Lukewarm, Strong, Whatever

Here's some reactions to George W.'s Iraq speech last night, courtesy of a New England TV station and the AP:

…Japan is normally a quick backer of Washington, but its response has been lukewarm. A spokesman for Prime Minister Koizumi said Japan has always been willing to provide help -- particularly humanitarian assistance. But he said Iraq is a dangerous place and doubts Japan will send troops.
…

Dick Jones said he's glad Bush in his speech Sunday night put a dollar figure on continuing work in Iraq -- even if it is $87 billion.

The Atlanta salesman watched the speech in New York's Times Square. Referring to the attack on the World Trade Center nearly two years ago, he said, "Increasing the spending pales in comparison to that deed that took place less than a mile down the road." He said you can't spend enough to protect innocent people.

But student Marly Halpern-Graser, who watched the speech in her dorm at Boston's Emerson college, said Bush tried a little too hard to tie the war to Sept. 11, 2001, and to shift the focus from his failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. She said she finds it striking that Bush mentioned Sept. 11 and the war on terrorism in Afghanistan more than he talked about what's happened in Iraq.

In East Alton, Ill., Randy Bush gave the president high marks for seeking U.N. help. Randy Bush's son and daughter both served in Iraq. The son was killed.
…

U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt gave credit to Bush for recognizing that he has been going down the wrong path. Now he said the administration must begin the process of "fully engaging" America's allies and sharing the burden of building a stable democracy in Iraq.

Howard Dean compared Iraq with Vietnam. He said the government is again "feeding misinformation to the American people in order to justify an enormous commitment of U.S. troops."

HBO subscribers were reportedly mostly glad that the speech and commentary was over in time to catch Sex & The City.

Comments

[Soccer Mom]

Can we have a national 10 cent per cup espresso tax to cover this $87 Billion? As they are saying in Seattle, its for the kids!

[HH]

Yes they "conspired" to do all this, evidence forthcoming, I'm sure... Until then "just say no!"

[Gilbert Martin]

"Bush deserves what he's going to get."

Indeed - and what he's "going to get" is re-elected in 2004.

[joe]

Good idea, Rick. We still owe Iran for the hostage crisis.

[Rick Barton]

"Indeed - and what he's (Bush) "going to get" is re-elected in 2004"

Bush is a big spending, big regulating, hyper-foreign inetrventionalist liberal. The Republican candidate for president should not be nearly devoid of conservative principles. The liberals will win their finest victory if this very statist president is not opposed by that part of the political demographic that would normaly oppose big spending liberals, and they refrain from doing so because he happens to bare the "Republican" lable. The Republicans in congress who tend to be much more principled than Bush and the Democrats (See: the NTU site for confirmation) have rolled over for Bush's big spending agenda in a way that they never did for Clinton. With our prodding they are showing signs of more independence.

[Jayson Gilligan]

Off point, but isn't "Dick Jones" Ronny Cox's character, i.e., the head of OCP Corporation in Robocop???

"I work for Dick Jones!! Diiiick JOOONES!"
-Clarence Boddicker

[Yuck Yuck]

My exwife had a dick jones. It just wasn't mine.

[Mark Borok]

"Bush is a big spending, big regulating, hyper-foreign inetrventionalist liberal."

But he cut taxes, so it's okay.

[thoreau]

Rick-

You wrote:

"The Republicans in congress who tend to be much more principled than Bush and the Democrats (See: the NTU site for confirmation) have rolled over for Bush's big spending agenda in a way that they never did for Clinton."

Exactly what I've said. Obviously the ideal situation would be a Congress and President that believe in smaller government. But as long as we're stuck with Democrats and Republicans I think the best situation is a GOP Congress and Democrat in the White House.

Although the notion of a Democrat in the White House might strike some here as heresy, the checks and balances at least work slightly better when the President is a Democrat. The Congressional Democrats will never oppose more spending regardless of who the President is, but the Congressional Republicans will at least mount some sort of opposition if the President is a Democrat.

So, basically,

1994 GOP take-over of Congress = Good
2000 consolidation of GOP rule = Bad

The 1994 election introduced effective opposition against Clinton. The 2000 election silenced almost all Republican demands for smaller government, because their boy was in charge of the Big Government.

[joe]

You all know that wasn't me at 1:58, right?

[Rick Barton]

Joe,

Shhh... Better not mention the hostage crisis, you
might give them ideas...

[Lefty]

I'm still scratching my head over that one.

[Rick Barton]

You all know that wasn't me at 1:58, right?

Sorry Joe, I thought it was and I thought you were being kind of sarcastic.

