President George W. Bush to Discuss Thriving Economy Prior to Midterm Elections

 

President George W. Bush will address the economy and its its recent positive economic Economy_upnews. The Bush haters and White House critics can spin all they want; however, the two most important facts of why we elect a President and a political party in Congress are based upon “safety/homeland security” and “the economy”. 

Let’s just have some honesty about the situation. 15 days out of a midterm election, all is not what the MSM and Democrats are saying.

Democrats have cried from the roof tops that we are not any safer today than we were before 9/11, yet they cannot point to one instance of an attack on the US. Democrats have complained of the economy, yet it is in better shape than when Clinton was in office. Democrats have criticized the Patriot Act and the program that allows the US to listen on telephone calls of potential terrorists calling abroad. They have criticized a fence between Mexico and the US. What is most telling is the MSM and the Democrats certainly brushed over the US/Britain Airplane plot that was prevented due to great work to prevent terrorism against the US. Democrats have criticized an economy that sees more home ownership than ever before and a stock market based on solid financials, not speculation.

 

Former President William Jefferson Clinton survived impeachment for one reason and one reason alone. Clinton’s job approval ratings (not personal approval ratings) were in the 60’s and there was a booming economy. Please remember this was a booming economy based upon a fictitious .com economy bubble and corporate scandal such as Global Crossing, Enron, and WorldCom. Take a good look at when these scandals took place and when they were brought to light and justice was served.

Obviously there is a debate of whether the war on terror can be included to Iraq. In my opinion at this point it can be included. For those who wish to nay say everything that the One main important fact is that the economy during the GWB had to a .com bubble, the 9/11disaster, corporate scandals, war on terror and escalating oil prices. After all that, The United States economy has rebounded to a solid one based on corporate profits not speculative .com insanity. That rebound has also meant a turn-around in many 401k’s as well. White House and the Republican controlled Congress has done is simple partisan politics.   Say what you will about the Bush Administration with regards to the war in Iraq, you cannot dispute two facts. Remember that when one decides to cast their vote in November. Where are we now, where did we come from and who got us there.

1. The Dow Jones Industrials Reach New High

Blue chips resumed a three-month rally after stalling Friday; the Dow briefly surpassed 12,100 and reached a new trading high of 12,117.95, eclipsing the old mark of 12,049.51 set last week. Broader market indexes also gained, shrugging off concerns about the Federal Reserve’s decision on interest rates later this week.

2. The United States has not been hit by a terrorist attack since 9/11/01.

 

While the Media was Spinning the News … They missed a Great Economy and a Dow Jones Record High

They Are Elected to Protect, “We The People” … Its about Time … Senate Approves Mexican Border Fence

Quick Reminder to Sex Scandal Distracted Media … Check out that Economy, Jobless Claims down 17,000

George W. Bush on al Qaeda & Terrorism … “It is Foolish to Think you can negotiate with them.”

Posted October 23, 2006 by
Economy, Politics, War on Terror | 43 comments


If you liked this post, you may also like these:

  • George W. Bush Formally Backs Mitt Romney … “I’m For Romney”
  • Democratic Bipartisanship … Pelosi and Democrats Will Begin Without Republican input
  • Laura Bush; As Popular as Ever
  • The Hill Poll: Majority of voters Blame President Barack Obama for Bad Economy and Not Bush
  • Democratic Victory in Congress A Victory For Iran




  • Comments

    43 Responses to “President George W. Bush to Discuss Thriving Economy Prior to Midterm Elections”

    1. Miss-Underestimated on October 23rd, 2006 3:32 pm

      Don’t you think Clinton’s economy was the result of the work of Regan? Remember when Regan said he was laying the ground work for a flourishing economy?

      HEY ECONOMIC GURUS, WHEN PEOPLE HAVE EXTRA MONEY THEY SPEND IT.

      Remember this : Redistribution of wealth……

    2. Maurice B on October 23rd, 2006 3:39 pm

      This is a bunch of crap. It is aweful funny that things only appear to get better due to the upcoming elections. 6 months ago things look pretty lame. Also things are only better for the rich and upper middle class. Most Americans are struggling. High health insurance, very low pay raises or in some cases no raises. thousand of factory workers have suffered. Thousands are losing there homes.

      Don’t be deceived!!!

    3. Joanie on October 23rd, 2006 4:26 pm

      If the economy is sooooooooooo good, how come my old friends in parts of Western PA still live under the poverty level?

