what do you think about the speech?

Begala ~ First, he was trying to do three different things say we’re going withdraw from Iraq, surge into Afghanistan, but withdraw from there, too, and I want to pick up on the point about the surge because it is staggering to me.

First off, the surge was only necessary because Bush, Dick Cheney, on Donald Rumsfeld went to war with too few troop because he wanted to prove the General Shinseki wrong.
That’s why we did it in the first place.

Second, it could never have preceding Sunni Awakening. Iraqis themselves had to decide.
Iit wasn’t the American surge that cured it, it was the Sunni Awakening.

But I’ll make a deal with President Bush.
We’ll give you all of the credit for the surge if you take half of the blame for the lies that got us into the war, by which I mean Iraq — excuse me, Ari, by which i mean –

Fleischer ~ no, Paul –

Begala ~ Saying Iraq was an imminent threat to America, by saying it was a mushroom cloud it could become a smoking gun, the drones that Saddam supposedly had that would gas America, the connects that they alleged, which were false, between al Qaeda and Aaddam’s regime.

So, you know, there was so much they got wrong about this, some of it, just botched and some of it was deeply dishonest and the notion that somehow bush is owed any moment of grace is appalling to the history.



Fleischer fought back by reminding Begala that it was not just Bush, nor the GOP that decided to go to war in Iraq – Begala’s former boss Clinton made the same recommendation based on the same intelligence.

And suddenly it was like we were living in 2003 all over again.



VIDEO Inside :





Ari Fleischer, still giving Bush BJ's ... :buhbye:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
As I have stated before... Obama has done a fine job with both wars. He has stuck to the letter of the Bush era plan... including this pull out date. I believe it is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to not give praise to the war plan that was created by his predecessor. I do not expect him to swoon... and I'm sure it was hard for him to compliment his predecessor. But ! -make no mistake about it... the Iraqis are freer today because of this countries efforts along side of our allies. For that, we should all be proud !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,277 Posts
I believe it is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to not give praise to the war plan that was created by his predecessor.

I do not expect him to swoon... and I'm sure it was hard for him to compliment his predecessor.

But ! -make no mistake about it... the Iraqis are freer today because of this countries efforts along side of our allies.

For that, we should all be proud !

From *No End in Sight* in 2007 ...


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
From *No End in Sight* in 2007 ...


Interesting number since just a couple of days ago, the CBO announced the total cost of the Iraq war to be $700B+ while Obamas stimulus package had cost $800B+. I guess the Dems embrace the CBO only when they like thier numbers. :crazy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,277 Posts
Interesting number since just a couple of days ago, the CBO announced the total cost of the Iraq war to be $700B+ while Obamas stimulus package had cost $800B+. I guess the Dems embrace the CBO only when they like thier numbers. :crazy:
Right, except for when you didin't back yourself up when posting from Faux Noize and then picked up by the right-wing wacko punditry ...




Depends on what indirect and direct costs is .. is ...


Financial cost of the Iraq War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War



Indirect and delayed costs

According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money.

The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.]

Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, and possibly more in the most recent published study, published in March 2008.

Stiglitz has stated: "The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion.
Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions ...Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States.

It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq."





http://www.cbo.gov/search/sitesearch.cfm?criteria=iraq+war



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
Right, except for when you didin't back yourself up when posting from Faux Noize and then picked up by the right-wing wacko punditry ...




Depends on what indirect and direct costs is .. is ...


Financial cost of the Iraq War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War



Indirect and delayed costs

According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money.

The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.]

Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, and possibly more in the most recent published study, published in March 2008.

Stiglitz has stated: "The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion.
Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions ...Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States.

It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq."
If we are going to price everything based on future costs, then giddyup. Wonder what the total future cost of TARP and Stimulus Bill will be? They will never be paid off, and we will be paying interest for generations. Healthcare reform? Are there enough zero's in the world to put together a number describing the cost of that over the next 25 years? 50 yrs? 100 yrs? Obama has put many many many more future dollars at risk than Bush ever thought about. You can pull faux numbers out of the blogsphere all you want. There is a finite cost to the Iraq war. There is not to Obamas social engineering.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,277 Posts
If we are going to price everything based on future costs, then giddyup. Wonder what the total future cost of TARP and Stimulus Bill will be? They will never be paid off, and we will be paying interest for generations. Healthcare reform? Are there enough zero's in the world to put together a number describing the cost of that over the next 25 years? 50 yrs? 100 yrs? Obama has put many many many more future dollars at risk than Bush ever thought about. You can pull faux numbers out of the blogsphere all you want. There is a finite cost to the Iraq war. There is not to Obamas social engineering.
Let's be fair ... which congressional (R)'s have come out and held press conferences backing up the Faux/CBO Report ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
Let's be fair ... which congressional (R)'s have come out and held press conferences backing up the Faux/CBO Report ?
Huh? Who cares? Here is the quote:
"According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations."