[Rick Barton]

Mark Borok wrote:
"But he(Bush) cut taxes, so it's okay."

That IS a significant way in which he's better then the Dems but he's still bad.

[Rick Barton]

thoreau,
"The 2000 election silenced almost all Republican demands for smaller government, because their boy was in charge of the Big Government."

Yes, but I think the big thing was that 9/11 created an environment that made it easier for Bush to bend the Republican congress to his big government agenda.

[arjay]

cdunlea, joe, lefty, et al

I have no idea why I'm trying to be fair to the shrub, but one of the reasons everyone swallowed the WMD myth is because it had been pushed so hard by the Clinonistas. Bush simply repeated what we'd heard for the last ten years. Clinton was probably held off invading so he could use it to cover up something really big.

I'll give both the benefit of the doubt, maybe they both believed they're were WMD.

[arjay]

While I give the benefit of doubt I think the war is a serious mistake on W's part (and may destroy him politically) and the sanctions and inspections games of Clinton's were like wise serious errors.

But the bush the elder should not have joined GWI.

But how far back can we go identifying foreign polcy errors.

My main problem is that people identify Bush with the "free-market", and that just doesn't help progress towards actual free markets.

[joe]

Hold it, Arjay. Iraqi WMDs were not a myth. They clearly had them prior to the first
Gulf War. The two defector sons-in-law confirmed them.

The myth was that they posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that invasion was the only way to deal with this threat.

[Anonymous]

Thoreau,

Although the notion of a Democrat in the White House might strike some here as heresy...

Yes, to conservatives. Not to the rest of us. Why do you acknowledge one band in the prism, and not the others? That's why so many liberals raise an eyebrow in disgust when I tell them I'm a libertarian -- they have been trained to identify libertarians with the normative Republican end of the spectrum instead of with the decent, untainted forms of conservatism.

I think the idea of a Democrat president and a Republican Congress makes perfect sense. Why is that heresy?

[Andrew Lynch]

Ooops, twas I posting at 09:48 PM, and I meant to type, "Yes, to ultra-conservatives and liberal haters." OK, I'm done.

[Lefty]

Ready? OK, all together now. I TOLD YOU SO!!

[joe]

NPR was saying that the $87 billion is just for military operations, and the rebuilding and administration will be more.

I'm not happy, Lefty. I wish we'd been wrong.

[Lefty]

I'm sorry, too, Joe and schadenfreunde is as bad as avarice and greed. The arrogant, middle-fingered approach this bunch brought to this operation, though, just begs for retaliation. If a Democrat did this there would be impeachment hearings going on right now.

[Plutarck]

I'm glad this whole "Go it alone - unless you count Britain" thing is working out so terribly well.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go wash the sarcasm out of my clothing.

[Ron Hardin]

Um, there's a fallacy of composition with large amounts of money. Money isn't worth anything in large amounts. You could burn $100 billion and no wealth would be destroyed. All that would happen is that the money supply would fall and the Fed would promptly print more automatically, noticing that its Fed funds rate was creeping over the target. Indirectly, burning money is a contribution to the government coffers. If the government burns it, it's a wash.

If you send $87 billion to Iraq, if it comes back to the US, then it's deciding what the US economy should be doing to that amount, and ought to be offset by borrowing or taxes (so the people here don't try to use the same $87 billion).

If it stays in Iraq, it has no effect on the US economy, and amounts to an increase in the Iraqi money supply. The Fed does not have to compensate by borrowing because nobody in the US is competing with it with their $87 billion.

The US money supply is adjusted so that the US economy doesn't try to do too many things at once. If the government does something, it has to make sure you don't, to the same amount; it can do that by borrowing (voluntary) or taxing (involuntary). It will take up the slack automatically by way of the Fed hitting its interest rate target (the Fed will buy or sell debt to increase or decrease the money supply respectively, until its interest rate target it met).

An overseas expenditure thus might have some effect or none at all, depending on whether or when the dollars come back.

In the case of Iraq, they can get dollars with oil and not disrupt anything at all, except driving down the price a little. I'm a little puzzled why that isn't the source of Iraq-related funding in the first place.

[Anonymous]

I think the plan was that the oil would pay for the war/reconstruction. But the infrastructure is 30+ years old and wrecked and looted, so that turned out to be a tad optimistic. But then I wonder how lame our intelligence services are. . . they seem to have gotten a lot of stuff wrong. Or, the had the correct info but the administration didn't want to hear it.

[Jean Bart]

joe,

Well, there is some indication that much of the "defector" information was hyped or otherwise false.

[Josh]

Lefty: "Ready? OK, all together now. I TOLD YOU SO!!"