      _______-

      SM: Anyone who thinks they can stay in one place their entire life and thrive economocally is foolhardy.

      The days of staying in one job in one company are long over. People who follow the jobs have no problem at all. Those who wisg to be rigid in their philopsophy are going to have serious problems. There is job retraining as well. Those that had factory jobs that may have gone else where best re-educate themselves now shouldn’t they. What is the alernative? Sit back and complain?

      Part of an individuals economic situation is up to them. That is why people have many more jobs and are likely to own more homes over their lifetime. They follow the economy. Those that don’t … who’s fault is that?

    4. chloe on October 23rd, 2006 4:27 pm

      There are other things that are important other than Homeland Security and the economy. Just ask any person with children- it’s education. Social security is a very big deal, too. I don’t think it can be boiled down to 2 issues.

    5. Scrapiron on October 23rd, 2006 5:10 pm

      Joanie: Everyone knows someone living under the poverty level, most because that’s what they choose to do. You would be surprised what a little get up and go will do if you add in a little ‘want to’. Waiting for someone to give it to you seldom gets you rich. Funny, I was born along with 12 siblings to a coal miner(not a mine owner) with a 4th grade education that worked his way up to mine foreman. Not one of us would trade our life for someone else’s and not one of us has been a welfare rider. In fact most have made a lot of money by ‘working’ in different industries and some by starting their own business from scratch. Each and everyone of us owns our own home. I’m one that thinks that anyone who’s only desire in life is to become rich can do it by selling pencils on a street corner and expanding as time goes by. Nothing good comes over night, except Santa Claus and he’s not a democ’rat. Too giving.

    6. Scared Monkeys on October 23rd, 2006 7:06 pm

      You are what you make of yourself. People under the poverty line are provided training to do other jobs if theis have gone away.

      Many people have started over and are doing jobs today they never did 5-10-15 years ago.

      Government is only to allow an environment for jobs to exist, its up to us to take advantage of those opportunities.
      R

    7. Rammstein on October 23rd, 2006 7:33 pm

      Well if George W. is going to focus on that he is going to face a loosing battle.

      Top priorities for US voters are:

      1. Iraq (and the party most trusted to solve that is the Dems)
      2. Terror
      3. Government corruption
      4.

    8. Rammstein on October 23rd, 2006 7:35 pm

      sorry, not quite done before I accidentally pushed the post button:

      4. the economy

      And in all sectors of that the democrats are the party the people most trust to handle those issues. The only one where Bush/Republicans did score more than the dems was terror but that now too has disappeared and last poll it showed there too that the democrats have the edge in “who’s best at fighting terror”.

    9. Sam on October 23rd, 2006 7:35 pm

      Economy is doing ok, but its always doing ok. It was ok in the 80′s, the 90′s and now. Its flucuations are not due to taxes, but the actions of the Fed. The only thing Bush has affected is where those profits are going. Namely, large corporations and the wealthy.

      Due to rising costs in just about basic cost to a regular family, home foreclosures are at record levels, median income is actually DOWN since 2001, health care is worse in both price and service to average americans, and the Dow Jones just this last month got past where it was when Bush took office.

      George Bush was on the right track when he attacked Afghanistan, but then he went ahead and invaded Iraq. Since he has started his war on terror not only has he failed to capture Bin Laden, but he’s spent $500 Billion between there and Iraq, gotten several thousand of our soldiers killed to bring democracy to a country that never wanted it in the first place and still doesn’t, and in the process has actually given birth to a brand spanking new terrorist nation.

      And now because of the effort expended in Iraq, the Taliban seems poised to make a comeback. Bush is a complete incompetent, but we could have guessed that from his pre-presidential resume.

    10. GRETA mal on October 23rd, 2006 7:37 pm

      SM, post # 6, GREAT POST !!! You are 100% right on this one !!!!!!! Years ago you could work at the same job for 30 or more years and retire from there. NOT ANYMORE !!!!

    11. GRETA mal on October 23rd, 2006 7:40 pm

      chloe, Don’t depend on social security. Even if you get ANY all it will do is pay the gas bill. You better have some GOOD investments and some good 401K’s.

