News Bush's Successes

  • Thread starter Gza
  • Start date

Gza

434
0
Instead of the simpleminded attacks on Bush by listing all of his failures (quite easy to do for any politician,) I thought it would be interesting to post what he has exactly succeeded at during his four year term. Links and resources will be needed for support as well. Post Away!
 
464
1
Saddam is in jail.

Do I need to post a link and cite references?
 
464
1
He gave Saddam a nice dental checkup too :D
1.jpg
 
15
0
He gained some oil, made a hell of a lot of money for companies he is invested in.
 
310
2
Did successfully invade both iraq and afganistan.
 
464
1
He gained some oil, made a hell of a lot of money for companies he is invested in.
Sounds like a smart man. I like that in a President.
 
15
0
... And in so doing, successfully killed over 10,000 Iraqi civilians, something like 90,000 Iraqi military, lots of people in Afghanistan (no, I don't have numbers on me here), and quite a few US troops as well. He was very successful at that.
 
464
1
Smurf said:
Did successfully invade both iraq and afganistan.
He also successfully sent less than half the amount of troops needed into Iraq with next to no military support, and has sucessfully left our troops in Iraq for 2+ years for a bloody and chaotic occupation.
 
55
2
wasteofo2 said:
He also successfully sent less than half the amount of troops needed into Iraq with next to no military support, and has sucessfully left our troops in Iraq for 2+ years for a bloody and chaotic occupation.
Oh really??

Some perspective on the rate of combat casualties in Iraq. Any casualty is a tragedy, but the numbers of fatalities vs. iniuries are pretty amazingly low.


http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=IRAQ.HTM [Broken]
IRAQ: Interesting Casualty Rate News


September 5, 2004: American combat losses continue at a historically low level. Since March, 2003, American troops have suffered 7,900 casualties (including 976 dead.) This is an unprecedented killed to wounded ratio of 1:8. In past wars, the ration had been 1:4 or 1:5. American combat deaths over the Summer were 42 in June, 54 in July and 66 in August. There are the equivalent of three American combat divisions in Iraq, each running several hundred patrols and other combat operations each day. Never have combat divisions, operating in hostile territory, kept their casualties this low. The news media, concentrating on any losses as the story have generally missed the historical significance of the low casualties. The American armed forces have developed new equipment, weapons and tactics that have transformed combat operations in an unprecedented way. This is recognized within the military, but is generally ignored, or misunderstood, by the general media.
Seems as if the troops are better supported than anytime before.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

russ_watters

Mentor
18,972
5,135
Adam said:
He gained some oil, made a hell of a lot of money for companies he is invested in.
For that, I'll need more specifics and references. For starters, what exactly does "he gaines some oil" mean? Does he own it himself?
 
464
1
It sounds like we are going to rehash the same freakin' arguments that we have hashed a million times already. For example:

Adam states that 10,000+ civilians have been killed.

Someone will ask him to verify those numbers.

Adam will post links to irrelevant Web sites containing faulty logic.

And on, and on, and on.
 
15
0
russ_watters said:
For that, I'll need more specifics and references. For starters, what exactly does "he gaines some oil" mean? Does he own it himself?
Nope, the companies he is an investor with now have it.
 
15
0
JohnDubYa said:
It sounds like we are going to rehash the same freakin' arguments that we have hashed a million times already. For example:

Adam states that 10,000+ civilians have been killed.

Someone will ask him to verify those numbers.

Adam will post links to irrelevant Web sites containing faulty logic.

And on, and on, and on.
Hey, I base it on figures from a website which bases its figures on hospital reports, reports from the UN and AI, and so on. If you doubt the numbers, complain to those international organisations, and tell the medical professionals in Iraq they are wrong.
 
1,100
25
Successfully turned the 2001 fiscal year 127.3 billion dollars surplus into a 157.8 billion dollar deficit in less than 1 year. Before Bush took office the nonpartisan congressional budget office projected that over 10 years the government would have surpluses totaling over 5.7 trillion dollars. Now in 2004 Bush has successfully turned that around into into a projection by the CBO of 10 straight years of deficits totaling over 2 trillion dollars more that will be added to the national debt. Keep in mind that the government today already spends almost 20% of its entire budget paying off the INTEREST ALONE on its debt. Deficits do matter, espcially with the upcoming massive wave of retiring baby boomers.
 
55
2
gravenewworld said:
Successfully turned the 2001 fiscal year 127.3 billion dollars surplus into a 157.8 billion dollar deficit in less than 1 year. Before Bush took office the nonpartisan congressional budget office projected that over 10 years the government would have surpluses totaling over 5.7 trillion dollars. Now in 2004 Bush has successfully turned that around into into a projection by the CBO of 10 straight years of deficits totaling over 2 trillion dollars more that will be added to the national debt. Keep in mind that the government today already spends almost 20% of its entire budget paying off the INTEREST ALONE on its debt. Deficits do matter, espcially with the upcoming massive wave of retiring baby boomers.
Not counting the Social Security Revenue, and there was no surplus. The last time we counted the SS revenue before this was to hide the cost of the vietnam war.
So, why don't you repost with all the facts. Perhaps what the the budget was at when you don't use two different scales.
 
