12 Comments Add your own

• 1. Don R. Gugliuzza  |  May 16th, 2008 at 5:42 pm

  I agree with you Audrey. Wages are down or stagnant. The cost of everything is up. Our government is in disarray. Neither Democrat nor Republican has a viable energy policy, an effective economic policy, a cure for any of the miriade problems that we face. It’s just the same old rhetoric packaged in a different way.
  The price of oil has driven the price of everything else in an upward move. Here’s a radical thought. Let’s all sacrifice for the good of our country in a manner in which the rich and the poor and all of us inbretween can contribute. Bring back gas rationing. Set a limit to the amount of fuel each driver in a family can buy in a week. That would do more for the economy than borrowing money from the Chinese so that we can buy more of their cheesy products. It would have the additional benefit of reducing greenhouse gasses. Let’s propose this idea to our elected leeches. Oooops, I’m sorry… elected leaders. My bad. Anyway, we can propose that to them and watch them hem, haw, sweat and dance around the idea. It’s election year, you know.

• 2. Right Of The Star Blog  |  May 16th, 2008 at 7:56 pm

  The Democratic study on the “real costs” of the wars in Iraq ($1.3 trillion) and Afghanistan ($300 billion) from 2002 through 2008 will almost assuredly lead to a common perceptual pitfall.
  (…)
  Three economists at the University of Chicago’s business school … looked at the costs of not going to war with Iraq back in 2003. Their study instead examined the costs of containing Iraq.

  Factoring in all those contingencies, the authors find that a containment policy would cost anywhere from $350 billion to $700 billion.

  So, for $300 to 600 billion we freed the world of two terrorist dictatorial regimes. As a comparison 60 years ago WWII cost 288 billion 1945 dollars or about $3,189,752,033,348 today with roughly 250,000 to 500,000 dead and 600,000 wounded US servicemen. Vietnam cost about $670 billion in today’s dollars with 58,000 dead and 300,000 wounded. Kosovo numbers are hard to calculate but the initial war cost at least $30 billion and $3 billion a year for peace keepers (keeping in mind that tensions are not much lower now then they were when we went in, Kosovo declared independence raising the chances of Serbian action — not to mention the numerous UN peace keepers scandals, with no end in sight). None of these are not comparable conflicts, but they give you a reference point.

  But the reason we don’t know those numbers is that in the past it was incredibly shallow to use only a dollar figure to describe wars and that is why Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker said

  All this said, I do not think a decision to go to war should be based on cost-benefit analysis. It would terrify the world if powerful nations conducted cost-benefit analyses of whether to go to war. There are 192 nations besides the United States; should we ask the Defense Department to advise us which ones we should invade because the expected benefits would exceed the expected costs? Might a conquest of Canada produce net benefits for the United States?

  David

• 3. Audrey Haynes  |  May 20th, 2008 at 10:59 am

  Don - yeah, I’ve heard Obama knows how to dance…..let’s see what he does with your proposal.

  David - I agree; war should not be based on economic cost… nor should it be based upon misinformation and deception. Thanks for the info.

• 4. Right Of The Star Blog  |  May 20th, 2008 at 10:54 pm

  Audrey, it’s a great line — but I don’t believe Senators Kerry and Clinton and others used misinformation or deception but then again, I read the full AUMF and actually listened to the President in the months before the war.

  But that is okay, you keep fighting that fight! “Bush lied people died,” sounds better then putting the blame where it belongs, squarely with the leader of the country that repeatedly violated it’s direct non-negotiable UN obligations. A regime that should have been dealt with as early as 1998. Dealing with Saddam was hard and kicking that can down the road was easy but in retrospect it was more costly then most care to admit, it’s easier to claim we were mislead or deceived. It also minimizes the danger of nations that support terrorism.

  Maybe we should have let Saddam reconstitute his weapons programs (which post invasion analysis indicates he intended to do once sanctions were removed)? Then we could do the important work and take the advice of some, like we did in Bosnia and Somalia:

  That’s why it’s time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma. Some observers, including former USAID director Andrew Natsios, have called on the U.S. to unilaterally begin air drops to the Burmese people regardless of what the junta says. (Time Magaizine)

  While I agree Burma is a disaster, are those lives worth any less then those slaughtered everyday by Saddam, or the systematic oppression by the Taliban.