I expect that number is "so far". But how predictable have any government estimates of future costs ever been? They fall under the heading of pulling numbers out of their asses. Aside from that, it's not as if the military will cost zero if we aren't in Iraq. Much of the expense would be incurred anyway with normal costs, training, etc.

Bottom line: Has Iraq been expensive? Hell yes. Do Dems seem to care about expenses other than Iraq? Hell no. When you start waving the future numbers of Obama's spending in the air, I'll put some credence in your crocodile tears over the cost of the Iraq war.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,277 Posts
Huh? Who cares? Here is the quote:
"According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations."

I expect that number is "so far". But how predictable have any government estimates of future costs ever been? They fall under the heading of pulling numbers out of their asses. Aside from that, it's not as if the military will cost zero if we aren't in Iraq. Much of the expense would be incurred anyway with normal costs, training, etc.

Bottom line: Has Iraq been expensive? Hell yes. Do Dems seem to care about expenses other than Iraq? Hell no. When you start waving the future numbers of Obama's spending in the air, I'll put some credence in your crocodile tears over the cost of the Iraq war.
Weak ... good luck minimalizing the cost of the Iraq War as an election platform ...


:buhbye:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,410 Posts
Let's be fair ... which congressional (R)'s have come out and held press conferences backing up the Faux/CBO Report ?
Press conference? All of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
Weak ... good luck minimalizing the cost of the Iraq War as an election platform ...


:buhbye:
Yeah, well, good luck on getting anyone on Main Street to give a rat's ass. It's all about jobs and economy right now, and, if anything, military spending helps both of those. :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,410 Posts
Yeah, well, good luck on getting anyone on Main Street to give a rat's ass. It's all about jobs and economy right now, and, if anything, military spending helps both of those. :cheers:
:agree: I've been out of rat's asses for about 19 months now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
These numbers are all skewed. None (that I have seen) take in to fact that military personnel and equipment and food and housing and fuel -are a constant... whether we are at war or not. If anything... the cost is minimized by grouping our troops in camps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,858 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
These numbers are all skewed. None (that I have seen) take in to fact that military personnel and equipment and food and housing and fuel -are a constant... whether we are at war or not. If anything... the cost is minimized by grouping our troops in camps.
You actually beleive that ... ? :surprised

Are you part of any Government supply agency or are you just talking out of your north pie hole? :rolleyes:

I am part of a Government supply agency, and my Bank Account has been proving that statement wrong for well over 9 years. ;)

If you don’t know what you’re talking about you should hide that fact and STFU about things you know absolutely nothing about. :crazy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,410 Posts
You actually beleive that ... ? :surprised

Are you part of any Government supply agency or are you just talking out of your north pie hole? :rolleyes:

I am part of a Government supply agency, and my Bank Account has been proving that statement wrong for well over 9 years. ;)

If you don’t know what you’re talking about you should hide that fact and STFU about things you know absolutely nothing about. :crazy:
Close enough for gubmint work. :laughing:
Interesting, that's about how long the government has been in decline... :laughing:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
You actually believe that ... ? :surprised

Are you part of any Government supply agency or are you just talking out of your north pie hole? :rolleyes:

I am part of a Government supply agency, and my Bank Account has been proving that statement wrong for well over 9 years. ;)

If you don’t know what you’re talking about you should hide that fact and STFU about things you know absolutely nothing about. :crazy:
OK... you're part of the supply chain and no these things... thus why you are opening your mouth. How much does our military cost during non war time ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Where you at bro... I know you are seeing this ? Are you seeing the same information that I am, on multiple web pages ? 321 billion ? -Down from 500+ billion -in 2000 ? (that surplus you are always promoting ?)

Think of the stupidity of your remarks. "The military costs the country nothing during NON war time"...

Really ? -And you vote ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
OK... you're part of the supply chain and no these things... thus why you are opening your mouth. How much does our military cost during non war time ?
Honestly, being in the military and seeing it from a contractor point of view now; Spending goes up each year no matter during war or not. Each section is given a budget that they are allowed to spend and they make sure they use the entire budget so they can get a increase next year because they know if they don't spend the entire budget or more then they will get a decrease the following year.

From my point of view it doesn't matter if its wars or spending on social programs the price of it is always 1000% more then it needs to be and the money just gets wasted regardless because you have abunch of people that know how to be politicians and not people that know how to live on a budget.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
I'll agree with this assertion.

Point being -and point made... our military spending happens whether we are at war or not. And my statement still stands that the numbers being given for "the cost of war" are skewed and do not represent the actual costs.

Where you at, bro ?

You actually beleive that ... ? :surprised

Are you part of any Government supply agency or are you just talking out of your north pie hole? :rolleyes:

I am part of a Government supply agency, and my Bank Account has been proving that statement wrong for well over 9 years. ;)

If you don’t know what you’re talking about you should hide that fact and STFU about things you know absolutely nothing about. :crazy:
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top