drmiler I have B.S. in Finance/Economics and an MBA. I know that reducing the deficit in half means the deficit continues to grow at half the current rate. That does not stop the growing deficit nor do anything to repay the debt and lower the interest required. We will pay the interest until we REPAY the debt. How can we repay something that our policies from the top allow to keep growing? Face i
I agree with your post. The problem is the Bush administration was unwilling the to build a military force that was large enough to succeed in Iraq because the cost was more than the public would have tolerated. Bush found himself at odds with his desire to remove Saddam Hussein and to grant the huge tax cuts to his supporters. We have created a structural deficit whereby we spend far more than we collect in revenue. This is the very same thing
solnac and T Bone4 No Problem. I believe this subject needs more exposure. We have put our young men and women in danger and our President does not seem to understand that their sacrifice is not making America safer. Every day, when the Muslim people see the destruction, death and stories about prisoner mistreatment we dig a deeper hole for ourselves with the worldwide Islamic insurrection that is taking place. I suggest you all take a look
The complaints from our military to the Defense Secretary today are the latest in an unhealthy trend with our military force. Secretary Rumsfeld listened to the complaints from our soldiers in what appeared to be a big surprise for him today. This follows the refusal of a reserve unit to obay orders because they lacked the proper equipment. If also follows the statem
If you destroy something no one controlls it. It no longer exists. War is the final step in diplomacy and when you go to War, diplomacy has failed!
drmiller I thought we went into Iraq to free them. How would your suggestion of destroying that country fit the Bush objective?
The inability for us to control Iraq shows who was correct. Franks folded his tent even though his planning provided for 300,000. He is now faced with the fact that he was wrong to go ahead with less than half the force levels he planned for. If Gen Franks had the guts that the Army CoS had, he would have told Bush he needed the larger number troops to do the job. Bush has NO IDEA WHAT IT TAKES! Look at the first Gulf War. We had almost 500,000 troops
drmiler You Bushies are all the same. Whenever a source is not supportive to Bush they are wrong. Woodward interviewed Franks and the data is a detailed time line of the planning for the Iraq War. Yes Franks did plan on 300,000 troops and Bush used his great military experience to create the mess we are in in Iraq by not allowing the people with the military experience to do their job . I guess the Army CoS does not know what he is doing. W
The truth is the United states did not have a military force, Active and reserve/guard that could field an army large enough to do the job. Bush knew he could not get the support to provide the troop levels in the Franks planning or as recommended by the Army CoS. So he dug down into his vast military experience, gained by his four years as a Air National Guard LT and gave us his "bold vision" which has proven to be a drastic error which neither Bus
Lee776 and drmiler Franks troop levels Read," Plan of Attack", by Bob Woodward. He reviews the planning that Gen Franks did in detail for the Iraq War. There are many references to the troop levels Gen Franks said were needed and that he used in his planning. Just one specific reference is on page 96. He is sighting Op plan 1003 ... After 90 days force levels about 160,000... after 135 days - Phase Four stabilizig and occuping... it ta
If we had gone into Iraq with the 300,000-400,000 troops that Gen Franks and the Fomer Army CoS said were required, we might have been able to establish and maintain order in Iraq. Bush knew more then the Generals and went to war with lass than half the force required. We had 500,000 in the first Gulf War. Mr. Scheur spant 22 years in the CIA working on that part of the world. He was the official in charge of the bin Laden section at the C
I am not an expert about that part of the world. However, the CIA agent ( Mr. Scheur) who is the author of "Imperial Hubris" is. When you look at how extensive the attacks are not only in Iraq but all over the world, I tend to agree with Michael Scheuer, we are not safer from our policy in Iraq or in the Middle- east. We had better hold the elections in Iraq in january 2005, since the security situation later could be even worse. Even if we are able
Yes- we are there and must try and not leave Iraq as bad or worse than when we invaded. The real issue for me is how Bush will handle a similar issue in the future. It is clear Bush does not understand the nature of the danger facing us. I have been reading ," Imperial Hubris" and that clearly documents that the Muslim actions are far more than Terrorism. The Muslims believe they are fighting for their beliefs and their God. They look at bin Ladin
Daiwa If you want some constructive suggestions, please look at my Blog, "Policy changes for a second Bush term."
zObelisk I do not take pleasure in GW looking bad. What drives me is that the policies he is following are, for the most part, not good for the majority of Americans. His social outlook, his view of the debt, trade , his lack of compassion and this belief that if he takes care of the wealthy, all will be better. He plays to a very small segment of the Americans even though he has been able to get the vote of 51% of voters. He is being hand
whoman69 That is what he does not understand. It is his way in domestic policy as well as with foreign policy. History will rank George W. very low and we will pay for his attitude for many years to come. Even his so called supporters will smart from the policies of George W. Bush!
zObelisk It is not because they like Bush. They believe they have a better chance to make a living than where they come from.
Myrrander You make the case as to why the American voters made a BAD choice on November 2, 2004! Helix the II How about solutions to just a few of these issues?
Jeblackstar What question do you want expanded reasons for?
There are social needs such as health care. However, before we can take on any more tax funded programs, we must get our fiscal house in order. I do favor using the tax system for small companies to provide health care for their workers. We must also try and reduce the fraud in the health care system. Americans have paid $6.5 Trillion in interest on the National debt since 1980! Had we not been obligated to pay that interest because we act
The two issues are first, should we have gone into Iraq and second, have we been effective? As to the first question, there are different opinions. However, if the net result is that the government that emerges in Iraq is anti US and supportive of our enemies, we were wrong. As to the second question, Bush was dead wrong. He did not have a workable plan to win the peace and did not have the resourses needed to do the job. That is beca
The Big picture in Iraq is that we have converted an evil Dictatorship into a terrorist operation. It is a measured choice as to which is worse. The real test will be what happens after their election and after we are no longer in Iraq.
Helix the II As with every issue about Bush and the choices he has made- Are they resolving the issues that face America? Bush is saying it is results not the effort that counts. I guess we will have to see the results of things like: What type of government develops in Iraq and what it will mean to us. What will happen to the National Debt and the interest it will cost us all. What will happen with trade an
let me first apologize for the length of this blog. The issues facing America, as we began President Bush's second term, are many and complex. Below are the changes I believe we should consider: Addendum to," Four More For George W?" by Gene P. Abel Spending Review discretionary non defense expenditures including “pork b
Chiprj I understand. I do need to be more careful. Jackmouve Yes, that is the important issue. We need the help of other nations today and the reception Bush is getting in most countries does not help. The idea that he is a strong leader and that is good for America is incorrect. A strong leader going in the wrong direction is not good for those being lead. Saddam was the strong leader of Iraq! Bush can not bring hims
JoeUser Forums