    12. Joanie on October 23rd, 2006 7:44 pm

      Scrapiron; I do agree with you. However there are a few exceptions.
      I left PA in 2000. Best move I ever made. The jobs in my new home are plentiful and pay quite well. I speak mostly for alot of elderly I know. My former in laws get less than $800 a month and live in an old, broken down farm house. I know people who live in school buses in the back woods and don’t have a car. I even know people who live in homes without indoor plumbing. These people have given up. I have tried to talk to them, but they are afraid of leaving family or an elderly, sick parent. My folks had passed away – nothing there to hold me, so off I went West. There is a bad cycle in my old home area, and I don’t know what to do to help break it. It seems the news media doesn’t believe me when I tell them how poor an area I came from. I tried to get them to go out to my old township and talk to these people, but they don’t believe me. One of my dear friends is on disability, gets $500 a month and has no car. She is 55 and spent her entire life caring for her parents and neices and nephews. She has no hope. I got out; I made a difference in my life, but its not always possible for some. The news media never goes to those places. To my old friends, the economy has stayed the same for 40 years.
      My dad was also a coalminer, back before there was breathing protection! He finished the 8th grade. It took every penny he made to house, clothe and feed us. Once, when we were on welfare for a year, we got $75 a week for 5 of us. There was no hope. Fortunately I was only 1 year old and didn’t not know any better! Things haven’t changed much in my old area. I wish somehow it would. Western PA is not a bad place to live – if you are rich and can afford PA taxes. Thank you to those of you who write with suggestions – I will pass them on to my friends.

    13. GRETA mal on October 23rd, 2006 8:13 pm

      maurice, I think the economy is GREAT !!! The dow hits an all time high. My 401K’s are doing great. The Tigers are in the world series. MICHIGAN is ranked #2 in the Nation. They play #1 Ohio State on Nov. 18th. Everything is GOOD !!!

    14. Leo on October 23rd, 2006 8:19 pm

      I can tell you right now the economy sucks in the small town where I live. Maybe it is going gangbusters somewhere – like China – but not here. In this area not even the Republicans believe the economic figures are as good as reported.

      Personally, I don’t think the economy is doing that great anywhere – unless you are extremely wealthy. For one thing, nobody can depend on their pension still being there when they retire – this is another social cost corporations are pushing off on the government. For that matter, nobody who doesn’t work for the government can depend on their job being around six months from now. So, there is a lot of good reason for people to be anxious about the economy – and the Democrats are going to exploit those fears, for sure.

    15. GRETA mal on October 23rd, 2006 8:28 pm

      leo, There are more jobs now than ever before. Everybody I know has a job and I live in Michigan. There are layed off auto workers but they will have to look for another line of work or move.

    16. jackson80 on October 23rd, 2006 8:31 pm

      what economy, oh, you mean the one fueled with borrowed money spent on a fruitless foreign war–it works for the big corporations and arms makers, it does nothing for main street except to resend the reserves to the hospitals.

    17. GRETA mal on October 23rd, 2006 8:42 pm

      jackson, We had to fight this war. The only fruitless war we were in was because of the democrats back in the 70′s.

    18. yoyo muffintop on October 23rd, 2006 9:51 pm

      Here are your “Top Ten”, not a democratic spun one(source 10/21/06 Gallup pole). Some are better for dems, some repubs, but the top 5 will have the republicans retaining the majority in congress:
      1. Iraq
      2. Terrorism and National Security
      3. The Economy
      4. Energy
      5. Illegal Immigration
      6. Healthcare
      7. Education
      8. Social Security
      9. Fixing Government Itself
      10. The Federal Deficit

    19. omnipotentobserver on October 23rd, 2006 10:24 pm

      Six years ago we were at an all-time high with employment because Clinton created 22 million good-paying jobs in 8 years. Bush’s policies led to a serious decline in employment. But, people got desperate and had to work to eat, so some have taken two or three low-paying jobs just to survive. That makes it look like Bush created an increase in employment, but it’s nothing more than smoke and mirrors. We’ve lost 4 million manufacturing jobs in this country in the past 5 years and replaced them with 4 million people working in Walmart.

      As far as the economy goes, on paper it’s doing good, but not for 90% of the people in the country. The top 10% are doing well because all of Bush’s policies have hurt the middle class and helped the very wealthy.

      As for that comment about people living under the poverty level because they choose to, that’s a great excuse for a failed party that is about to be voted out. The truth is that people live under the poverty level because they have no choice. Companies shut down, pensions get looted, illness and death strikes families, and the cost of living is not in sync with the minimum wage. Nobody wants their family to live in a cardboard box or do without medical benefits. If we would stop wasting our money on a war that was started on nothing more than a lie, we might be able to get back to focusing on reality and do what’s right for this ccountry. And, please don’t get into a debate about the war with me. I support the troops. They are only doing their job. I do not support an administration that lies in order to gain monetary benefit at the cost of our boys’ lives. For those of you who don’t keep up, the 9-11 Commission found absolutely no connection between 9-11 and Iraq.

