Is George Bush doing a good job fighting terrorism?

[Ma Cherie]

Just because the WMDs weren't found does not prove they never existed. Saddam had the nerve gas, that is well-documented (he used it on the Kurds). There have been many reports that during the time the UN was debating over the resolutions, Saddam had the material sent into Syria.
Incompetence, you say? Have you been attacked since September 11, 2001? We didn't start the war on terrorism. Somebody else did on that date.
It wasn't just our intelligence that led us to believe the WMDs were there. The insurgency hasn't really been fighting us, they've been targeting civillians.
What rights have you lost? Your representative in Congress voted for the Patriot Act.
Hurricane Katrina was a screw-up from the bottom-up. The first line of responsibility is the city and state governments (check the law). They dropped the ball and it caused problems on the federal level. Granted, the feds didn't do exactly a stellar job either. But the problems with the state and local levels made the problem a lot worse.

The Bush Administration did cut funds to have the levees fixed. Even though the state of Lousiana had asked cogress for funds. Wasn't it our governement who gave Saddam Hussein the gases in the first place? Reading US history at that time, it seems our government gave him those weapons. The Patriot Act shouldn't have even crossed the Administrations desk, it sounds like one of those things where people will give over their rights for safety. This is madness.

 

[ArmandV]

The Bush Administration did cut funds to have the levees fixed. Even though the state of Lousiana had asked cogress for funds. Wasn't it our governement who gave Saddam Hussein the gases in the first place? Reading US history at that time, it seems our government gave him those weapons. The Patriot Act shouldn't have even crossed the Administrations desk, it sounds like one of those things where people will give over their rights for safety. This is madness.

The local yokels who were in charge of the levees were too busy having buddy-boy lunches, etc. to even have a plan for the levees. How are you supposed to pay for something when there were no plans?

 

[ArmandV]

... Now all we have to do is wait for Bush to get out of office, and have the next president rebuild the us economy.

What's wrong with the economy? Unemployment is down, productivity is up.
The president has no control over world oil prices. The growing demand for oil (by China, among others )is what's driving up oil prices (along with wackos like Venezuela's president).

The only thing that needs to be done is to make the tax cuts permanent.

 

[ArmandV]

Saddam had no al Qaeda connection, no 9-11 connection, no nuclear program, no chemical or biological weapons ...

Tell that to the dead Kurds who had nerve gas used on them.

There may have been some al Qaeda connections, but the jury is still out on that. Iran may have had more involvement with al Qaeda than Saddam.

An Iraqi intelligence document recently found detailed a Feb. 1995 meeting between bin Laden and an Iraqi intelligence official that was personally approved by Saddam, where bin Laden requested help in conducting "joint operations" against U.S. forces then stationed in Saudi Arabia. This may be the tip of the iceberg.

 

[ArmandV]

No connection between Saddam and al Qaeda = wishful thinking.

The full story from March 25:

A bombshell Iraqi intelligence document detailing a 1995 pact between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden to conduct "joint operations" against the U.S. proves that Saddam Hussein "would collaborate with people who would do our country harm," former 9/11 Commission member, Bob Kerrey said Friday.

"This is a very significant set of facts," Kerrey told the New York Sun.

"I personally and strongly believe you don't have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against Osama bin Laden on the September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy [of the U.S.] and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm," the Nebraska Democrat explained.

While Kerrey cautioned that the 1995 pact doesn't implicate Saddam directly in the 9/11 attacks, he contended: "It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States."

 

[No-name]

Armand-
I believe your information to be dubious and wishful at best. I can elaborate and give you some sources...but the basic fact is that bin Laden and Hussein come from opposite sides of the islamic aisle. Lots of intelligence will document this including CIA and NSA releases of briefings given to the president that date from before the invasion. They absolutely hate each other. The attack on Kurds and earlier attack on Iran were well documented, but those happened before the UN sanctions after the Gulf war. After the late 90's Iraq had not persued chemical, biological,or nuclear weapons although there was no way to be certain about that prior to the invasion.

On the levee question, since the Army corps of engineers only has a CAT 3 levee system...the places where the levees failed because they were topped, would have still failed. Some of the lake ponchitrain and the industrial canal levees might have held up, but some of those failed because they subducted. Only if the interior damage was discovered would these failures have been avoided.

And although unemployment is down, productivity declined slightly, profit projections are flattening out, and personal income declined... the economy is good, but not all the numbers are rosy.

Making tax cuts permanent in the face of mounting federal debt and record deficits seems rather reckless and pointless. A bit of fiscal responsibility in times of economic tension, rising energy costs, and two little wars is probably prudent. Santa Clause/Voodoo economics in such a climate is irresponsible.

 

[ArmandV]

Armand-
I believe your information to be dubious and wishful at best. Making tax cuts permanent in the face of mounting federal debt and record deficits seems rather reckless and pointless. A bit of fiscal responsibility in times of economic tension, rising energy costs, and two little wars is probably prudent. Santa Clause/Voodoo economics in such a climate is irresponsible.

Sabro, I would have expected better from you.

Maybe bin Laden and Saddam come from opposite ends of Islam, but politics make strange bedfellows, as the saying goes. Perhaps it was a marriage of convenience for both. Just don't close your mind to possibilities. I, too, would like to see more evidence. But still, the information presented should give you cause to ponder. To do otherwise would be a classic case of denial. There are too many people walking around with such a hatred for Bush that it may blind them. What if Bush were actually right? If an elephant walked into your yard, and because you hate Bush, you'd probably deny that it was an elephant and claim it was a mouse with a glandular problem.

