I'm deeply unhappy with Bush's failure to rein in domestic spending, especially on earmarks airdropped into bills. I wish he'd found his veto pen a few years earlier. I wish he'd placed less reliance on what he read in Vladimir Putin's soulful eyes. I wish he as commander-in-chief had encouraged a surge and the associated counterinsurgency efforts much earlier. But I also recognize that there was significant economic growth as well as growth in tax revenue following his tax cuts, and I am happy that there have been no successful domestic terrorism attacks since 2001.

I remember that Saddam Hussein offered asylum to Osama bin Laden in 1998 -- it was reported on CNN -- and I note that Al-Qaeda quickly made Iraq the centerpiece of its campaign. I note that Al-Qaeda is now reeling in Iraq, that it has lost its credibility in much of the world, that the Iraqi military is beginning to take hold, that the government is beginning to make the benchmarks we set out, and that even the mainstream media are being forced to notice it. And -- all over the world -- incidents of terrorism are on the decline, contrary to the gloomy predictions that graduates of the Iraq school would fan out over the world and cause chaos. (The nature and cause of the decline is an arguable point: see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7412036.stm )

I'll withhold judgment on George Bush for now, thanks. But I certainly hope that our police commissioner takes a look at what Petraeus is doing and sees how much of it can be applied to our own little thuggish enclaves.

__________________
LBphilly
lb_philly@yahoo.com
"Free speech is enhanced by civility."--Tim O'Reilly

Phillyblog's best tool to enhance civility
Look far left on the blue bar, right over the Google search bar:
User CP > Miscellaneous > Buddy/Ignore Lists

That's the biggest thing...no one is sympathizing with GW here, but more or less asking where McClellan was 5 years ago. I can think of 4,000+ families at least who want to know why this information was only relevant after a book deal was flashed his way.

I wonder which Office he was thinking of when he signed up for this?

I don't think his book is worth commenting about. True or not the book doesn't seem to have been written with the idea of expanding anyone's understanding of the Bush Adminstration. It seems to be a media juggernaut of self importantance.

__________________
RuggerAl 08

Support the Smash Party - Go to Poll

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Safari can’t connect to the server.
Safari can’t open the page “http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/” because it could not connect to the server “www.phillyblog.com”.

Are you talking about the Tax Cut that has put this country into a deep fiscal crisis? Are you talking about a Tax Cut that drove up the Debt so much that the dollar lost its value against all major currencies? The loss of the dollar that has contributed to inflation in this country. A tax cut that coincided with an expensive war that we couldn't afford before the Tax Cut. A Tax Cut that has more or less put us into a recession. A Tax Cut that made the rich richer and everyone else poorer. Is this that Tax Cut? Just wondering.

Quote:

Alan Gertler, Reno, Nev.: I'm a scientist, not an economist, so I'm fairly naive when it comes to what drives the economy. My question is this: Have the tax cuts stimulated the economy as claimed (which I don't believe given the past cases of Reagan and Bush senior), or has it been the willingness of the government to continue massive spending by increasing our debt that has led to the growth of the economy? Paul Krugman: It's actually neither. About the Bush tax cuts: the tax cuts of 2001 evidently didn't do the job; these days, the Bush people talk about the economy as if history began in the middle of 2003, after their SECOND wave of tax cuts. But while the economy did start growing, finally, in 2003, the growth wasn't at all of the form you'd expect if tax cuts were responsible. The main tax cuts were on dividends and capital gains; supposedly this would make it easier for businesses to raise funds and invest. But business investment hasn't been the main driver of growth; in fact, businesses have been sitting on huge piles of earnings, reluctant to invest. Instead, the big driver was housing construction and consumer spending. So what really happened? Low interest rates led to a housing boom that eventually turned into a housing bubble. High house prices made people feel richer, and they could borrow against the increased value of their homes, feeding consumer spending. Tax cuts had nothing to do with it.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...e_bush_ta.html

__________________
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." —George Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

do press secretaries have legacies?

__________________
"You down wit OPM?"
Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"

that's a bit over the top. they didn't help, but what has driven the fiscal crisis wasn't the tax cuts but loose monetary policy. the debt wasn't driven up even primarily by tax cuts but by runaway spending, most notably on the war in iraq but also on some domestic programs, notably farm welfare. Generally speaking, I'm a fan of tax cuts but I was never a big proponent of the Bush cuts. Rate cuts are needed most in the corp income tax. I also woudl have liked to see dividends taxed once, as income, to promote long term investment in companies. I did like the new 10% tax rate but I woudl have liked it more if the bracket had been much larger, benefitting everyone. I have see some analysis in the past that the middle class did benefit from the bush cuts, somewhat undermining the "tax cuts for the rich." Of Bush's legacies, the most detrimental will be the war, the way it was launched, and his response to terrorism by assaulting the constitution.

__________________
"You down wit OPM?"
Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"

You are right ..the War on Terror and the Iraq War has made us "safer," loved and in general has been a resounding success. I'm not sure why troops are commiting suicide in alarming numbers or being diagnosed with PTSD..where is Patton when you need him to slap some of these "cowards" with a glove in the face.

Army suicides rose last year, Pentagon says

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24874573/

Army 'startling' suicide attempts
“Since the beginning of the global war on terror, the Army has lost over 580 soldiers to suicide, an equivalent of an entire infantry battalion task force,” the Army said in a suicide prevention guide to installations and units that was posted in mid-March on the site.

“This ranks as the fourth leading manner of death for soldiers, exceeded only by hostile fire, accidents and illnesses,” it said. “Even more startling is that during this same period, 10 to 20 times as many soldiers have thought to harm themselves or attempted suicide.”

The numbers kept by the Army only show part of the picture because they don’t include guard and reserve troops who have finished their active duty and returned home to their civilian jobs.
The Department of Veterans Affairs tracks the number of suicides among those who have left the military. It says there have been 144 suicides among the nearly 500,000 service members who left the military from 2002-2005 after fighting in at least one of the wars.

The true incidence of suicide among veterans is not known, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report. Based on numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the VA estimates that 18 veterans a day — or 6,500 a year — take their own lives, but that number includes vets from all wars.

FACTBOX-US data chart rise in PTSD cases for Iraq and Afghan

Source:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/latest...31100020080527


As far as Iraq's links to Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and hence 9/11..one of it's chief architects admitted there were no links. Even Bush said as much in an interview. Moreover, Bin Laden and Hussein despised each other. Hussein's regime was secularist and corrupt but it killed and persecuted radical Islamist forces that threatened his own hold on power. This included Al Qaeda types and Shiite extremists like Sadr. The whole connection between Hussein and Bin Laden is an old, tired, and baseless canard.

Examples:

In an interview with conservative radio personality Laura Ingraham, Wolfowitz was asked when he first came to believe that Iraq was behind the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

"I'm not sure even now that I would say Iraq had something to do with it," Wolfowitz said in the interview, aired Friday.

Wolfowitz's answer confirms doubts long held by critics of the Iraq war that the Bush administration had no evidence linking Iraq to 9-11 or al-Qaeda, but simply used the horrific terrorist attacks as a reason to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime.


Bush Says Iraq Had Nothing to Do With Sept 11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdlEcFfYZ2k




No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda, 9/11 Panel Says ...

""There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan [in 1996], but they do not appear ..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html

Really not much earth shattering stuff in it from what is being said but just bringing it back to the forefront, particulary the Rove/Cheney/Plame stuff. This guy wasn't really privy to anything involving the lead up to the war. Maybe there's a sour grapes attitude in his blood since his father supposedly did a hit job book on LBJ a few years ago (Dad had some stint in that adminisration). Seems the consensus on this is it will be out of the news around this time next week but I'm sure that will be plenty of time for him to cash in.

__________________
"I'll vote for him if he's the nominee, but I'll continue to think he's a complete phoney." BrooklynCat 3/23
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/pol...r-race-11.html

That is so lame, right out of the "obnoxious Obama supporter" playbook 3/17
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/pol...r-race-37.html
RE-ELECT DAVID OH COUNCIL AT LARGE 2011

Actually i think most of the points i brought up were valid. The tax cuts caused the devbt to rise, devaluing the dollar as foreigners bought our debt. I also pointed out that the war was a boondoggle that we couldn't afford before the tax cut and drove up the debt even more, causing us to finance even more debt, causing foreigners to buy even more debt till the point where our bonds were worhtless. The devaluation of the federal bond market was the primary reason our dollar decreased in value. The loosening of the monetary policy is a recent event, and yes has made the dollar even weaker and has caused inflation to increase, but most of the damage was done prior to lowering the interest rates. The weak dollar has driven up the cost of all our imports, also accelerating inflation.

As to the Capital Gains tax cut, many of the benefits went to the rich who did not spend the money they recieved in returns, because how can you spend that much money. Also as mentioned in my clip from earlier, business did not increase spending and investment, but rather increased their cash flow both of these do nothing for economic growth.

On top of that, Bush trying to look like a Conservative, slashed social welfare spending and other funding for the disadvantaged. My personal favorite was cutting the Cops Program, which cost this city about two hundred cops. So though the wealthy grew more wealthy, being able to increase their cash flow while increasing their cash flow. The poor and borderline poor fell further and harder.

I could write a thesis about why the Tax Cut was a disaster but I just got tired of typing.

__________________
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." —George Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

tax cuts were a relatively minor portion of the debt as compared to spending. spending increased the debt. tax cuts don't increase debt, particulary is they are put into place with spending cuts or holding spending steady.
while we agree on teh war, foreigners didn't buy bonds because they were worthless. the value of those bonds declined because of the dollar devaluation.
I disagree. the loose monetary policy is certainly not a recent phenomenon. the money supply was increasing at a torrid pace at least since the mid 1990's. it financed the tech bubble prior to the housing bubble. the devalution of the federal bond market is a side effect of the expansionist monetary policy. "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." milton friedman.
on the flip side, it isn't true that it only benefitted the rich. also, capital gains effects all of us through our 401k's and savings, for those disciplined enough to save (in spite of the government's overwhelming Keynesian policies to get us to spend).
while that may be true, Bush did no, in any way, cut domestic spending. no president since LBJ has increased spending so much. [/quote] Total real discretionary outlays will increase about 35.8 percent under Bush (FY2001-06) while they increased by 25.2 percent under LBJ (FY1964-69) and 11.9 percent under Reagan (FY1981-86). By contrast, they decreased by 16.5 under Nixon (FY1969-74) and by 8.2 percent under Clinton (FY1993-98). [/quote]
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34112.html
You may have to. Tax cuts didn't do all of the things you mentioned. like anything else, tax cuts were a piece fo the action, a relatively small piece of it at that. As mentioned, I had different ideas of what a tax cut should have looked like BUT I also think that the tax cut wouldn't have been a big deal had it been paired with reasonable defense and domestic spending policies.

__________________
"You down wit OPM?"
Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"