    20. yoyo muffintop on October 23rd, 2006 11:22 pm

      George Bush and his administration’s reasons for invading Iraq were solid and justifiable. Hussein and his government in Iraq supported terrorism abroad and had intentions of producing weapons of mass destruction for its own use or to sell to terrorists on the black market. Stated by Paul Wolfowitz, “Saddam Hussein is the only international figure other than Osama Bin Laden to publicly praise the attacks of September 11th.” After publicly supporting terrorism against the United States, the US government couldn’t just sit back and allow Saddam to violate UN weapons sanctions and create chemical or biological weapons. Not complying with UN sanctions and refusing to disarm, Saddam and Iraq were a significant threat to the safety of the US and its citizens, therefore leading to military “processes” to be put into effect. What, did you think the French were going to “handle it”?

      Please keep up.

    21. Rammstein on October 23rd, 2006 11:50 pm

      #18, actually yoyo muffintop, the US public was polled to state what they viewed as the most important issues on the agenda this fall when decidinng their vote.

      48% said corruption in government
      48% said situation in Iraq
      48% said terrorism
      43% said healthcare
      40% said economy
      36% said moral standards in the US
      34% said gasprices
      33% said immigration

      When asked which of the 2 parties was best to deal with the issues mentioned, the polled individuals answered as follows:

      Corruption in goverment: the dems are the best party to be trusted to deal with this (margin 49% to 28% = 21% gap)

      situation in Iraq: the dems are the best party to be trusted to deal with this (margin 52% to 35% = 17% gap)

      terrorism: the dems are the best party to be trusted to deal with this (margin 46% to 41% = 5% gap)

      and across the board in the issues the democrats were ahead of the republicans. According to some predictions it would be a split senate (50 to 50) and a democratic congress (with more than 220 seats going democratic come November 7th)

    22. omnipotentobserver on October 24th, 2006 12:24 am

      You’re the one who needs to “keep up.” You’re in fantasyland. You think that because you say it, it’s so. It’s funny that the 9-11 Commission didn’t find the Bush Administration’s reasons for invading Iraq “solid and justifiable.” There was no imminent threat, which is the only “solid and justifiable” reason to unilaterally invade another country. What Bush really did was give Iraq “solid and justifiable” reasons to attack the U.S. in self defense under International Law. We’re lucky they didn’t have the capability to do that. Even Bush and Cheney both backpedaled on what they first claimed as their reasons for the attack, or haven’t you kept up?

      You’re claim that the attack on Iraq was justified because of what their “intentions” were just doesn’t wash. They had plenty of time to build WMD’s since back when Daddy Bush was in power and they didn’t. The UN inspectors never found any evidence of WMD’s.

      It’s naive to believe in the policies of the Bush Administration. Their approval rating is in the sewer. That means that the majority of Americans have given up on them. Haven’t you kept up?

    23. yoyo muffintop on October 24th, 2006 12:29 am

      I state a poll, you state a pole, that’s what I love about these damn polls(sarcasm).
      Well, I’ll take my top 5 five to the polling both with me, but after seeing the other one layed out, this mid-term could be very interesting…The next couple of weeks is gonna be ugly.

    24. yoyo muffintop on October 24th, 2006 12:38 am

      So let me get this straight – The war in Iraq was this big ploy by Bush and his admin to help him get re-elected, create a legacy that his daddy didn’t get, and ensure that he has a republican successor in the white house in ’08. Is that it in a nutshell? Dream on

