Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[tw]

Originally Posted by spudcon

Which lying president would that be?

From ABC News of 19 April 2008:

No Al Qaeda Policy: Congress Wants Answers
Congress plans to press the Bush administration aggressively to justify its policy in Afghanistan following a nonpartisan report that concludes that the administration "lacks a comprehensive plan" to take on al Qaeda in its stronghold. ...

Berman has scheduled a hearing for May 7 to grill administration officials.

His concern follows a report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, that concludes, "No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals ... has been developed" in Pakistan's lawless tribal region along the Afghan border.

Such a plan requires a White House that works for America; not for a political agenda. These are mutually exclusive objectives.

There is not and has not been plans to get bin Laden. Those who have long understood this also ask, "When do we go after bin Laden?" Now the GAO says same.

The Bush administration does not have such a plan, even though it was called for by the 9/11 Commission and was mandated under a 2007 law, the GAO report said.

The report pulls no punches. It concludes that six years after President Bush pledged to take Osama bin Laden "dead or alive," al Qaeda has "regenerated its ability to attack the United States and had succeeded in establishing a safe haven" in Pakistan's border region.

Is the GAO some kind of communist conspiracy? Only useful plans to end "Mission Accomplished" also came from the 9/11 Commission. But when the president is even a liar, then keeping a bogeyman alive is good politics.

Which is good for America? A political agenda or getting bin Laden? Keeping bin Laden alive is good for wacko extremist politics. But the patriot asks, "When do we go after bin Laden?" GAO has finally moved Congress to work for America? How many Cellar Dwellers also feared to ask what only a patriotic Congressman (or presidential candidate) would ask. When DO we go after bin Laden? A lying president will not.

[classicman]

Answer from wiki

During 1968 there were many questions about the presidency. On March 31, 1968 in a decision that stunned political friends and many others, President Lyndon B. Johnson announced that he would not seek, nor would he accept the nomination of his party for president. Johnson said he was withdrawing in the name of national unity. This sparked many questions throughout the nation. People wondered who would become the next president of the United States. Their questions were answered very soon. In August of 1968, Richard Nixon, the "old pro" of the Republican Party, was nominated for president. On November 6, 1968 Richard M. Nixon was elected President of the United States.

[spudcon]

Let me help. The lying president wasn't named Bush or Nixon. My Lai occurred March 16, 1968.
Old lying liberal Democrat LBJ was the lying president during My Lai. How many thousands of civilians and US military died because of his lies and micromanagement? GWB has no chance of finishing up his eight years in office cathing up to LBJ's five years of criminal activity.

[Griff]

We've had lots of liars. LBJ is right there with Wilson and Bush in shear criminality.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Griff

We've had lots of liars. LBJ is right there with Wilson and Bush in shear criminality.

Looking at the chart WWI, WWII, and the Korean War were not 'US' Wars. Technically, Afghanistan-Iraq also are not, but with over %90 of the forces involved and probably an even larger percentage of the cost tied to the US, it really is a US-led show.

Was the $3.2 trillion for WWII all from the US?

BTW, the 820 billion for Iraq/Afghanistan only includes current costs, and even then not those buried in defense spending. I'm not sure I trust the $3 trillion figure being thrown around, but I would at least double the 820B if including post-war costs even if the war were called off tomorrow.

In terms of bang for the buck, Iraq will go down in history as the worst strategic blunder the US has ever made.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Was the $3.2 trillion for WWII all from the US?

That is the impression I get from the labeling. The article in Reason it comes from is about the cost of our present war so they would want to minimize the WW2 numbers.

[spudcon]

Can you attempt to adjust for inflation?

[xoxoxoBruce]

It says, in 2007 dollars.

[Happy Monkey]

$4 billion in 1776 dollars would have been impressive.

[Undertoad]

Percentage of GDP would show actual impact on the people and the economy.

[Undertoad]

Using this set of GDP data, and a Sharpie on the back of a wet napkin:

Iraq 2: 1.1% of GDP
Iraq 1: 1.2%
Vietnam: 2%
WW2: 56%
WW1: 16%
Span-Amer: 2%
Civil War: 22%

Beyond that I doubt the numbers are meaningful.

Well yeah, it's 1.1% that could surely have been spent more wisely.

This does indicate the difference between "war" and "total war" ala WW2 in which the fight is thought to be for one's very existence as a nation, as a culture. Pretty much the whole banana is avoiding one of those kinds of wars. Whatever we could do to avoid that would be great.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Using this set of GDP data, and a Sharpie on the back of a wet napkin:
Iraq 2: 1.1% of GDP
Iraq 1: 1.2%
Vietnam: 2% ...

Iraq 1 (Desert Storm or Kuwait Liberation) does not tell the entire picture. Because the president back then was more responsible, then the US paid almost nothing for that war. That war was paid for mostly by the entire world. Japan being the largest contributor. Therefore the negative effects on the economy from that war were marginal at best (and yet still the economy took a small downturn).

[tw]

From ABC News of 30 April 2008:

White House admits fault on 'Mission Accomplished' banner
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended," Bush said at the time. "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on." The "Mission Accomplished" banner was prominently displayed above him - a move the White House came to regret as the display was mocked and became a source of controversy. ...

Now in its sixth year, the war in Iraq has claimed the lives of at least 4,061 members of the U.S. military. Only the Vietnam War (August 1964 to January 1973), the war in Afghanistan (October 2001 to present) and the Revolutionary War (July 1776 to April 1783) have engaged America longer.

3.5 years to create, train, and deply armies all over the world and win every war. Six years and George Jr cannot even conquer one innocet nation? Meanwhile, when do we go after bin Laden? Mission Accomplished. Protect the bogeyman.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Meanwhile, when do we go after bin Laden?

When we decide to declare war on Pakistan.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

When we decide to declare war on Pakistan.

We don't need a war to conduct covert operations. But then all efforts to get bin Laden including tracking him, military surveillance, Alex Station, or future intentions – all have been canceled or obstructed by George Jr.