When you predict that anything and everything will go absolutely as wrong as possible, it's hardly noteworthy when one of your predictions comes true. It's even less noteworthy when one hasn't come true, but you pretend it does.

[cdunlea]

Josh, you mean like telling the media over and again how we found weapons of mass destruction, but we didn't?

[nm156]

You have to love Gephardt. Engaging our (your) allies? You mean the ones who were telling you this was a bad idea? Good f-----g luck. Dick was certainly named appropriately.

[Frenk]

Ron -- if large amounts of money don't matter, I wish that W. would be sending them to programs like education and community development, where the non-value of those large sums could possibly do some good for a lot of people.

That 87 BILLION is OUR TAX MONEY. If anyone proposed 87 BILLION more for welfare within the US, people would be pissed (including the National Review, whose writers can't seem to get down on their knees fast enough every time W. opens up), with good reason. It is no different that we are spending the money on welfare for Iraq.

Bush deserves what he's going to get.

[Rick Barton]

First, the governments big con job was to switch our focus and our resources from Osama to Saddam despite the dearth of evidence connecting the Saddam regime to 9/11 or ANY anti U.S. terror threat. To help make the case for attack they conspired to concoct whoppers about WMD. Now,
to justify our continued occupation and the attendent bank breaking cost, Bush claims that some how Iraq, now sans both Saddam and WMD,(NOW, they admit that all this WMD stuff was just pretext anyway) has become the focus of the "War on Terror". This is the exact opposite of conservative governance!
See todays Raimondo column at Antiwar.com: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html

Ron Hardin wrote:
"I'm a little puzzled why that(Iraq oil money) isn't the source of Iraq-related funding in the first place."

I'm probably giving the government to much credit, but perhaps they actually harbor some compuctions against the theft Ron Hardin is proposing.

[Anonymous]

Isn't $80 billion about what the farm bill cost? That's just a big handout for corporate welfare queens like ADM. How about repealing that to pay for it?

(Yeah, I know, I'm not holding my breath).

[Rick Barton]

Next time the Neo-cons want to lie is into a war, against Iran or Syria, just say No!

[SteveInClearwater]

A trillion here, a trillion there. Pretty soon, we might be talking real money.....

[Lefty]

I think we've found another chickenhawk.

[arjay]

Lefty

Don't you mean Will Rogers?

[Lefty]

Oops. Busted.

I googled around trying to cover my tracks, to no avail. I did find this one (totally off-subject) you may appreciate:

(In the Galaxy Magazine): I shall not often meddle with politics, because we have a political Editor who is already excellent and only needs to serve a term or two in the penitentiary to be perfect.
- Mark Twain, a Biography

[Anonymous]

Gilbert Martin -- Wanna bet on Bush? I have 4 American Dollars that say W. is gonna lose. If you're feeling cocky, you can even give me odds.

Bush's only chance (and this isn't exactly a slim one) is that the Democrats can't get their stuff together enough to field a reasonable candidate with a reasonable amount of solidarity.

The economy is in the toilet, the war is going worse than promised, and John Ashcroft is still attorney general. Oh, and W.'s numbers are below half. I say he's gonna lose. And it will make the neo-cons mad, cuz they won't be able to blame Clinton, for the first time in a long time.

[Frenk]

Gilbert Martin -- That's my bet there on the table, by the way.

[joe]

"Every single one of their candidates is a pipsqueak."

All presidential candidates look like pipsqueaks, until they win. Remember brillo-head Clinton in 1992? Shrub during the Andy Hiller interview? No one looks presidential until they're actually president.

Kerry, Graham, and Gephardt are widely respected figures on Capitol Hill. Dean was governor for a lot longer than Shrub, Clinton, or Carter. And JFK? Fuggedaboutit.

[Gilbert Martin]

"Bush's only chance (and this isn't exactly a slim one) is that the Democrats can't get their stuff together enough to field a reasonable candidate with a reasonable amount of solidarity"

The Democrats have got zip. Every single one of their candidates is a pipsqueak. If Hillary decides to jump in, she has no chance either.

"The economy is in the toilet, the war is going worse than promised, and John Ashcroft is still attorney general."

Wrong. The economy is not in the toliet - it's picking up and so is the stock market - something you obviously haven't been paying attention to.

And the war isn't going "worse than promised" - Bush never "promised" how it would go to begin with. And the overall circumstances are better than the liberal press reports with their constant focus on body counts and nothing else.

[Lefty]

Open dialogue is a Democratic trait. Compared to the blue suited yes men of the GOP they indeed, look incompetent. That's a product of the "big tent" approach and the subject of a cool Mark Twain quote. Given a year of scuffling they'll settle down to one candidate with a coherent message.

The stock market is not a reliable market predictor. Bankrupticies and household debt are at all-time highs and the Fed deficit (as well as other factors) will drive interest rates back up, excacerbating the debt problems. Ashcroft is still AG.

Iraq may be as bad as the media says; or not. In politics perception trumps reality and the media will eat their young for ratings. They are now starting to feed. It'll be tough to put a pretty face on this now.

So, Gil. How about that bet?

[Frenk]

Gilbert Martin --
First things first: You gonna give me odds on Bush? Take the bet? Or are you turning me down? Don't be a wuss.

You say, "The Democrats have got zip." This we can agree on. And Hillary ain't jumpin nowhere.

"The economy is not in the toilet." Of course, this is a judgement call -- some toilets are nicer than others -- but the economy still sucks. The stock market is NOT the economy (despite the attention it gets as an indicator, it is not one -- even the guys at the National Review can tell you that), and it is up for the obvious reason that W. just cut the tax on dividends. All meaningful indicators are stagnating or worse.

"Bush never "promised" how it would go to begin with." Of course he did, he told us that "Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." That was on May 1. No one disputes that life in Iraq is probably going to improve someday, but Americans are still dying there, and that 87 BILLION OF OUR TAX DOLLARS is just welfare for Iraq.

"Liberal press reports" must be taking on a new meaning, cuz I don't see Fox News reporting any end to the violence yet -- just the opposite (and I just checked their website). Not to mention such prominent "liberals" as Pat Buchanan, that feel just like I do, that the US has no business getting involved in Iraq, which was no real danger to us. Administration dissembling aside, this is the new consensus.

Come on! Let's bet on Bush! 4 American Dollars says W. will lose!

[arjay]

Lefty,

Mahhvvellousss, great response, we have in common an admiration for the great ones.

joe

All "myths" are grounded in some truth. This does not alter the fact that the "Arkansas Prince" bombed the shit out of the towelheads every time he wanted to look like a badass.
And that further he cynically manipulated the "inspections" with the connivance of Richard Butler (whose motive I cannot discern, becoming King Bunyip of Orstrylya, maybe??). What he and his State Dept didn't do was attempt to resolve and end the conflict.

Jean Bart

Indeed, the role of the defectors is curious. Was the intel good or bad? It seems some of them muddied already murky waters. As I said maybe Bill and W truly believe it, and have some reason to.

To All

Dubya deserves to be turned out of office over this strategic, political, legal and, might I add, moral blunder. He or his successor (and we the taxpayers) are going to have to deal with this "you broke it you bought it" situation. Whether we like it or not "it ain't over til it's over". OK I'm out of cliches, except "don't blame me I didn't vote for him".

*Apologies for serious typing errors in previous posts, they didn't teach Tasmanian boys to type in the 1950's.*

[Jean Bart]

"Indeed - and what he's (Bush) "going to get" is re-elected in 2004"

For the first time in his Presidency, George W. Bush's approval rating has fallen below 50% among likely voters.

"Just two in five (40%) said they would choose Bush if the election were held today, while 47% said they would elect a Democratic candidate. In August polling, respondents were split (43% each) over President Bush or any Democratic challenger."

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=732

[Gilbert Martin]

"Gilbert Martin --
First things first: You gonna give me odds on Bush? Take the bet? Or are you turning me down? Don't be a wuss."

Yeah I'm turning you down. I don't care to exchange any personal info with you to arrange a $4 dollar payment about anything.

""Bush never "promised" how it would go to begin with." Of course he did, he told us that "Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." That was on May 1. No one disputes that life in Iraq is probably going to improve someday, but Americans are still dying there, and that 87 BILLION OF OUR TAX DOLLARS is just welfare for Iraq."

Bull - saying major combat operations have ended isn't "promising how would go" - and furthermore what he said is exactly right - major combat operations HAVE ended.

87 Bilion isn't "welfare" for Iraq - it's part of the price we have to pay for the war on terrorism. The Iraq war is indeed a part of that regardless of anything YOU have to say about it - period.

It's also a drop in the bucket compared to the countless TRILLONS of the taxpayers money that have been wasted on domestic "welfare" programs and continues to be ramped up with the proposed prescrition drug program. I don't hear any of the Democrat squealers complaining about increasing spending for that and it will cost far more than the Iraq war will as it will go on forever. No, their only complaint is that Bush won't spend even more than he's proposed on it.