    25. Ramlady on October 24th, 2006 4:46 am

      #19; Are you one of the super-wealthy who feels guilty (something tells me no), one of those at the bottom of the economic totem pole, or just another one of those clueless Democrats who like to complain no matter what? Many of the jobs created when Clinton was president were in the overblown tech sector which, as we all know, went bust because of the ridiculous over-speculation in the dot.coms. Most of those jobs are gone now. Face the facts: the economy has not only survivied a recession, 9-11 attacks on our country, two wars, corporate scandals, high gas prices, etc., but it has bounced back and is stronger than in any of the Clinton years. You can spin it any way you want, it’s a fact. During the recent housing boom, many people foolishly ran out and bought more expensive homes than they could actually afford with adjustable rate mortgages and now they are finding they cannot make the payments because of the rise in interest rates on these type loans. They would not be losing their homes if they had been smart and stuck with a fixed rate and bought a home they could actually afford. I don’t feel sorry for them. They bit off more than they could chew, and now they are paying the price. Most of the people I know are solidly working-class and middle-class, and they are doing just fine. Most of them are doing better than they were six years ago. I don’t know any super-rich people personally, but they always do well regardless of which party controls the White House or Congress. If things are not so great where you live, maybe you should consider moving. Or if socialism is your thing, where the government takes care of you from the cradle to the grave, then take your pick of all the socialist countries in the world to live in; there are many of them. Since 2000, home ownership is at an all-time high (including among minorities), inflation is benign, unemployment is lower than Clinton’s best year, income tax rates are lower on everyone who pays taxes (not just the super-rich), the Dow continues to hit new highs, the overall stock market has rebounded remarkably since 9-11 (boosting people’s 401Ks, IRAs, and investments), etc., etc., etc. The booming economy is directly linked to the Bush tax cuts. When people are “allowed” to keep more of their own money, they can invest it, spend it, or do whatever they want with it. We already know what the Democrats will do with your money if they gain control of Congress. Nancy Pelosi has already stated she wants to raise taxes. History has shown that lowering the federal income tax results in INCREASED revenue to the government. Raising taxes causes people to hide or mis-report income resulting in DECREASED revenue to the federal government. This happened when Kennedy cut taxes across the board, when Reagan cut taxes across the board, and when George W. Bush cut taxes across the board. My husband and I are solidly middle-class, and we happen to appreciate the tax cuts we have received in the last several years. If you think the government deserves YOUR money more than you do, please write an extra check each year at tax time to the Federal Reserve for whatever amount you feel you are short-changing the government. I’m sure they would find a good use for it.

    26. Brad on October 24th, 2006 7:03 am

      This guy says it all :-)
      http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tonyparsons/

      I guess its not a static link, so here is the text:

      BUSH WASN’T EVEN A FIGHTING DRUNK!
      23 October 2006
      GEORGE Dubya Bush says that Iraq is just like Vietnam – but how would he know?

      When he had a chance to fight for his country in Vietnam he chose to lay on the floor of a bar in Dallas sucking on a bottle of tequila instead. It was a long way from Saigon.

      Bush was the right age for Vietnam, but he ducked the call to arms by signing on for the soft option of the stay-at-home National Guard. Or was it the Mouseketeers?

      We are cursed by a generation of leaders who have never heard a shot fired in anger. And that, more than anything, has made Iraq possible.

      Would Bush have been so gung-ho about invading Iraq if he had, seen the reality of war in Vietnam, instead of the unreality of happy hour in downtown Houston?

      Would Tony Blair have been so keen on sending other people’s sons off to fight if he had actually seen a man die?

      My father, an old soldier, was totally against the Falklands War. My old man was no pacifist, but he had some understanding of what it would cost to get those South Atlantic rocks back.

      “Let the Argentinians have the Falklands,” he said. “Let them have the sheep, too, and do with them what they will.”

      Maggie Thatcher had no idea what the Falklands would cost. She had no concept of what it would be like when men were dying in Goose Green, or burning alive on the lower decks of HMS Sheffield.

      Denis Healey could have told her. Or Ted Heath. Or my dad. They were from a generation who had fought a war. But that generation is dying out and we are all the poorer for it.

      Thatcher never got closer to combat than watching The Bridge On The River Kwai on a Sunday afternoon. Like Blair and Bush, it was easy for her to send somebody else’s son off to fight and maybe die because she knew not what she did.

      Bush is right, of course. Iraq does resemble Vietnam in the sense that a one-sided military engagement turned into an unpopular war and then an unwinnable one.

      America chose Vietnam to make a stand against Communism, and Iraq to make a stand against al-Qaeda – even though there was no link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda until Bush and Blair created one.

      But what do we expect? Unlike John F Kennedy, or Churchill, or indeed my old man, they have no idea of the reality of war.

      Bush the drunk, Blair the lawyer – what do these pampered men know about anything apart from their own privileged little worlds?

      There is no solution to the problem. For the developed world, the horrors of war are receding into the history books. My parents are dead. Their generation is almost gone. Those of us who are left have peace that they fought for, and we should always be grateful for that.

      But it does mean that we have a Prime Minister who, at an age when previous generations were in uniform, was practising the chords to Honky Tonk Women.