  We all make the best decisions we can with the information available at that time — while history may not always validate that decision that in no way means the decisions were misleading, deceptive, or lies. When someone decides otherwise, despite the facts, it calls into question their presentation of information.
  David

• 5. Audrey Haynes  |  May 21st, 2008 at 4:32 pm

  David, have you read any of the books written about the War in Iraq? Such as Fiasco, by Thomas Ricks, or Isikoff’s Hubris? I’ve read several, and from what I’ve learned, I’ve decided the American public was, in fact, deceived. I think Kerry and Clinton were both wrong in voting to give POTUS the authority to invade Iraq.

  With all due respect, I think listening to the President in the months before the war was a huge mistake. There was all kinds of information available at the time that was either ignored, not presented to, or blatantly spun by the Administration.

  I didn’t have a personal divine revelation - this has been written about extensively, so you can call into question my presentation if you’d like, but you’ll have to question the presentation of those who know much more about the situation than I do.

  Now, whether or not we invade Burma is another issue. I’m not necessarily opposed to fighting against oppression, as long as we’re not pretending to be fighting demons that don’t exist, as we did in the Iraq War.

  The point I really wanted to address in my original post, though, was that we should NOT be racking up so much foreign debt. What do you think about THAT?

• 6. Right Of The Star Blog  |  May 21st, 2008 at 7:22 pm

  Audrey, interresting that you should mention books on Iraq. I have read Hubris, but unlike you (since you didn’t mention any) I have also read books like Douglas Feith’s ‘War and Decision’ as well as items like the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments on Iraq.

  Which, makes my point far better then any argument I could make — you appear to have accepted information from one view, the one that supports your opinion and have discounted or, as Hubris did on occasion completely ignored evidence to the contrary.

  I didn’t say mistakes weren’t made, just that when the evidence is viewed in it’s entirety the argument that the Administration used misinformation and deception falls apart.

  As far as racking up “foreign” debt is concerned I agree with you, spending is out of control, but as pointed out above it isn’t Iraq that is the problem (by the way, spending on armies is actually in the constitution,unlike say, health insurance), there would have been costs to our containment policies, it is our unwillingness to slow the spending here at home. You can’t tax your way out of this debt, it just isn’t financially possible. You can only grow your way out and that requires spending restraint — that has been done.

  However, how concerned am I about the current level of debt? Not very — as a percentage of GDP the public debt (discretionary spending) is 37%. That would be like a family making $100k a year having total debt of just $37k. The US government owns 65% of the land West of Denver and 2% of the land to the east, rich in resources and wealth. That is a huge asset base, worth far more then the total national debt. Want to reduce that national debt, help the economy and gas prices? Open up leases and get royalties from these and off shore assets and apply that directly to the debt!

  I am far more concerned with the growth of government and the shift from self reliance to a one of dependence.

  As an aside keep in mind that the savings bonds people buy and grandparents give as gifts are 75% of that so called, “foreign debt,” you are against. Only 25% of the total debt is actually foreign owned.
  David

• 7. Don R. Gugliuzza  |  May 22nd, 2008 at 7:17 pm

  Ahhhh, David. You should be concerned about the national debt. That is part of the reason that fuel prices are so high. A weak dollar doesn’t buy much overseas. That includes oil which impacts on food, travel and almost everything we do.

  As for the Iraq war, so sorry, David. Iraq did have chemical weapons. But having them and being able to use them on us are two different things. Did the administration lie to us? You bet!!! We went to war against Iraq because of 9/11. When it was proven that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it was the terrorists that we were ging to fight. When it was proven that there were no terrorists, other than Hussein, we were going to make the Middle East safe for democracy. You can see how well that has worked. Nothing has changed in Iran, Libya, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or any of the other middle eastern states. Makes you kind of wonder what the next spin is going to be about why we’re in Iraq. I strongly suspect that Bush, Inc has run out of spin at the same time that he’s running out of presidential term.
  But the great thing about this country is that you get to continue to defend what will go down in history as the worst president this country has ever had, and I can continue to assail him and what will go down in history as the worst Congress in history.
  By the way, it’s great to have someone from the right to discuss and disagree with. Don’t stop and don’t go anywhere. We need you.

  Don

• 8. Right Of The Star Blog  |  May 23rd, 2008 at 12:28 am

  Don, thanks for the reply. Let me address each one of your points, and you have some good ones and some … well let’s see:

  You should be concerned about the national debt. That is part of the reason that fuel prices are so high. A weak dollar doesn’t buy much overseas. That includes oil which impacts on food, travel and almost everything we do.