464
1
Hey, I base it on figures from a website which bases its figures on hospital reports, reports from the UN and AI, and so on. If you doubt the numbers, complain to those international organisations, and tell the medical professionals in Iraq they are wrong.
Which double-counted many casualties, and counted those that were killed by fellow Iraqis. As I said before, we already went through this.

gravenewworld, I think the original post asked for references.
 
1,100
25
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1944&sequence=0 (This fiscal year and future fiscal years)
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0 (historical budget data)


Perhaps you are confused about the terms on-budget and off-budget. The on-budget calculations of budget surpluses and deficits don't count social security. If you don't count the current surpluses of the off budget items, then the budget deficits are even worse, 536 billion dollars on-budget deficit for this fiscal year and a projected 10 years of on-budget deficits totaling to over 4.4 trillion dollars (instead of the 2 trillion dollars I said earlier). If you don't want to count SS then yes I will admit that there was a deficit of 33 billion for fy 01, but Bush was president for Jan-Oct. of that fiscal year. There was indeed an on-budget surplus of 86.6 billion dollars for fiscal year 00. Look at the history of the on-budget deficits, they were reduced dramatically while Clinton was in office, but when Bush came in to office they went to record levels. You republicans wouldn't recognize facts if they hit you over the head.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
464
1
phatmonky said:
Oh really??

Some perspective on the rate of combat casualties in Iraq. Any casualty is a tragedy, but the numbers of fatalities vs. iniuries are pretty amazingly low.


http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=IRAQ.HTM [Broken]


Seems as if the troops are better supported than anytime before.
Go look at the number of Americans killed occupying Japan and Germany post WWII (I believe the number is zero), then look at the number of Americans killed occupying Iraq after the President proclaimed "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." Bush admits it, we're an occupying force in Iraq now, waiting and waiting and waiting for sane Iraqi's to take their country back and provide their own defense while we're getting blown up all over the place. I've heard countless reports of people saying we needed somewhere in the range of 300,000 in Iraq to really secure it after we got rid of Saddam, and obviously we're not doing a bang-up job of making the nation secure now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
310
2
To be fair, there were casualities occupying Germany and Japan, but then remember it was the cold war and the count was still far lower than that in iraq, and they havnt even been in iraq for as long yet.
 
55
2
wasteofo2 said:
Go look at the number of Americans killed occupying Japan and Germany post WWII (I believe the number is zero), then look at the number of Americans killed occupying Iraq after the President proclaimed "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." Bush admits it, we're an occupying force in Iraq now, waiting and waiting and waiting for sane Iraqi's to take their country back and provide their own defense while we're getting blown up all over the place. I've heard countless reports of people saying we needed somewhere in the range of 300,000 in Iraq to really secure it after we got rid of Saddam, and obviously we're not doing a bang-up job of making the nation secure now.
No, I'm going to tell you to show them to me. You make this assertion with no link or anything expect me to look it up? You make a statement, you back it! Show me numbers.
I would also say that Iraq is closer to S Korea, not Japan or Germany. And to remind you, Korea had 3 years before they were handed back over. In that time, there were protests, riots, and deaths.

On the note of Germany, let's see what people said then, since it is SO much worse now - sound familiar??:
LIFE magazine (January 7, 1946):

We are in a cabin deep down below decks on a Navy ship jam-packed with troops that’s pitching and creaking its way across the Atlantic in a winter gale. There is a man in every bunk. There’s a man wedged into every corner. There’s a man in every chair. The air is dense with cigarette smoke and with the staleness of packed troops and sour wool.

“Don’t think I’m sticking up for the Germans,” puts in the lanky young captain in the upper berth, “but…”

“To hell with the Germans,” says the broad-shouldered dark lieutenant. “It’s what our boys have been doing that worries me.”

The lieutenant has been talking about the traffic in Army property, the leaking of gasoline into the black market in France and Belgium even while the fighting was going on, the way the Army kicks the civilians around, the looting.

“Lust, liquor and loot are the soldier’s pay,” interrupts a red-faced major.

The lieutenant comes out with his conclusion: “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” You hear these two phrases again and again in about every bull session on the shop. “Two wrongs don’t make a right” and “Don’t think I’m sticking up for the Germans, but….”

The troops returning home are worried. “We’ve lost the peace,” men tell you. “We can’t make it stick.”

A tour of the beaten-up cities of Europe six months after victory is a mighty sobering experience for anyone. Europeans. Friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American. They cite the evolution of the word “liberation.” Before the Normandy landings it meant to be freed from the tyranny of the Nazis. Now it stands in the minds of the civilians for one thing, looting.

You try to explain to these Europeans that they expected too much. They answer that they had a right to, that after the last war America was the hope of the world. They talk about the Hoover relief, the work of the Quakers, the speeches of Woodrow Wilson. They don’t blame us for the fading of that hope. But they blame us now.