      Good luck to him. I am from that mollycoddled, born-at-the-right-time generation, too.

      But how can a spoilt baby boomer like Blair make decisions about when to go to war? Little wonder he can’t even look the loved ones of our dead soldiers in the eye.

      And Bush is even worse. The leader of the western world had a chance to fight for his country and chose to crawl into a bottle.

      Men who have known nothing but peace cannot possibly be effective war leaders.

      Bush and Blair are men who never wore a uniform apart from a blue suit and tie. No wonder they got us into this mess.

      Apparently, Hollywood is planning a film of Dubya’s experience at the time of the Vietnam War – Full Dinner Jacket.

    27. Ramlady on October 24th, 2006 9:03 am

      #26; Very humorous Brad, but unfortunately, just like you, completely FOS. So you think it’s funny calling our National Guard the Mouseketeers? FYI many of our troops fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan happen to be National Guard and Reserve troops, and they also happen to be very competent and professional. I’m sure they would not appreciate your denigrating their service to their country. Most of our troops who served in Vietnam were DRAFTED, not volunteers as our military is today. The National Guard was an option to avoid the possibility of being drafted later. My father served in the National Guard before I was born. It was not Mickey Mouse. During the Vietnam War, National Guard troops were always on standby to be called into Vietnam as needed. I suppose GWB could have chosen the path Bill Clinton chose which was run off to study at Oxford and Harvard and avoid the military entirely. It is flawed reasoning to believe that a person’s qualifications for leadership depend on whether he served in the military or not. FDR guided our country through the Great Depression and WW2 and served 3 terms as President. He never served in the military. We have had countless Presidents who have served in the military but were terrible or ineffective Presidents. Just because you can do one job does mean you are qualified for the other and vice versa.

    28. Ramlady on October 24th, 2006 10:02 am

      Another little minor detail, Brad: Bush has never said Iraq was just like Vietnam. Just the opposite; both he and our military leaders have said Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. While it may be true that there are similarities in the currently growing anti-war sentiment among the public and the Vietnam protests, the actual situation on the ground is very different than Vietnam.

    29. Brad on October 24th, 2006 11:24 am

      This article seems to point to some similarites and it also points to one of “our military leaders” in particular.
      http://hnn.us/articles/20014.html

      ________

      SM: Think everyone better get a refresher course on military wars … check these numbers out

    30. GretaMAL on October 24th, 2006 11:45 am

      ramlady, You are RIGHT. Vietnam is NOTHING like Iraq. Vietnam was a big farce and the BIGGEST mistake the U.S. EVER made. We needed to invade iraq.

    31. omnipotentobserver on October 24th, 2006 3:08 pm

      Gee SM…first get a refresher course in spelling, then come on here with articles that aren’t totally slanted to the right. Those statistics that are mostly from bloggers or right wing pro war Bush supporters don’t mean anything in the real world. What you’re saying is that even though we can see that the grass is green, it’s really blue just because you and your Bush sympathizers say so.

      By the way, just a note, Bush did compare Iraq to Viet Nam last week. He compared the recent escalation of American losses in Iraq and those suffered in the Tet offensive of 1968…just adding my 2 cents.

      _______

      SM: Don’t be such a smuck. Mr. “similarites”   (seems that you may need that course too , but no one was going to say it until you had to act like a troll). spelling taken from above comment.

    32. omnipotentobserver on October 24th, 2006 4:49 pm

      SM…smuck??? Don’t you mean schmuck? Who are you referring to now? And, why is that under my post and connected to Mr. “Similarites”? BTW, I noticed that your other misspelled post has been deleted. Thank you!

    33. dutchhog on October 24th, 2006 7:01 pm

      well i’am no economist,but if the dollar keeps dropping like it is now against the euro, we will be buying dollars for 50 eurocents by the end of this winter,what does that mean?we have troops in afganistan,and live under a terorrist threat to,there are significantly more muslims living in europe than in the states and on average more fanatic,therefore more dangerous….it seems to me that fear has taken over the hearts of the americans,putting a couple of these cameljockeys over your own healthcare,education and social security is something i don’t understand,but what do i know i’am just a dumb dutchman.IF YOU LET FEAR RULE YOUR HEART THEY’VE WON!!( defenition of terrorist)i don’t give these towelheads the satisfaction!!

    34. Ramlady on October 25th, 2006 3:26 am

      #29; So what Brad? A professor at George Mason University writes an article comparing Iraq to Vietnam using quotes from Donald Rumsfeld about Vietnam during the Vietnam War, and that proves what exactly? Why don’t you go back to your George Soros blog where you will feel more at home and whine there for awhile?

    35. Ramlady on October 25th, 2006 3:41 am

      #31; And I could compare my bank account to that of Bill Gates, but that would not make much sense either….just my two cents. Just wondering “Omnipotent Observer,” do you complain as loudly about the slanted articles on the left-wing blogs or only on the right-wing ones? One more question please regarding your self-descriptive nick: are you truly “all-knowing and all-seeing,” or do you suffer from delusions of grandeur (i.e.: a schmuck)?

    36. omnipotentobserver on October 25th, 2006 1:09 pm

      #35: Talk about complaining loudly…I was responding to your statement that Bush never compared Iraq to Viet Nam. Now, you’re bringing in Bill Gates? Hey, when you’re wrong about something, it’s no big deal to learn from it and move on, rather than to come back with your claws extended.

      My opinions are given based on the subject matter, not which party I may or may not support. I only state the facts as they have been reported or as I have researched personally. I’m not interested in where others post or what boards they read. It’s really not an issue…not to me, anyway…

      By the way, just an aside…a “schmuck” is not someone who suffers from “delusions of grandeur.” That’s more likely to be a person who compares their bank account to that of Bill Gates.

    37. Miss-Underestimated on October 25th, 2006 2:15 pm

      I can’t read too well the nic

      is it imimpotent?

    38. Ramlady on October 25th, 2006 6:00 pm

      #36; …or someone comparing Iraq to Vietnam, schmuck. The two have nothing in common, just as my bank account and that of Bill Gates have nothing in common, or did that go over your head too? You still have not cited the exact quote from Bush and the context in which he said it. You cannot pull one sentence out of a speech or a comment and point to the fact that he may have mentioned Iraq and Vietnam in the same sentence and extrapolate from that that he is saying Iraq is just like Vietnam. That is total BS, and you know it. If you would like to know how Bush feels about Iraq, you might try listening to his entire comments, not just snippets from the Jon Stewart show on Comedy Central. I believe you will find it is the extreme left that is comparing Iraq to Vietnam, not George W. Bush or Donald Rumsfeld.

      Oh and BTW, any human being who dares call himself or herself “omnipotent” does indeed suffer from delusions of grandeur. That person may also indeed be a schmuck, among other things.

    39. Ramlady on October 25th, 2006 6:08 pm

      #37; Don’t worry, Miss-U; it seems we have a poster here who apparently believes he/she possesses an ability that only God is capable of. Omnipotence is the ability to be “all-knowing and all-seeing.” I suppose we should be in awe…..nahhhh. Perhaps a better nick would be “Unimportant Bystander.”

    40. omnipotentobserver on October 25th, 2006 6:28 pm

      #39: Perhaps saying something about the subject matter instead of wasting your time trading insults might make you actually look like you know something. You obviously didn’t hear Bush state last week exactly what I stated above about the comparison between Viet Nam and Iraq. Whether it was a simple comment or an entire speech is of no importance. He said it and you don’t want to look wrong, so you get your friends to join you in an attack. Sorry that I didn’t catch it on tape, but I didn’t know that in order to put comments on here, they had to be backed up by evidence. Those who follow him, heard him say it and those who waste time with the Comedy shows, as you seem to do, obviously missed it. That being said, is this gang up time? Can people comment on a message board without two or more people making off subject remarks in defense of each other? Do you need a back up? I thought this was a political debate. The only “all-knowing, all-seeing person” on here seems to be you.

    41. Ramlady on October 25th, 2006 8:34 pm

      #40; Your comments are laughable. You are the one who nicknamed yourself “Omnipotent Observer.” I am not the one claiming to be “all-knowing, all-seeing.” No, I do not need backup support from other posters. I was replying to Miss-U.’s comment #37 in my comment #39. And speaking of the subject matter: I believe, if you will back up and re-read the original posting by SM, the subject matter is the ECONOMY, not Iraq. Maybe you would care to comment on that? You are foolish if you think it is insignificant whether the comment by Bush was a snippet where he mentioned Iraq and Vietnam in the same sentence, or if he gave an entire speech likening the situation in Iraq to the situation in Vietnam. The fact that you cannot cite exactly what he said is evident you don’t know what you are talking about. Funny that the comment was not covered in the MSM huh?