  Partially right — the trade deficit has far more to do with the falling dollar then does the does the national debt. The falling dollar in return actually boosts our material exports and makes home made and home grown products cheaper.

  As a matter of fact, GM and Toyota (for the first time) are now exporting vehicles made here, Buicks to China!

  It also makes it far cheaper for tourists to stay here in the States AND for foreigners to visit the States which brings money into our economy. (NPR - Low Dollar Draws European Shoppers to U.S., Even Minnesota feels benefits)

  The high cost of oil actually drives down the value of the dollar, as MSNBC explains:
  

  (T)here are new forces weighing on the dollar. High oil prices, for one, aren’t helping. Because oil is typically priced in dollars, the rise in the value of each barrel means every dollar buys less oil.

  That has more to do with supply and demand, which is low in part because of the increased demand by China and India. Us demand has dropped because of the increase in price, but China actually subsidizes the price of oil in order to keep it’s economy growing — that would be like removing all gas taxes in the States AND reversing it and paying the oil companies to drop the price. That only increases demand and supersedes the free market.

  Now, one reason supply is down is because the Democrats have blocked exploration and have placed a moratorium on coal-to-oil processing. Chuck Schumer blames President Clinton for 62 cents of the increase for vetoing ANWR drilling in 1995, well not in so many word — he blamed Saudi Arabia for not increasing production by 1 million barrels a day which is what ANWR would be producing today if Clinton hadn’t blocked it. (Remember one of the reasons at the time was that it would take ten years for the oil to reach market!)

  40% of US oil and natural gas is off limits to exploration — 40%! Every objective observer admits that US production is at embarrassing levels considering the current oil market.

  If our national debt were really the problem with the dollar today we would be forced to raise our interest rates (which would increase the value of the dollar as well as it would increase demand) in order to entice investors in government bonds. Currently our rates are lower then Europe.

  As you said, oil impacts everything we do and buy.

  Read the whole MSNBC article linked above, it gives a great rundown.

  Iraq did have chemical weapons.

  Enough said — Read UN Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. Read together these resolutions do the following: Demand that Saddam Hussein leave Kuwait.Demand that Saddam Hussein immediately dispose of all weapons of mass destructionRequire that Saddam Hussein provide ample proof to the United Nations that these weapons have been destroyed and that no active weapons program for such weapons exists.Allow any member nation of the United Nations to take military action against Saddam Hussein if the provisions of these resolutions are not completely complied with.By your own admission Saddam was in violation of the resolutions.

  The Institute For Defense Analysis (pdf file) study released earlier this year showed clear ties between Saddam and terror organizations including Al Qaeda’s parent organization. There is no tie between Saddam and 9/11 as you point out, but the President didn’t say there was. You are believing some spin and lies from your sources and are failing to understand that from day one the war was on ALL terrorists and the countries that support them, it really doesn’t and shouldn’t matter if they are al Qaeda or Islamic Jihad, they are our enemies — and there is no question that Saddam supported terrorists.

  Is the world safer? Terror attacks are down 40% since 2001. That includes Iraq. Bin Laden virtually surrendered in Iraq last week with his tape — changing the focus to Palestine. This despite the fact that he had, as late as March, called Iraq the central battle ground in the War on Terror.

  Iran — The world has discovered that Bush was right to characterize Iran as evil! They are now isolated from the most of the world after it was disclosed that they had lied about their illegal nuclear program for nearly two decades. The UN agrees with the administration and disagrees with Obama. Libia — Gave up their illegal nuclear weapons program as a direct response to the invasion of Iraq.Dubai — Held its first parliamentary election in 2006.
  Saudi Arabia — Held their first nationwide elections since 1960 in 2005.Kuwait — In 2006 Kuwait, which already has an elected parliament, was the first Gulf state to allow women to run and vote.Look, many of the dictators in the rest of the Mideast are in power as a result of the United States and Soviet policy of ignoring the freedom and human rights of the region and settling for stable allies instead. The President stated that, not only was that not working, but it feeds violence and hatred, and goes against Americans commitment to Democracy in the rest of the world.

  Oh and the democracy thing is not a new justification — it was there right from the beginning as I note above but I don’t think you clicked — “AUMF and actually listened to the President in the months before the war.”