You are being flippant with your comment about "voodoo economics." I would like to see the deficit go down as well. History has shown that tax cuts do help the economy. People have more disposable income. Business has more incentive to invest and create jobs. The government actually gets more income under tax cuts in the long run. The economy would not be doing as well as it is if it weren't for the tax cuts.

 

[No-name]

This is not about hating Bush. Nor is it about "what if" Bush was right since he was not. Any objective person would have to conclude that there is no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam and that Bush either knew this and lied, or believed sources he should have doubted.

There is no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam. That was the finding of the 9-11 commission. Bush and Tony Blair flatly denied any connection during a joint press conference on January 31, 2003 at the White House. Further reports from the US intelligence community as well as extensive references to British, German, French and Qatari intelligence to the Senate intelligence committee in March of 2004 confirm that no intelligence existed and no evidence existed of an Iraq/Al Qaeda link: "These documents are additional compelling evidence that the intelligence community did not believe there was a cooperative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda, despite public comments by the highest ranking officials in our government to the contrary," Senator Carl Levin said.


History really has not established a connection between tax cuts and economic growth. There is a really strong link between increases in government spending and economic growth but there are long term consequences to such policies... and certainly tax cuts, lower interest rates and raising the minimum wage all could "help" the economy... but they don't necessarily create the climate of growth or create jobs... and the effect may not be all that strong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2727471.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/30/1043804465839.html

 

[ArmandV]

Your links are two and three years old. These were before Saddam's documents were found. The NY Post story was last month.

You were about 14 or 15 years old with Reagan was first elected. I worked in the campaign of 1980. The economy was in the toilet. You may not remember the double-digit inflation and the high interest rates at the time. The Reagan tax cuts did end the recession at the time and eventually caused the "balanced" budgets of the Clinton years.

 

[No-name]

I don't attribute the economic growth to the Reagan tax cuts.

The stagflation that began with the end of the Nixon administration (Remember Ford's WIN- Whip Inflation Now! and Nixon's wage and price controls?) was due to overheated and out of control growth. The cycle of growth and increases in production continued even as fewer workers were needed...inflation and unemployment. You generally don't get inflation during a recession, nor do you get high unemployment during a cycle of growth. Energy costs had reached new highs and stagnant American industry was struggling to retool and reinvent itself... lots of capital was swirling around. To control this interest rates were raised until the housing market was out of reach not only in price but because the loans were too expensive.

Reagan killed this. He did this not only with tax cuts-- that I would say had a neglible effect... but by drying up capital: he spent a heck of a lot more than Carter. By dumping a ton of borrowed money on defense projects, he grew the economy by a huge leap...as technology from defense and from the new computer industries became consumer products the economy grew even more. To say it was simply because of tax cuts is oversimplistic. If you dump a trillion dollars of borrowed cash into any economy, it will grow. In 1980, I was 16. In 1984 I was 20.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200603290011
"A New York Post editorial and Fox News host John Gibson both claimed that documents recovered from Iraq -- recently released by the Bush administration and summarized by ABC News -- prove that the administration correctly asserted in its buildup to the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein was working with Al Qaeda. In fact, as ABC pointed out, the documents that both the Post and Gibson cited are not definitive in any way and are of varying credibility."

 

[ArmandV]

I don't attribute the economic growth to the Reagan tax cuts.
The stagflation that began with the end of the Nixon administration (Remember Ford's WIN- Whip Inflation Now! and Nixon's wage and price controls?) was due to overheated and out of control growth. The cycle of growth and increases in production continued even as fewer workers were needed...inflation and unemployment. You generally don't get inflation during a recession, nor do you get high unemployment during a cycle of growth. Energy costs had reached new highs and stagnant American industry was struggling to retool and reinvent itself... lots of capital was swirling around. To control this interest rates were raised until the housing market was out of reach not only in price but because the loans were too expensive.
Reagan killed this. He did this not only with tax cuts-- that I would say had a neglible effect... but by drying up capital: he spent a heck of a lot more than Carter. By dumping a ton of borrowed money on defense projects, he grew the economy by a huge leap...as technology from defense and from the new computer industries became consumer products the economy grew even more. To say it was simply because of tax cuts is oversimplistic. If you dump a trillion dollars of borrowed cash into any economy, it will grow. In 1980, I was 16. In 1984 I was 20.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603290011
"A New York Post editorial and Fox News host John Gibson both claimed that documents recovered from Iraq -- recently released by the Bush administration and summarized by ABC News -- prove that the administration correctly asserted in its buildup to the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein was working with Al Qaeda. In fact, as ABC pointed out, the documents that both the Post and Gibson cited are not definitive in any way and are of varying credibility."

Like I said, I would like to see more proof of a Saddam/al Qauda connection. Still, the ABC report did not disprove the possibility.

Actually, the problems with inflation began in LBJ's presidency.

 

[No-name]

Inflation is usually a sign of a growing economy. It can also be caused by poor governmental monitary policy-- not just printing too much of the stuff, but also lending wads of it out. Wages that don't keep pace with prices... a dropping purchasing power... it can even be a sign of increased productivity. It has been a "problem" since the end of WWII. Their has been a constant battle over the balance between wages and prices and the purchasing power of your money.