    42. omnipotentobserver on October 25th, 2006 9:57 pm

      http://www.nowpublic.com/tag/Vietnam – Here’s a link I found just for you. I won’t be doing that in the future, but with all of your nastiness, I felt it necessary to show you that you were incorrect when you said Bush never compared Viet Name to Iraq. Now, I am not interested in what his comparisons were or why he compared them or what importance you think his comments have. The bottom line is that he did it and you needed proof. From hereon in, please communicate with someone else as I didn’t come on here to waste my time with nonsense. You take posting on a message board much too seriously. I’m moving on to where there is no bickering, if there exists such a place. It’s no wonder nobody else is posting on here besides your friend. You’ve driven everyone away!

    43. Ramlady on October 26th, 2006 4:12 am

      Oh thank you so much Omnipot. It is with great pleasure that now I get to respond to your dishonest claims. Just as I suspected, apparently, you feel mentioning Vietnam and Iraq in the same sentence is proof that the two are the same. Yes, I remember Tony Snow’s comments in the news last week, but you see, Omni, I don’t read the NY Times so I was able to process what he said before his comments were put through the liberal spin machine. Obviously, I was unaware that the liberal media had enjoyed a field day by twisting his comments around to fit their agenda, but that’s not really new or surprising. They do it all the time.

      The David Stout article in the NY Times dated 10-19-06 had the rather disingenous title, “Bush Aide Sees a Parallel Between Vietnam and Iraq.” A real attention grabber for sure, but if you actually bother reading the entire article, you will find neither Bush nor Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, ever acknowledged that the Bush administration was growing weary of Iraq or thought it was a lost cause like Vietnam. The only comparison was in the methods used by terrorists in Iraq to influence American public opinion just before an election to the tactics used by the North Vietnamese Communists 40 years ago.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/world/middleeast/20bushcnd.html

      In case you are unable or unwilling to read past the attention-grabbing headline or lack reading comprehension skills, here is the gist of what was said: Tony Snow stated that during the Vietnam War, the escalation of violence and American casualties resulting from the Tet offensive was the tipping point for swaying public opinion against that conflict. It was later discovered that the Tet offensive was actually a victory for the U.S. military. In spite of the high number of U.S. casualties, the North Vietnamese casualties were far higher, but the anti-war sentiment, which sometimes turned into angry, violent protests, had reached such an unbearable level that LBJ did not bother seeking a second term as President, and Nixon was elected in part on his promise to end the war. The 10-19-06 David Stout article reports, “Asked if he saw a similar portent in Iraq, Mr. Snow replied: “No. The important thing to remember is the President’s determined to win.” The administration will make adjustments as necessary, Mr. Snow said, “but the one thing that nobody should have any doubt about is that we’re going to win.”

      The article goes on to say, “Tony Snow, White House spokesman, emphasized that he accepted the parallel with the Tet offensive only in a “very limited” context: an attempt by an enemy to influence American public opinion just before an election. “We do not think there’s been a flip-over point,” he said. “But more importantly, from the standpoint of the government and the standpoint of this administration, we are going to continue pursuing victory aggresively.” To do otherwise, the White House has said repeatedly, would be to allow Iraq to become a spawning ground for terrorists.”

      These statements by Tony Snow were made after the President was interviewed on ABC by George Stephanopoulos a few days earlier. In the interview, Bush was asked to comment on a NY Times column by Thomas Friedman about a possible parallel between the Tet offensive and the recent escalation of violence in Iraq. Here is what the President said: “He could be right. There’s certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we’re heading into an election. They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort.” Note the President did not say or imply that Iraq was a lost cause and that we should pull out. He only acknowledged that the tactics used by the North Vietnamese and those used by the terrorists in Iraq to sway public opinion were similar.

      The David Stout article goes on to say, “The White House has long resisted suggestions that, in embarking on a war in Iraq, the United States may be sliding into a Vietnam-like “quagmire.” Mr. Bush and his commanders have vowed to adjust tactics as needed in the drive to establish an Iraq that is free, stable, and able to defend itself.”

      So there you go Omni. Just as I said before, liberal commentators may liken the situation in Iraq to the situation in Vietnam 40 years ago, but the Bush administration only said our enemies have used similar tactics in both wars to sway public opinion. To imply that the Bush administration is losing its will to fight the war or believes the war is unwinnable is extremely dishonest.

    Leave a Reply




    Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

     
     
    • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
    • Red (comments)
    • Dugga (technical issues)
    • Dana (radio show comments)
    • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Close
    E-mail It