Never has American prestige in Europe been lower. People never tire of telling you of the ignorance and rowdy-ism of American troops, of out misunderstanding of European conditions. They say that the theft and sale of Army supplies by our troops is the basis of their black market. They blame us for the corruption and disorganization of UNRRA. They blame us for the fumbling timidity of our negotiations with the Soviet Union. They tell us that our mechanical de-nazification policy in Germany is producing results opposite to those we planned. “Have you no statesmen in America?” they ask.

The taste of victory had gone sour in the mouth of every thoughtful American I met. Thoughtful men can’t help remembering that this is a period in history when every political crime and every frivolous mistake in statesmanship has been paid for by the death of innocent people. The Germans built the Stalags; the Nazis are behind barbed wire now, but who will be next? Whenever you sit eating a good meal in the midst of a starving city in a handsome house requisitioned from some German, you find yourself wondering how it would feel to have a conqueror drinking out of your glasses. When you hear the tales of the brutalizing of women from the eastern frontier you think with a shudder of of those you love and cherish at home.
The scans and texts to that times article was on Rush Limbaugh's site for a while (give me a break, you may hate him, but his texts were whole and accurate).

'Countless' - then you can show me a recent link that says more forces in the country right now would change things?

'waiting and waiting' - we are waiting for January for Iraqi elections, or did you miss where the UN agreed with us, and said that Iraq was not ready to have honest elections??? http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040115-112502-3479r.htm
 
55
2
Smurf said:
To be fair, there were casualities occupying Germany and Japan, but then remember it was the cold war and the count was still far lower than that in iraq, and they havnt even been in iraq for as long yet.
You too could post a link to this mysterious count.
It'd also be interesting to note that Japan and Germany had marshall law, thus they are hardly an apples to apples comparison.

In fact, I can't think of another time we have been in a country after a war, cleaning up, and we didn't implement marshall law. So much *****ing about delaying their elections and calling us an 'occupying force' (same thing we were in Korea, Japan, and Germany)- I wonder what people would say if we had implemented marshall law??
 
310
2
I would have said 'Finally they did something right'

but thats just me
 
55
2
Smurf said:
I would have said 'Finally they did something right'

but thats just me
Well atleast we can agree there.
I think it would have been a step in the right direction. If the President's detractors weren't so hung up on making this into a war of imperialism, perhaps it could have been pushed as a good choice. To implement this valid military tactic would have simply given credence to the many nuts out there that are convinced Iraq is the 51st state (people that act as if elections aren't happening because we aren't allowing them to for one). However, despite this error, I hardly think there it is lends validity to any of the other points I responded to.
 
55
2
gravenewworld said:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1944&sequence=0 (This fiscal year and future fiscal years)
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0 (historical budget data)


Perhaps you are confused about the terms on-budget and off-budget. The on-budget calculations of budget surpluses and deficits don't count social security. If you don't count the current surpluses of the off budget items, then the budget deficits are even worse, 536 billion dollars on-budget deficit for this fiscal year and a projected 10 years of on-budget deficits totaling to over 4.4 trillion dollars (instead of the 2 trillion dollars I said earlier). If you don't want to count SS then yes I will admit that there was a deficit of 33 billion for fy 01, but Bush was president for Jan-Oct. of that fiscal year. There was indeed an on-budget surplus of 86.6 billion dollars for fiscal year 00. Look at the history of the on-budget deficits, they were reduced dramatically while Clinton was in office, but when Bush came in to office they went to record levels. You republicans wouldn't recognize facts if they hit you over the head.
You mistake my wanting you to simply make sure you are starting with a founded argument as disagreeing with your general message (as a fiscal conservative, I am not entirely pleased with our government spending). My point was everyone continues to label the 'surplus' larger than it was, that is all.

Back on topic of debating your actual point, do you really think that Clinton made the 90's tech boom what it was, and that Bush made the subsequent bubble burst what it was?

How do you account for:
The internet coming to market
Enron, Worldcom, etc.
90's P&L's being ranked 50 times their actual value
9/11

Don't take any of my questions as predetermined stances please. I ask a lot of things simply to ask them.
 
Adam said:
Nope, the companies he is an investor with now have it.
All these "oil" based arguments tabled for the moment...it was Dubya who went before the UN the Powell and argued for a PRE emptive war against this tiny nation... the "evidence" was presented, then summarily disproven after our occupation... the whole war seems to be a glorified verson of the Hatfields versus the McCoys...Bushs' versus the Hussiens'... junior simply wanted to kick Saddam's ass... at any cost... now the prevailing argument that America is going to bring the Iraqis democracy is the most ludicrous thing imaginable... since when is a democracy formed from the TOP down? Here, our founding families brought it from the bottom UP...paying for it with a burning desire to defeat the British monarchy and its "system" of government. The poor Iraqis represent a culture totally foreign to our way of life here. I swear this political cartoon keeps running through my head...it's of Bush screaming at the Iraqis that he will by God bring them a democracy even it means killing ever man, woman and child. Let's face it folks. this President is not only stupid, but he is a liar of the lowest order. But hey, that's just me thinking out loud again.
 

Related Threads for: Bush's Successes

  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
55
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Top