""The economy is not in the toilet." Of course, this is a judgement call -- some toilets are nicer than others -- but the economy still sucks. The stock market is NOT the economy (despite the attention it gets as an indicator, it is not one -- even the guys at the National Review can tell you that), and it is up for the obvious reason that W. just cut the tax on dividends. All meaningful indicators are stagnating or worse."

Wrong again. GDP and productivity is increasing. Other statistics such as surveys of manufacturing utilization are going up too.

[Jane from STL]

Hate to be picky, but Pvt. Matthew Bush, Randy Bush's son, died in his sleep in Iraq, probabaly of the heat. When an news article uses inaccurate words (killed instead of died), it makes you wonder what other little things were put into the article to give it a particular emotional slant.

[joe]

Gil, now you're reduced to arguing about the meaning of "major." Pack it in, bud.

And while Vermont is a small state, so is Arkansas. But in those small states, the governor actually runs things, unlike Texas.

[Gilbert Martin]

"Gilbert -- you can make all the excuses you want, but we all know you won't take the bet cuz you know W. IS GOING TO LOSE! Wuss! I would have paid you through PayPal, duh! "Exchange personal information"?? You gotta be kidding!"

Yeah right - losing a $4 bet would really devastate me. As for "pay pal", I don't even know what that is and don't care to find out. No Bush isn't going to lose - not to any of those pipsqueaks running against him.

"Anyway, to any thinking person, "major combat operations" have not ended. More of our soldiers died after May 1 than before, which tells me Bush was full of it. Bush told me it was over; it ain't over; ergo, the thing ain't going like he said it would. 'Nuff said."

Bull - you don't even know what a "major combat operation is". Major combat is something along the line of the WW2 tank battle between the Germans and the Soviets at Kursk. THAT is major combat. Ambushing two or three people at a time is not major combat.

"If large sums don't matter, as you originally argued, I don't see where the "trillions" spent on domestic welfare matter."

Where did I ever say anything about large sums not mattering? The point is that those squawling about spending 87 Billion on this don't utter a peep about the vastly greater social welfare spending this country has been doing for decades. If the former is a waste of the taxpayers money, then the latter is exactly the same on a vastly greater scale. Why aren't they hollering about spending $400 billion on a prescription drug
program.

"I notice that you dropped the bit about the "liberal" news reports."

I didn't "drop" anything. I said my piece on it and there was no need to repeat it. It remains so regardless of anything YOU have to say about it.

"Anyway, last but not least: the economy. Check out things like capacity utilization and you will see that we are below where we were a year ago. Not to mention the net loss of jobs since Bush took power. The slight increases in GDP look to me like stagnation; check out the numbers on trade to balance those out. "

The GDP increase "looks like stagnation" to you, eh? I think I'll decline to defer to you as an economic "expert" since you obviously aren't. GDP is going up as are corporate profits and the stock market. Those ARE signs of an inproving economy regardless of your attempts to dismiss them.

[Gilbert Martin]

"Kerry, Graham, and Gephardt are widely respected figures on Capitol Hill. Dean was governor for a lot longer than Shrub, Clinton, or Carter. And JFK? Fuggedaboutit."

Being "widely respected" by other Democrat politicians doesn't mean diddly.

As for Dean, he was governor of a very small and ultraliberal state. That's no indication of fittness to run the country.

Oh and JFK only became president because his old man got the mob to fix the vote in Chicago so that all the people in the graveyard voted for him.

[arjay]

joe

re your post 9:03 pm

Excellent point. You are quite right

[Frenk]

Gilbert -- you can make all the excuses you want, but we all know you won't take the bet cuz you know W. IS GOING TO LOSE! Wuss! I would have paid you through PayPal, duh! "Exchange personal information"?? You gotta be kidding!

Anyway, to any thinking person, "major combat operations" have not ended. More of our soldiers died after May 1 than before, which tells me Bush was full of it. Bush told me it was over; it ain't over; ergo, the thing ain't going like he said it would. 'Nuff said.

I notice that you dropped the bit about the "liberal" news reports.

It is a judgement call about whether the 87 BILLION OF OUR TAX DOLLARS going to be wasted on Iraq is welfare or not. To me, it IS welfare of the worst sort: free handouts for a country that should and could support itself. And people like Pat Buchanan -- i.e., real conservatives -- agree.

If large sums don't matter, as you originally argued, I don't see where the "trillions" spent on domestic welfare matter.

Anyway, last but not least: the economy. Check out things like capacity utilization and you will see that we are below where we were a year ago. Not to mention the net loss of jobs since Bush took power. The slight increases in GDP look to me like stagnation; check out the numbers on trade to balance those out.

No wonder it's so hard to find a job now.