  I hope this helps and thanks for the kind words.
  David

• 9. Don R. Gugliuzza  |  May 23rd, 2008 at 9:16 am

  The war was on all terrorists and the countries that support them? Hmmm. Where is our war in Saudi Arabia? How about Lybia? Iran? One study saw ties between Iraq and the (unnamed) terrorists. Our own intelligence agencies didn’t find any ties. In fact, Hussein wasn’t about to play games with thim. He had total and complete control of his country and wouldn’t allow any dissention from any quarter.

  Please don’t even try to waste your time and mine that Saudi Arabia is anywhere close to democracy. Libia? I don’t think so. I look at these elections in the same manner that other dictatorships have had elections. You can vote for anyone on the ballot, but there are only “approved” names on it.

  I am a news junkie. I listened to everything that was on msnbc, fox, cnn and the three major networks. I was caught up in the 911 furvor as was most of the country. I have also continued to pay very close attention to what has occurred since. Because I am an Independent, I’m not particularly interested in which party a person identifies with. So, what I say and think is not filtered through a parties colors. That being said, Whatever credibility Bush had with me was lost when I found out about the secret prisons in Eastern Europe, waterboarding, not being accountable to the Geneva Conventions and a host of other things that I find contrary to what this country is about. When the President can decide to go to war but can’t decide why he’s sending our people into harms way, there is no credibility. I find it very interesting that the leaders who have been hawkish with other people’s children going to war did everything they could to keep from going to war themselves. Such hypocracy.
  No, David. Defend Bush all you want, but I find you as guilty of the things that you find others guilty of. I hope we both live long enough to see what the historians will say about Bush’s presidency. My money is on the fact that they will find him totally incompitent, guity of cronyism, an elitist who has no reguard for those less fortunate than himself or those he surrounds himself with, that he’s a liar. In other words, the worst president this country has ever had.

• 10. Right Of The Star Blog  |  May 24th, 2008 at 3:48 am

  Don, Thanks again for the reply but I have to say it confused me quite a bit. You see, many of your questions were answered in the links I provided. For example, that, “one study,” you mention was the first part of the Pentagon study of the over 600,000 documents from the Iraqi archives. In addition there have been others dating back years, for example CFR from 2005.

  The, “unnamed terrorists,” organizations you mention are actually mentioned in the link.

  I have absolutely no idea where you got the impression that, “our own intelligence agencies didn’t find any ties,” to terrorists — that is patently false!

  About the Saudi’s you said:

  (W)e were going to make the Middle East safe for democracy. You can see how well that has worked. Nothing has changed in Iran, Libya, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or any of the other middle eastern states.

  You were not correct as I demonstrated. Now you don’t feel these are - what - legitimate - or enough - or your just hand waiving because you have decided there is no progress and that’s that! You may not like the Saudi elections, but there were no problems reported by the 1000 international election observers.

  In addition it is good you are an independent because all of the programs you mention were shared with the leaders of both parties in the congress as well as with the intelligence committees. The rendition program that was the forerunner of the CIA prisons was started by President Clinton but the process was changed following the death of some of the prisoners who were in the hands of Afghans. This change also put CIA in charge of the well being of the detainees — preventing death or actual torture by the security services of those foreign countries where rendition occurred.

  If you really support politicians who served, then McCain should be your man! After all not only did he serve, but his son is in Iraq now with another in the Navy. But these are old hand waving arguments that sound good but don’t actually advance the debate in any manner. Serving as President or in Congress often means sending troops into harms way and if only former military are qualified then this years choice is McCain, and the well of future candidates will soon run dry.

  You may not have a party bias, but as we all do you do have biases — you said so yourself. As I have shown here much of your information is outdated and inaccurate yet you continue to put it forth with no documentation but with just your mighty (and I am sure heartfelt and sincere) belief.

  You may consider my correcting of the erroneous information put forth here a defense of the President, but your inaccurate prosecution of the President’s record demanded it.

  As I said, your opinions are heartfelt and sincere. It also appears they are staid, despite the information available. It was not my attempt to change your mind, just provide current and accurate information for comparison.
  David

• 11. Don Gugliuzza  |  June 9th, 2008 at 10:11 pm

  Jon, where are you? Need to hear from the liberal sector.

• 12. Don Gugliuzza  |  June 9th, 2008 at 10:14 pm

  I don’t know what’s going on. I just submitted a long reply and it’s gotten lost. It’s happened several times now. Anyone else having this problem?

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed