Bush budgets $0 for rebuilding/assisting Afghanistan

[Wayne Grabert]

For all of you who tried to tell me how well the Afghanistan situation was going and how we should trust your spiritual leader Bush to create democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, try telling me that now. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2759789.stm) The United States Congress has stepped in to find nearly $300m in humanitarian and reconstruction funds for Afghanistan after the Bush administration failed to request any money in the latest budget.

One mantra from the Bush administration since it launched its military campaign in Afghanistan 16 months ago has been that the US will not walk away from the Afghan people.

President Bush has even suggested a Marshall plan for the country, and the Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai, will visit Washington later this month.

But in its budget proposals for 2003, the White House did not explicitly ask for any money to aid humanitarian and reconstruction costs in the impoverished country. I told you the son of a bitch was a liar. When are you going to figure it out?

[corplinx]

How much foreign aid does Afghan already get? My guess is under taliban rule that money went for AK-47s and beard wax.

[a_unique_person]

The concern for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq is being shown to be so much hot air. Hundreds of billions can be spent killing, but money is tight when it comes to helping.

[richardm]

I can't read that link at the moment, but I was led to understand that the budget included $100 million to the UN Development programme alone, which is involved in rebuilding Afghanistan. It also asked for $725 million for peacekeeping operations throughout the UN (if they can persuade the generous congress to lift a cap it's put on peacekeeping contributions.) And they're stumping up $299 million dollars to go to the WHO, FAO and ILO.

So while there may not be something in the budget that specifically says "Bunch of Cash for Afghanistan", it's not fair to say that they're doing nothing: they're giving money to the agencies who are actually working to put Afghanistan back on the rails.

[LTC8K6]

Those dirty rotten soldiers! How dare they!


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/211awgsd.asp

In a Dec. 19 briefing, Dr. Joe Collins, the Pentagon's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability Operations, reported that over 200 Civil Affairs troops were on the ground in Afghanistan. Since the war began, 127 schools, 400 wells, and 26 medical clinics have been built. Over $900 million has been spent on such projects and more is on the way.

[Wayne Grabert]

Where is the "Marshall Plan" for Afghanistan? Your attempts to apologize for Bush are belied by the fact that his administration admitted they "forgot" to include such aid, as reported in this article (http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20030228-053446-1186r.htm) from the Republican mouthpiece The Washington Times. (At least they were good enough sports to bury this part of the story in the last two paragraphs of the article.) Promises of a Marshall Plan-like reconstruction plan for Afghanistan never materialized, Peter Singer, a foreign policy fellow with the Brookings Institution in Washington, told United Press International. It is estimated it would take about $20 billion to get Afghanistan on track, but the U.S. financial commitment has fallen far short of that figure, he said. The Bush administration forgot to add funding in its 2004 federal budget proposal to reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, only to have go back and put in $300 million.

Some humanitarian groups fear that what they have seen happen in Afghanistan will happen in Iraq if there is war. Bush said Saturday that rebuilding Iraq would require a "sustained commitment" from many nations, including the United States.
Yes, some token efforts have been made, but Afghanistan remains littered with land mines and without an infrastructure (though it's no surprise that the building of the Trans-Afghanistan gas pipeline, on terms dictated by the US, is proceeding full throttle). Tribal warlords--including those belonging to the Taliban--have retaken the countryside. Bush, once again, is f***ing up.

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, Afghanistan was in much better condition before.

Maybe the Russians will chip in for their damages.

I forgot.

I can't understand why we haven't finished rebuilding Afghanistan yet. After all, it's been a whole year and half since 9/11/01. :rolleyes:

Let's just dump a few billion in there while it's still unstable.

We should be rebuilding North Korea by now!

[subgenius]

What's to worry about? They're going to contract the work out....to Halliburton, et al., and other Cheney/Bush friends who will then get all the oil/pipeline rights.
That's right I'm psychic.;)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Yeah, Afghanistan was in much better condition before.

Maybe the Russians will chip in for their damages.

I forgot.

I can't understand why we haven't finished rebuilding Afghanistan yet. After all, it's been a whole year and half since 9/11/01. :rolleyes:

Let's just dump a few billion in there while it's still unstable.

We should be rebuilding North Korea by now!
Would've been a lot cheaper in the long run to do this beforehand.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by subgenius

Would've been a lot cheaper in the long run to do this beforehand.

You mean like all that money and aid we gave to Saddam Hussein in the 80s?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


You mean like all that money and aid we gave to Saddam Hussein in the 80s?
No.
(But by the way who was president then, I forgot? And who was Secretary of Defense?)

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by subgenius

No.

Then what? We were clearly making nice with Hussein to keep him out of the Soviet camp.

Originally posted by subgenius
(But by the way who was president then, I forgot? And who was Secretary of Defense?)

You're absolutely right. I should have said 70s and 80s.

During the 80s, Ronald Reagan was president and Cap Weinberger was Sec Def. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

MattJ

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Yeah, Afghanistan was in much better condition before.

What is the relevance of what condition Afghanistan was in before? If you recall, after the USSR left in 1989, we abandoned Afghanistan then (under the first Bush). What happened? Brutal tribal warfare followed by the establishment of the Taliban and a haven for al Qaida. You must want history to repeat itself. Well, it is.

And, by the way, there are many Afghanis who believe that they were better off under the Taliban. At least there was a sense of law and order back then. Back then, women wore burqas because they were forced to. Now they wear them to discourage rapists. Yeah, your boy emperor is doing a bang up job in Afghanistan! :rolleyes:

Hey, are you going to still be in Bush's corner when we have several hundred thousand troops in Iraq trying to keep a lid on tribal warfare there while simultaneously fighting off tens of thousands of new al Qaida recruits waging guerilla warfare and then another Korean war breaks out? When we're running $500-billion deficits? When our embassies are under attack and terrorists launch more attacks on our soil and the international cooperation we were depending on breaks down?

[Tony]

Wayne, You're the typical bush basher and American hater.

You say we abandoned afghanistan in '89. Would you have prefered that we sent in an occupying force to secure the country for the purposes of re-construction? Of course not, IF we had done that, you would have been crying "imperialism, imperialism" and "quagmire, quagmire".

[subgenius]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Then what? We were clearly making nice with Hussein to keep him out of the Soviet camp.



You're absolutely right. I should have said 70s and 80s.

During the 80s, Ronald Reagan was president and Cap Weinberger was Sec Def. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

MattJ
1. I gotta think there's a better way than how we did Sodomy Insane.
2. What am I right about? I asked a question.
3. Then wasn't it Bush and Cheney?

[LTC8K6]

I would pretty much always be in my country's corner Wayne.

(No, that doesn't include every situation you can dream up.)

Yep, we've made mistakes in the past. No doubt about it.

So what? Who hasn't?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I would pretty much always be in my country's corner Wayne.

(No, that doesn't include every situation you can dream up.)

Yep, we've made mistakes in the past. No doubt about it.

So what? Who hasn't? There's a difference between being in your country's corner and being in Bush's. I'd say the two are mutually exclusive. And so you are indifferent to mistakes and don't mind repeating them. Isn't that the definition of a fool?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Tony
Wayne, You're the typical bush basher and American hater.

You say we abandoned afghanistan in '89. Would you have prefered that we sent in an occupying force to secure the country for the purposes of re-construction? Of course not, IF we had done that, you would have been crying "imperialism, imperialism" and "quagmire, quagmire".
Listen, *******, you want to know the definition of an America hater? Try this: Republican. You damned Republicans have been making war on America and all it stands for. You've delegitimized our institutions, shredded the constitution and ruined our reputation. You launched a purely partisan impeachment investigation because you didn't think Americans had the right to choose their president. You rigged an election in Florida and rigged a Supreme Court decision that ignored the constitution because you didn't think Americans had the right to choose their president. You dismantle or otherwise undermine environmental protection because you don't believe in corporate responsibility. You promote faith-based initiatives, destroy civil liberties, remove due process, and nominate repugnant extremists for judges because you're just a bunch of authoritarian a-holes with contempt for democracy.

What could we have done in '89? Try giving assistance while we had goodwill in the county, you dumbass. The thought never even crossed your tiny, narrow mind.

You dish it out, prick, and I'll shove it right back!

Edited to add: And while we're deciding who is typical of what, you're the typical narrow minded, ignorant, conservative red neck who responds to any opinion he hears with "America hater" and "you're the typical ____."

[Tony]

Listen, *******, you want to know the definition of an America hater? Try this: Republican. You damned Republicans have been making war on America and all it stands for. You've delegitimized our institutions, shredded the constitution and ruined our reputation. You launched a purely partisan impeachment investigation because you didn't think Americans had the right to choose their president. You rigged an election in Florida and rigged a Supreme Court decision that ignored the constitution because you didn't think Americans had the right to choose their president. You dismantle or otherwise undermine environmental protection because you don't believe in corporate responsibility. You promote faith-based initiatives, destroy civil liberties, remove due process, and nominate repugnant extremists for judges because you're just a bunch of authoritarian a-holes with contempt for democracy.


Alas, the bigoted and ignorant remarks of a fanatic.



What could we have done in '89? Try giving assistance while we had goodwill in the county, you dumbass. The thought never even crossed your tiny, narrow mind.

Sorta like what we are doing now?

You dish it out, prick, and I'll shove it right back!

Im sorry, I dont have sex with men. Im sure you could find plenty of men willing to let you "shove it right back".

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Tony
Alas, the bigoted and ignorant remarks of a fanatic. Yes, I read your post.

[LTC8K6]

And so you are indifferent to mistakes and don't mind repeating them.

I don't agree that we are repeating any mistakes, Wayne.

Why the leading statements?

Yes, I have stopped kicking my dog. ;)

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by LTC8K6


I don't agree that we are repeating any mistakes, Wayne.

Why the leading statements?

Yes, I have stopped kicking my dog. ;) Glad to hear about the dog! :cool:

The point of the thread is that we are repeating mistakes. We are not coming through with our promises to Afghanistan. We can spend hundreds of billions creating new threats by making war on a country that doesn't even pose a realistic threat to us, yet the best we can muster to stabilize Afghanistan is $300-million. And that had to be added in at the last minute because the Bush League Administration (BLA) "forgot." It's so preoccupied with Iraq that it has put al Qaida on the backburner (and that is the status despite a significant arrest in Pakistan recently), it has forgotten about Afghanistan and it ignores North Korea. Meanwhile, it is trying to destroy NATO and the UN. I think the priorities of the BLA are completely out of whack.

You can be in your country's corner and still criticize the policies of the BLA. I think it is odd that a question about being in Bush's corner got interpreted by you as a question about being in the country's corner. It sounds like you believe you should be unconditionally supportive of Bush. Did you feel that way when Clinton was President? I didn't.

[Wayne Grabert]

Speaking of money, Iraq's oil revenues won't pay for reconstruction, experts say. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030307/ap_wo_en_ge/eu_gen_iraq_paying_to_rebuild_2) Despite Iraq (news - web sites)'s enormous oil reserves, experts say money from the sale of Iraqi crude wouldn't cover the costs of rebuilding the country's power plants, bridges and other vital infrastructure after a war with the United States.

Twelve years of U.N. economic sanctions have crippled Iraq's oil industry, and any postwar government would need several years and billions of dollars to restore production to what it was in 1990. At the same time, oil prices are expected to fall after any U.S.-led attack, making it harder for Iraq to boost revenues from its No. 1 export, several analysts and energy specialists said.

They challenged a view, widely held among some U.S. officials, that Iraqi oil resources could in themselves generate enough cash to rehabilitate Iraq's economy and thereby create the foundation for a viable, pro-American government in Baghdad.

"There's an over-inflated notion in Washington about how large Iraqi oil revenues are and a very skewed notion about how much it's going to cost to rebuild the country. ... The numbers don't add up," said Raad Alkadiri of The Petroleum Finance Company, a Washington consultancy. So there will be even less money to go around for Afghanistan. Or perhaps we'll just let Iraq go without as well.

[subgenius]

Ho ho ho, I get the million dollar prize (close enough):

Halliburton wins contract on Iraq oil firefighting
Reuters, 03.06.03, 8:31 PM ET

HOUSTON, March 6 (Reuters) - A Halliburton Co. (nyse: HAL - news - people) subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) has won the contract to oversee any firefighting operations at Iraqi oilfields after any U.S.-led invasion, a Defense Department source said on Thursday.
http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/newswire/2003/03/06/rtr900049.html
Just one of many contracts to be awarded by that gang of thieves.
If Enron were still around........

[subgenius]

Vice President Dick Cheney served as Halliburton's chief executive officer from 1995 to 2000,
http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/newswire/2003/03/06/rtr900049.html
Nothing to see here, move along.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony
Wayne, You're the typical bush basher and American hater.

You say we abandoned afghanistan in '89. Would you have prefered that we sent in an occupying force to secure the country for the purposes of re-construction? Of course not, IF we had done that, you would have been crying "imperialism, imperialism" and "quagmire, quagmire".

strawman

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


strawman

How?

I, in no way misrepresented his position. He implied that abandoning afghanistan in '89 was the wrong thing (i agree). I, then went on to assert that if we had helped in the recontruction he would have denounced our actions as being imperialistic. He didnt deny my assertion.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Tony


How?

I, in no way misrepresented his position. He implied that abandoning afghanistan in '89 was the wrong thing (i agree). I, then went on to assert that if we had helped in the recontruction he would have denounced our actions as being imperialistic. He didnt deny my assertion.
Consider them denied. I also stated in my reply that we should have helped in the reconstruction and in clearing the country of land mines. You also constructed a straw man with your juvenile "America hater" comment. I am also not a "typical" Bush basher or typical anything else, though I do think Bush is the worst president in US history. I bash him because the lying moron deserves it.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I bash him because the lying moron deserves it.

You are really Helen Thomas, aren't you?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert


Edited to add: And while we're deciding who is typical of what, you're the typical narrow minded, ignorant, conservative red neck who responds to any opinion he hears with "America hater" and "you're the typical ____."


So, since you cant refute my argument with logic, you resort to childish name calling? I would expect this behaviour in a jr. high class room, not on a board dedicated to science and intelligent debate. If you cant behave like a mature adult, I suggest you go to www.3rdgrade.com .

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx


You are really Helen Thomas, aren't you?
Try an original thought sometimes.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius

Try an original thought sometimes.

Makes my head hurt.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

You also constructed a straw man with your juvenile "America hater" comment. I am also not a "typical" Bush basher or typical


That was mostly hyperbolic, I honestly didnt think you would get that offended. I guess I stuck a nerve, sorry. http://www.forum.scullyspost.com/images/smilies/beerchug.gif

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Tony



That was mostly hyperbolic, I honestly didnt think you would get that offended. I guess I stuck a nerve, sorry. http://www.forum.scullyspost.com/images/smilies/beerchug.gif Apology accepted.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by corplinx


You are really Helen Thomas, aren't you? No, but here is further evidence (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20030308/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_diplomacy) of the extent to which the Bush League Administration (BLA) will lie: In their reports Friday, the chief weapons inspectors gave generally upbeat assessments of Iraqi cooperation while criticizing the United States and some of the intelligence it has provided.

Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency bluntly said his teams have determined that U.S. information claiming that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Niger was based on forged documents.

He also dismissed U.S. arguments that aluminum tubes the Iraqis had tried to import were for a revived nuclear program. I suspect the accusation that the BLA forged evidence is true, given its track record and the fact that El Baradei's determination was not contested. Remember the ridiculous claim that the audio tape on which bin Laden called Hussein an infidel was proof that bin Laden and Hussein were linked? It's just lie after lie after lie. As the old saying goes, "truth is the first casualty of war."

[subgenius]

UNITED NATIONS -- On the eve of a possible war in Iraq, a question looms increasingly large: If U.S. intelligence is so good, why are United Nations experts still unable to confirm whether Saddam Hussein is actively concealing and producing illegal weapons?
...
Bush administration officials insist that they are providing all relevant information to the U.N. teams. But some officials privately acknowledge that the quality and quantity of intelligence are thin.
...
"We have some information, not a lot," said one U.S. official familiar with the CIA's daily "packages" of material it delivers to a Canadian official at the U.N. who handles intelligence issues for Blix.
...
The issue spilled into Congress this week when Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) accused the administration of deliberately withholding information on suspected Iraqi weapons facilities from Blix's teams.

Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the inspectors have been given "only a small fraction" of the sites that appear on classified lists circulated in the intelligence community.

He warned of a "nightmare scenario" if U.S. troops are attacked with weapons of mass destruction from sites that could have been inspected had the CIA shared information.

Levin also accused the White House of seeking to undermine the inspection process, saying the administration has withheld data in part "because they genuinely believe the inspections were useless and said so from the beginning."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-intel8mar08,1,1716906.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dheadl ines

This is the "Duh" question of the whole mess: Got proof or not? If so why are they playing hide the salami with the inspectors, to the great detriment of our troops? Makes no sense to me.
Someone 'splain it to me.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Consider them denied. I also stated in my reply that we should have helped in the reconstruction and in clearing the country of land mines. You also constructed a straw man with your juvenile "America hater" comment. I am also not a "typical" Bush basher or typical anything else, though I do think Bush is the worst president in US history. I bash him because the lying moron deserves it.

What about James Buchanan? :p

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

What is the relevance of what condition Afghanistan was in before? If you recall, after the USSR left in 1989, we abandoned Afghanistan then (under the first Bush). What happened? Brutal tribal warfare followed by the establishment of the Taliban and a haven for al Qaida. You must want history to repeat itself. Well, it is.

And, by the way, there are many Afghanis who believe that they were better off under the Taliban. At least there was a sense of law and order back then. Back then, women wore burqas because they were forced to. Now they wear them to discourage rapists. Yeah, your boy emperor is doing a bang up job in Afghanistan! :rolleyes:

Hey, are you going to still be in Bush's corner when we have several hundred thousand troops in Iraq trying to keep a lid on tribal warfare there while simultaneously fighting off tens of thousands of new al Qaida recruits waging guerilla warfare and then another Korean war breaks out? When we're running $500-billion deficits? When our embassies are under attack and terrorists launch more attacks on our soil and the international cooperation we were depending on breaks down?

Yes I agree the law and order under the Taliban was above reproach.

I mean they really cracked down on fornication and adultery. I think we should all institute stoning for these crimes for woman. The Taliban didn't seem to think it could prove many cases against men.

Bury women up till their waists. Throw large rocks at their heads until they burst open while shouting "Allah Akbar" (which means "God is great!")

Come on Wayne...
Don't you think your intense hatred of Bush might be making you lose balance a little here? I mean you blame him for N.K. even. (Never the fault of the f---ed up regime in Pyoungyang.)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Mike B.


What about James Buchanan? :p

Tall, stately, stiffly formal in the high stock he wore around his jowls, James Buchanan was the only President who never married.

Presiding over a rapidly dividing Nation, Buchanan grasped inadequately the political realities of the time.
...
In March 1861 he retired to his Pennsylvania home Wheatland--where he died seven years later--leaving his successor to resolve the frightful issue facing the Nation.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jb15.html

Never married. The White House hostess was his niece Harriet Lane.

Sounds like our first openly gay president.

He definitely was bad, although learned (and a darn pretty man). And Dubya is worse because of his lack of intellect and malicious attacks on the middle class, the economy and constitutional rights.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Yes I agree the law and order under the Taliban was above reproach.

I mean they really cracked down on fornication and adultery. I think we should all institute stoning for these crimes for woman. The Taliban didn't seem to think it could prove many cases against men.

Bury women up till their waists. Throw large rocks at their heads until they burst open while shouting "Allah Akbar" (which means "God is great!")

Come on Wayne...
Don't you think your intense hatred of Bush might be making you lose balance a little here? I mean you blame him for N.K. even. (Never the fault of the f---ed up regime in Pyoungyang.) No, I am not losing balance. You are constructing a straw man. I never said the Taliban regime or its version of law and order were above reproach. Theirs was an extremely repressive and brutal regime. And, by the way, I supported going to war against it. I pointed out that Afghanistan, far from being a success story, is so messed up that some Afghanis believe that they were better off under the Taliban. You interpreted that as a defense of the Taliban. That was not a logical deduction. I was criticizing how poorly Bush is handling the after-war situation, not praising what was there before. Get it?

Here is how Bush is responsible for mishandling the Korean situation. Whatever nuclear weapons development NK was engaging in before 2001 was likely limited to research. It was at least low level enough that the CIA and the NSA didn't know about it. Shortly after Bush became president, our intelligence apparatus began picking up indications that NK may be resuming its nuclear program. What might have caused NK to pick up the pace? GWB made it loudly known that he had no interest in pursuing Korean reconciliation as had been going on under Clinton and that Powell had said we would continue. (Powell was reprimanded for making that remark.) GWB snubbed the South Korean president when he visited Washington early in GWB's presidency. GWB's only public position on Korea was that he "loathed Kim Jong Il."

After the stupid "axis of evil" speech, the indicators of NK's nuclear activity heated up greatly and the CIA and NSA became convinced that something was indeed up. It was. (My source for the last two paragraphs, starting at "Shortly after," was a CNN report from two weeks ago.)

North Korea has been pleading for direct talks with the US. The US refuses to deal with NK directly. NK is offering to scrap its nuclear program, restore monitoring, plus destroy its large stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in exchange for an agreement from the United States not to attack it. What is likely to happen instead is that another Korean war will break out. Why? Because Kim Jong Il is not willing to wait his turn on the "axis of evil" hit list. We either deal with him now, or he will use our deep involvement in an Iraqi occupation to go to war with us while we have one hand tied behind our backs.

Do I blame GWB for there being a communist government in NK? No, I blame him for failing to properly deal with the threat.

[Mike B.]

Yes but Subgenius,

Buchanan's "learned" Presidency induced him to such inane legalisms as "No state has a legal right to seceede, yet the Federal Government has no right to stop them."

He also campaigned hard for his Vice-President in 1860. John Breckenridge's platform was a Federal Slave Code for the territories, which meant slavery would have to expand into the territories of the US whether the people wanted it or not.

He also thought the Dred Scott Decision which said, the "negro has no rights the white man is bound to respect" was the final word on the subject and should end all the "negro agitation."

If you thought Trent Lott was a bad man with bad hair...

W's attack on the middle class seems downright moderate.

I mean come on guys you are so blinded by hatred of W that you have lost all perspective...

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Mike B.
I mean come on guys you are so blinded by hatred of W that you have lost all perspective...

Hear hear. Remember those people who used to be so mad that they new Clinton was a lying, raping, murdering, drug using, drug traffiking, disgrace to the oval office? The thing that frustrated them most was that nobody seemed to realize it but them.

Now you have people going on about the war mongering, lying, moron, coke head, dui getting, vote stealing Bush in much the same fashion. The difference? "ITS ALL TRUE"

Oh how the tables have turned turned. :p

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Mike B.
I mean come on guys you are so blinded by hatred of W that you have lost all perspective... Perhaps you are blind.

In just two years, Bush has taken the country from huge, record surpluses to huge, record deficits--and the worse is yet to come.

Bush squandered the largest reserve of international pro-American goodwill since WWII and in a matter of months transformed it into the greatest level of anti-American sentiment in history.

We are headed for a double-dip recession.

Bush has made war against civil liberties and due process. His people have floated the idea of discarding the Posse Comitatus Act. He is pushing faith-based initiatives. Is the goal a theocratic police state?

Bush is embarking on a radical foreign policy of "pre-emptive war," starting with a country that poses no realistic threat to us. He is going to involve us in a quagmire that is going to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, kill thousands of people, inflame hatred against us, fuel terrorism against us, and may have us fighting three wars at once: against Iraq, al Qaida and North Korea.

He has united the world against us. The US is now seen as a rogue state that is too powerful for the world's good. The US is seen as a bully that is bent on global hegemony. Our days as a superpower are numbered. We are overreaching.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

He has united the world against us. The US is now seen as a rogue state that is too powerful for the world's good. The US is seen as a bully that is bent on global hegemony. Our days as a superpower are numbered. We are overreaching.

Well written, but unnecessarily negative. The world is certainly not 'united' against the US in the way that I think you mean it. Criticism of American foreign policy is just not the same thing.

Losing your superpower status is perhaps not so bad. You can then be just another small, opinionated nation that criticizes a great deal but contributes very little.

The US reacted to September 11th with amazing restraint, both domestically and abroad. Historically speaking, nations experiencing similar types of attacks have lashed out savagely. I think most people are grateful that the US is the world's superpower, even if they don't like to admit it.

Wayne, I also respectfully suggest that you don't really understand what the word 'imperial' means. Try reading a history of the 19th century.

Wow! I'm feeling very pro-American today. I'll have to see the doctor if this carries on.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by LucyR

Wayne, I also respectfully suggest that you don't really understand what the word 'imperial' means. Try reading a history of the 19th century.

I'm very aware of what it means. The United States is in pursuit of a new form of empire--and it is one that will undermine us economically. The costs of global hegemony will be (as they already are, but it'll get worse) ever more costly military bases all over the world. We already have bases in dozens of countries around the world.

For an introduction to what I'm talking about, try reading this (http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html) and this. (http://www.sundayherald.com/27735) As Pat Buchanan has so eloquently put it, we're supposed to be a republic, not an empire. (There was a time when I didn't think I'd ever be on the same side of an issue as Buchanan, but there you have it.)

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I'm very aware of what it means. The United States is in pursuit of a new form of empire--and it is one that will undermine us economically. The costs of global hegemony will be (as they already are, but it'll get worse) ever more costly military bases all over the world. We already have bases in dozens of countries around the world.


The US put a man on the moon and also fought the Vietnam war during roughly the same period. A few crummy bases will not undermine you economically.

Anyway, this is a rather benign form of imperialism. I imagine most of the countries in question are happy to have US military bases on their soil.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Perhaps you are blind.Paul succeeded! (sorry)

In just two years, Bush has taken the country from huge, record surpluses to huge, record deficits--and the worse is yet to come.I do love how the president gets credit or blame for the economy. Like he has some magical power to influence the business decisions of millions of companies and hundreds of millions of consumers through his amazing telepathic abilities (hehe, Bush with telepathy, who'd ever notice? :D)

Anyway, I rather think the tech bubble bursting is far more immediately responsible for the current economic situation. And you can't blame that one on Bush, it has nothing to do with oil. ;)

Bush squandered the largest reserve of international pro-American goodwill since WWII and in a matter of months transformed it into the greatest level of anti-American sentiment in history.It's kind of hard to gauge while sitting in the midwest, but I suspect the current anti-American sentiment is more restrained than the fun we had in the 70s with Americans being the hostages of choice. Of course it's even harder to gauge sentiment from a decade which I missed most of... not having been born yet. But there you go, kind of hard to compare.

We are headed for a double-dip recession.Woot! More psychic ability! (not that you're necessarily wrong, of course)

Bush has made war against civil liberties and due process. His people have floated the idea of discarding the Posse Comitatus Act. He is pushing faith-based initiatives. Is the goal a theocratic police state?Oh gosh I hope so, I've always had a thing for jackboots and crosses. No, wait, that was the caffeine talking.

Bush is embarking on a radical foreign policy of "pre-emptive war," starting with a country that poses no realistic threat to us. He is going to involve us in a quagmire that is going to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, kill thousands of people, inflame hatred against us, fuel terrorism against us, and may have us fighting three wars at once: against Iraq, al Qaida and North Korea.Yeah, I think he's great. Doesn't everyone?

He has united the world against us. The US is now seen as a rogue state that is too powerful for the world's good. The US is seen as a bully that is bent on global hegemony. Our days as a superpower are numbered. We are overreaching. Yup, looks good from here, too.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
I do love how the president gets credit or blame for the economy. Like he has some magical power to influence the business decisions of millions of companies and hundreds of millions of consumers through his amazing telepathic abilities (hehe, Bush with telepathy, who'd ever notice? :D)

Anyway, I rather think the tech bubble bursting is far more immediately responsible for the current economic situation. And you can't blame that one on Bush, it has nothing to do with oil. ;)

While it is true that presidents get more credit and more blame than they deserve for the state of the economy, fiscal policy has consequences--especially on government revenues.

The tech bubble is responsible for the ups and downs of the NASDAQ index. The economy as a whole is affected by all sectors.

If you've been paying attention to the economic news, There were over 300,000 layoffs last month. Economists are blaming war fears and the effects on the price of oil for much of the latest retraction of the economy. Bush gets the blame for that, not the tech bubble.

Here, for your edification. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=668&ncid=749&e=6&u=/ap/20030307/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy)
Job Cuts Push Unemployment to 5.8 Percent
Fri Mar 7, 5:56 PM ET

By LEIGH STROPE, AP Labor Writer

WASHINGTON - Businesses unexpectedly slashed more than 300,000 jobs last month in the largest cuts since the terrorist attacks, pushing the unemployment rate higher as the nation moved closer to war.

Economists warned that February's widespread job losses signal a frail economy in danger of toppling back into recession.

The civilian jobless rate reached 5.8 percent, up a tenth of a percentage point from January, the Labor Department (news - web sites) reported Friday.

Economists had predicted the modest rise, but they were blindsided by the hemorrhaging of jobs that wiped out large hiring gains in January.

"It's a very dark report," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com. "The economy is flat at best and arguably is sliding back into recession."

(snip)

Worries about war, coupled with last month's terror alert increase and harsh winter weather, all contributed to February's jobs loss of 308,000, economists said. Another possible factor was the activation of military reservists, though Labor Department officials were unable to quantify the impact.

It was the biggest monthly decline since November 2001, when companies purged 327,000 from their payrolls following the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon (news - web sites). Apart from the attacks, the cuts were the largest since January 1982.

[LucyR]

Wayne,

Why don't you respond to my post? If it's complete pigswill please put me right.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
While it is true that presidents get more credit and more blame than they deserve for the state of the economy, fiscal policy has consequences--especially on government revenues.Indeed, and Bush is quite happily expanding spending on the military while trying to make new and interesting headway into reducing taxes.

The tech bubble is responsible for the ups and downs of the NASDAQ index. The economy as a whole is affected by all sectors.Have you any idea the amount of money that was pissed away by the tech bubble? It's pretty well the primary cause of the initial recession. Contributing factors after the fact (i.e. Bush) have not likely helped the situation much, though I would not care to speculate on what would have helped.

If you've been paying attention to the economic news, There were over 300,000 layoffs last month. Economists are blaming war fears and the effects on the price of oil for much of the latest retraction of the economy. Bush gets the blame for that, not the tech bubble.Entirely true, the tech bubble has already burst, exploded, puked, and been generally over for about a year. I work at a telecom (among other things) company and we're (according to management, anyway) pretty much done with layoffs and are again trying to get back to making money again. Tech bubble has pretty well corrected itself by now.

Worries about war, coupled with last month's terror alert increase and harsh winter weather, all contributed to February's jobs loss of 308,000, economists said. Another possible factor was the activation of military reservists, though Labor Department officials were unable to quantify the impact.
You know, I've always suspected the weather was out to get us. ;)
(in case you're wondering, I'm not seriously trying to debate. Even less seriously than usual, for that matter. Ever work a week that's so long and difficult that at the end of it you feel giddy with relief that it's over? It's kind of like hitting yourself on the head with a hammer. If feels so good when you stop. :D)

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by LucyR
Wayne,

Why don't you respond to my post? If it's complete pigswill please put me right. Sorry, but I didn't know you wanted a response. Yes, there are some countries who welcome the free ride when they don't have to pay for their own defense. Whether some of them will consider the United States no longer worth trusting remains to be seen. Other countries welcome the money they get from us from the lease of land for the base.

I see it all as a bad idea for two reasons: (1) it is a drain on our treasury, and that includes my pockets; (2) the hegemons in Washington want to involve us in a series of wars to remake the world the way they see fit.

Did you read the two links I provided? If not, then don't respond.

[American]

You've convinced everyone who doubted you Wayne. We were all wrong until you came along. I think it was your language that did it, calling Bush a son of a bitch. Really insightful.

I hate Bush now because of you. Mission accomplished. So you can stop flooding the board daily with the same old topic of why we should hate the president.

However, I still I hate you more than Bush - that much hasn't changed! And I don't even know you!!

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by American
However, I still I hate you more than Bush - that much hasn't changed! And I don't even know you!! If you knew me, you wouldn't hate me--unless you were a complete a-hole. And if you'd open your mind, you'd realize that Bush is a lying plutocrat who bases his decisions on how they will affect the elections and the wealth of his class. And I won't go away to please you. Whenever I feel like it, I'll continue to post the truth, no matter how unpleasant you may think the truth is.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
If you knew me, you wouldn't hate me--unless you were a complete a-hole.Odd, most people who know me hate me. I wonder if they're all 'a-holes' :D
And if you'd open your mind, Quaid! Open your mind!you'd realize that Bush is a lying plutocrat He's in charge of PLUTO FOR CHISSAKES! who bases his decisions on how they will affect the elections and the wealth of his class. F***ing Yalies!! That's kind of an abuse of the concept of quoting, but I don't care. :D
And I won't go away to please you.He'll stay right here and please you. Now drop trou.
Whenever I feel like it,Yup, definately a man.
I'll continue to post the truth, no matter how unpleasant you may think the truth is. HE SHALL SMITE YOU WITH HIS FLAMING SWORD OF TRUTH! Ouch, 2 PB references in one thread. I think I sprained something.

Wayne, do you usually spend your Saturday nights ranting about Bush? (The president, that is.) I mean, ranting the rest of the week is perfectly ok, but Saturday night? That's just odd. :D

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Perhaps you are blind.

In just two years, Bush has taken the country from huge, record surpluses to huge, record deficits--and the worse is yet to come.


Wayne, I think you should seriously reconsider this. As someone who works in high tech, I remember all the companies going under during the dot-bust of 1999. Back then we were told the economy was good. Unfortunately, it was a lie. I knew better, I was in the thick of a massive shakeup in the high tech sector. I was watching dot coms fold followed by the hosting companies that got money from them. All of a sudden EMC, Sun, and Dell are selling less computers. I was watching a chain reaction take place that wound up affecting the whole economy. The worst part is, the government gave us bad numbers during 1999 and companies kept spening instead of packing up their acorns for winter.

Now, to blame Bush for a downturn that started during another president is ludicrous. To blame that previous president for the reckless venture capital era is also ludicrous. To blame any one man for an economy as globally attached as ours is ludicrous.

In other words, you are spewing nonsense that points you out as a bush hater with his blinders on. Your contempt for the facts betrays you. You can't even get the deficit right. The deficit is a much lower percentage of GDP than it was even during the 1980s.

Wake up, smell the coffee, and come join the rest of us in reality. We can have a much more positive discussion if you do.

[Mike B.]

Here is the thing...

I didn't vote for Bush. I voted for Gore. I disagree strongly with Bush's tax cut plan especially when the government needs money desperately now. And at the risk of engaging in class warfare, I don't think a tax cut for the rich is needed in war time.

However,

I strongly object to Wayne's view that Bush is evil incarnate.

No Wayne North Korea is not Bush's fault. The regime is f-cked up and has been for decades. It has been building missles for years and trying to develop nukes for years. All of this far predates Bush. A cursory view of the history on the Korean peninsula would show this, but in your blind hatred of Bush you are ready to blame everything and all on him and never stopped to examine this.

You seem to be engaging in the same mindless hatred the Clinton bashers used to use. Every problem in the world is his fault...It was silly then, and this is just as silly.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
And if you'd open your mind, you'd realize that Bush is a lying plutocrat who bases his decisions on how they will affect the elections and the wealth of his class.Oh, I get it, he is starting an unpopular war because it will help him in an election.

Walt

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
Oh, I get it, he is starting an unpopular war because it will help him in an election.

Walt You haven't paid attention to the polls, have you, Walt? Close to 60% of Americans support using force against Iraq. Much of that support is soft, conditional and based on misinformation (a belief that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks). You also were not paying attention last year when it came out how Karl Rove identified war as a winning strategy for Republicans for the next election.

Pay attention.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Mike B.
I strongly object to Wayne's view that Bush is evil incarnate.

your blind hatred of Bush you are ready to blame everything and all on him and never stopped to examine this.

You seem to be engaging in the same mindless hatred the Clinton bashers used to use. Every problem in the world is his fault...It was silly then, and this is just as silly. More of the same from you, Mike. You misrepresent me and the basis for my opinions so that you can ignore them. It's obvious that you are ignoring what I am saying or your reading comprehension needs some work. Go back and read my last post. I took the trouble to explain to you how Bush is mishandling the Korean situation and how his boneheaded foreign policy created the current crisis.

I am aware that North Korea has a Stalinist regime, an unstable leader and that they have been working on developing long-range missiles for many years. I even know without having to look it up that they quit test firing missiles for five years (1993-1998). However, the problem didn't turn into a crisis until Bush got into the White House, and, yes, he is to blame. That is why he is so disliked in South Korea.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by corplinx

In other words, you are spewing nonsense that points you out as a bush hater with his blinders on. Your contempt for the facts betrays you. You can't even get the deficit right. The deficit is a much lower percentage of GDP than it was even during the 1980s.

Wake up, smell the coffee, and come join the rest of us in reality. We can have a much more positive discussion if you do.
We'd have a more positive discussion if you'd quit focusing your attention on what you presume to be my motivations and quit substituting arguments with insults.

In terms of nominal dollars, the deficits we are now running are greater than any in history. Bush's own projected deficit for the current fiscal year are $315-billion. That does not even include the costs of war! So what are we really looking at? $400-billion? $500-billion? More? Depends. How many wars are we going to be fighting? Iraq seems like a sure bet. North Korea may be another.

In terms of percentage of GDP, our biggest deficits were during World War II. So we're running deficits, perhaps optimistically estimated to be in excess of $300-billion without war. Hey, the neoconservatives keep saying we need to fight "World War IV" (the Cold War being WW III in their vernacular). So we may yet set a new record in that regard as well.

[Wayne Grabert]

For some of you:

Lately I have not participated much on this board, but the last couple days have been an exception. I did not plan on spending so much time today on this crap.

I returned to the board because news coming out recently has validated arguments I have made in the past that others derided.

--I argued that an occupation of Iraq would be met by a guerilla war waged by al Qaida. When I made this point in the past giving well reasoned arguments, some of you made snide comments about psychic predictions or made stupid demands for "proof" that it would happen. Well, there is a difference between psychic predictions and well-reasoned, educated predictions, but that distinction is too sophisticated for some of you so-called skeptics to make. Now the news is that the CIA has been gathering intelligence that what I claimed would happen is indeed what terrorist groups are planning. So I started a thread to enlighten you.

--I argued that Afghanistan was being ignored in order to focus on Iraq. I had it all wrong, some of you argued, and even continue to argue in the face of sound evidence that I was right. Completely leaving Afghanistan out of the budget and then scrambling to come up with a paltry $300-million at the last minute pretty much makes my case all by itself. So I started a thread to enlighten you.

Since you can't refute the evidence I have presented to validate my arguments, some of you have had the intellectual dishonesty to instead do such things as:

--Construct strawman arguments to misrepresent me, such as sarcastic drivel about how the Taliban was above reproach.

--Attack me personally as an "America hater."

--Dismiss my arguments by questioning my motives. I am called a Bush basher, am said to be all-consumed with hatred for Bush, am blinded by hatred for Bush, am compared to the Clinton haters, etc. If this is so, then why am I the one constructing arguments and presenting evidence and you are not? Maybe you're blinded by allegiance to a politician?

Bush has earned my contempt with his policies and his lying (which I have documented on this and other threads). I present my reasons for that contempt. The guy isn't just mistaken; he lies. He pursues foolish, reckless policies and lies to justify them. He is beholden to special interests, governs in secret, attacks civil liberties, takes a sledge hammer to the wall of separation between church and state, etc. That is why he earns my contempt, not because I have prejudice against him. It's his policies, not his DUI arrest or his coke snorting or any of that other drek that you bring up to forge a comparison between me and the Clinton haters.

So I am calling your bluff. If you can't refute my arguments, then just shut the f**k up and quit wasting my time.

I may often disagree with RandFan or Rikzilla or Aerocontrols, but I still respect them for making thoughtful arguments and making good points at times. (Though the truth is RandFan, Rik and I have gotten on each others nerves at times. Still, we can have an intelligent exchange of views.) I mention this because if I don't you'll just write off my criticisms as being from someone who can't tolerate a difference of opinion. Well, that would be another strawman. No, what I have trouble with is intellectual dishonesty.

What I have learned, thanks to this board, is that some so-called skeptics can be just as closeminded and gullible as the religious and paranornal sets. Thank you for that insight.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

We'd have a more positive discussion if you'd quit focusing your attention on what you presume to be my motivations and quit substituting arguments with insults.


I didn't substantiate anything with an insult. If you think that a slight in a tagline is evidence I am submitting then let me assure you that I did not intend that.

FACT: the deficit is proportionally much smaller than it was in the 80s

FACT: in raw dollar amounts it is higher than it has been in the past

Now, I would submit the number you have to worry about is the ratio of GDP. Instead, you focus on the raw dollar amount and ring the alarm bells.

Now, you have already announced that you think Bush is lying moron. I simply surmised (I could be wrong) that the reason you picked the raw dollar amount to focus on was because of your agenda of making Bush look bad. Now, just because you want to make someone want to look bad does not mean your arguements are flawed. I just think your interpretation of data is flawed by that bias.

Currently, we are in a worldwide economic downturn. Our deficit is proportionally the smallest of the world's seven largest economies. However, if the raw dollar amount is higher I have a feeling you would claim that our deficit is larger based on a faulty measure.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Since you can't refute the evidence I have presented to validate my arguments, some of you have had the intellectual dishonesty to instead do such things as:


I invalidated something you said. You brushed it off because I added at the end that you should join us in the real world. I think that you have reached the position of digging in and ignoring anything that might disprove your view of things. If someone like me invalidates something you say with facts, then mentions that perhaps the reason you interpreted data incorrectly was because of a bias you have made known, you argue against the latter and ignore the former.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by corplinx


I invalidated something you said. You brushed it off because I added at the end that you should join us in the real world. I think that you have reached the position of digging in and ignoring anything that might disprove your view of things. If someone like me invalidates something you say with facts, then mentions that perhaps the reason you interpreted data incorrectly was because of a bias you have made known, you argue against the latter and ignore the former.
I made the following point:

"In just two years, Bush has taken the country from huge, record surpluses to huge, record deficits--and the worse is yet to come."

The point is Bush's midas touch in reverse. What I stated was factual. In 2000 the budget surplus was around $230-billion. Bush's own projection for this fiscal year is a deficit of $315-billion and that doesn't even include the costs of war and may be based on overly optimistic projections of economic performance. Even if it were to prove accurate, its a reversal of fortune of $545-billion! What happened to all those projected surpluses we were supposed to enjoy? Well, two things. Those projections were too optimistic and Bush gave the rest (and more) away.

Hey, I'm not hostile to tax cuts, but something is wrong here.

My purpose wasn't to debate by what measure the deficit might or might not be considered the largest in history. In the context of my post, I was pointing out how Bush was pushing the country in the wrong direction and taking good fortune and turning it into misfortune.

I've got more bad news for you and your boy. A new poll (http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/2024053/detail.html) shows that by a 48% to 44% margin any Democrat (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/04/sharpton.whitehouse.ap/) would defeat Bush if an election were held today.

Hey, there's still hope for Bush. He and Ashcroft could always declare martial law and call off the election! (I know what you're thinking: a lot can change between now and November 2004. However, the way I see things going, Bush's prospects will only get worse by that time. I hate to sound so pessimistic, but I don't hold out much hope that the Democrats will nominate a decent candidate.)

[DialecticMaterialist]

US AID pledges 60 million to help Afganistan: http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/sasia/afghan/text2003/0304edu.htm

US gives 15 million to AID refugees: http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/sasia/afghan/text2003/0205unhcr.htm

2.7 million given to Afghan farmers: http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/sasia/afghan/text2003/0225shomali.htm

1.8 billion in funds total go to Afghanistan: http://www.developmentgateway.org/node/134111/sdm/docview?docid=428010

Energy experts say Iraq can pay for its own reconstruction with Oil:

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/0926oil.htm

Note: That the BBC is rarely, if ever favorable to the US. And has slanted the news more then once.

The BBC for example still declares cloned animals "unsafe" to eat despite scientific data to the contrary.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2207697.stm

Peter Singer is likewise against the US on principle and one has to wonder where he got the "20 billion" dollar figure from.

Especially since the UN estimated 15 billion.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/january02/afghan_1-21.html

The world has pledged more than $2.6 billion so far to help rebuild Afghanistan, but the United Nations says the war-torn country will need $15 billion over the next decade.

Note this is over the next decade, meaning Bush is not a liar for lack of 15 billion dollars until then. Already 4.5 billion has been promised by various nations over the next 5 years.

TOKYO, Japan -- Donor countries at the Afghan aid conference in Tokyo have pledged $1.8 billion dollars for 2002, and a total of $4.5 billion dollars over five years, to reconstruct the central Asian country with barely any infrastructure.


http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/01/21/afghan.donors/

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

II've got more bad news for you and your boy. A new poll (http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/2024053/detail.html) shows that by a 48% to 44% margin any Democrat (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/04/sharpton.whitehouse.ap/) would defeat Bush if an election were held today.


"The latest national Quinnipiac poll found the "as-yet-unnamed" Democratic presidential nominee has a 48-to-44 percent edge over Bush. " -from the cited article

We live in a majority democrat country. This is not surprising. What is surprising is that Bush beats the specific tentative candidates. Where is the news here?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Energy experts say Iraq can pay for its own reconstruction with Oil:

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/0926oil.htm


Ah, your link does not declare "energy experts say;" it names one "expert" from the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is about as biased a source as you can get. It is a very pro-war, neoconservative propaganda tank.

You missed the link below that I posted earlier in the thread. It is much more credible.

Energy expertS say Iraq oil revenues won't cover costs of reconstruction. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030307/ap_wo_en_ge/eu_gen_iraq_paying_to_rebuild_2)

The matter isn't that no money is getting to Afghanistan, it's that we are reneging on our promises. Only a fraction of the money that should have gotten there by now (according to what was pledged) has been delivered. Afghanistan is being forgotten.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by corplinx

We live in a majority democrat country. This is not surprising. What is surprising is that Bush beats the specific tentative candidates. Where is the news here?
Ah, but Corplinx, those guys it named from polls a month earlier are losers. That overlooks the Democrats' secret weapon! (http://www.salon.com/weekly/sharpton1.html)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Ah, but Corplinx, those guys it named from polls a month earlier are losers. That overlooks the Democrats' secret weapon! (http://www.salon.com/weekly/sharpton1.html)

Just when I thought we couldn't turn this into a funny thread. :D Thanks for lightening things up.

[kedo1981]

Wayne Grab-ass
The anti- Jedi Knight

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
For some of you:

...

--I argued that Afghanistan was being ignored in order to focus on Iraq. I had it all wrong, some of you argued, and even continue to argue in the face of sound evidence that I was right. Completely leaving Afghanistan out of the budget and then scrambling to come up with a paltry $300-million at the last minute pretty much makes my case all by itself. So I started a thread to enlighten you.

Since you can't refute the evidence I have presented to validate my arguments, some of you have had the intellectual dishonesty to instead do such things as:The basic conclusion of this thread was answered by richardm in the third post. DialecticMaterialist countered your argument and you ignored all the links accept the one about Iraq. So you failed to defend the title argument.

Walt

[Doubt]

Wayne G.

It would appear that the White House is treating Afghanistan and Iraq equally when it comes to money. No money for Afghanistan and no money for war with Iraq in the budget.

I appears that they are not ignoring either place. This looks more like the executive branch is trying to make their submitted budget look better by leaving out line items that they know congress will add in. That way they can claim that congress ran up the deficit and not the White House. War or no war, the government is spending a fortune moving troops around and getting ready.



White House says hope for peace means no budget for Iraq war



http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/db/Qus-budget-iraq.Rygl_DF3.html

[American]

We've already admitted that we all hate Bush. You totally won the debate, and thank God you're here for us.

You just enjoy ranting for the sake of being angry!

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
The basic conclusion of this thread was answered by richardm in the third post. DialecticMaterialist countered your argument and you ignored all the links accept the one about Iraq. So you failed to defend the title argument.

Walt I answered those arguments already. Pay attention. From DialecticMaterialist's link on $1.8 billion: However, aid was seemingly delayed and trickled slowly into the country. Throughout the year, the Government of Afghanistan, NGOs, and multi-lateral institutions called on donors to "commit" or deliver on pledges made that are so vital to Afghanistan's reconstruction. Aid was dispersed, but in unexpected ways.

(snip)

Or as in some cases, pledges that were initially offered as grants turned into loans where the Government of Afghanistan decided to refuse the terms (i.e. Saudi Arabia)
The part I snipped out mentioned that 2/3 of the pledge amount had been received and applied to humanitarian efforts.

I earlier made the point that the case wasn't that no money was being received, it's that much that was promised wasn't being delivered and what was being delivered was slow in coming. That same link (excerpted above) mentioned the delays in aid delivery. I also made the point that more should be done.

In the past I pointed out how, far from becoming a successful democracy, Afghanistan's government is limited to Kabul. The rest of the country is governed by warlords, including those sympathetic to the Taliban or who were members of the Taliban. Stabilizing Afghanistan will also mean creating an effective national army. That is not being done.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Doubt
Wayne G.

It would appear that the White House is treating Afghanistan and Iraq equally when it comes to money. No money for Afghanistan and no money for war with Iraq in the budget.

I appears that they are not ignoring either place. This looks more like the executive branch is trying to make their submitted budget look better by leaving out line items that they know congress will add in. That way they can claim that congress ran up the deficit and not the White House. War or no war, the government is spending a fortune moving troops around and getting ready.
Good points.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by American
We've already admitted that we all hate Bush. You totally won the debate, and thank God you're here for us.
So you can go away now.

Originally posted by American
You just enjoy ranting for the sake of being angry!
Have you ever heard of the psychological concept of projection?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert in response to DOUBT
Good points.
Though I must add, Doubt, that it doesn't seem plausible that leaving a mere $300-million out of a budget in excess of $2-trillion was part of a strategy to make the budget look better.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I answered those arguments already.

Not really.


Pay attention.

I think he/she does, which is why you have a problem.

From DialecticMaterialist's link on $1.8 billion

You missed the point of the article, AID had been recieved and squandered due to inefficiency. Saudi Arabia's grant now equals loan statement had nothing to do with the US.

Furthermore:

Well on its way to establishing and strengthening necessary institutions for effective aid, it is still critical to the success of program implementation that continued budget support is received (either directly through the Ministry of Finance for designated purposes, Trust Funds, or to private sector organizations to carry out government identified priority projects). Aid will not simply expand the government's budget, but will be directly applied to specific projects, set aside in designated accounts as outlined in Afghanistan's National Programme for Reconstruction.



The problem is with how the money is being spent, not in how much is being recieved. Also spending money in "unexpected ways" for stuff like "humanitarian relief" is not necessarily a bad thing. Just unexpected.

Lastly the article I quoted by the energy expert was by the Department of State, not the Heritage Foundation. The fact that the scientist is associated with the heritage foundation is of little consequence.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
I answered those arguments already. Pay attention... No you didn't. You hypothesis according to title and first post is the budget included zip, notta, nothing for Afghanistan. The very article you site argues against your argument.

You are using a strawman of your own argument, misrepresenting your argument to make it defendable.

Walt

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
For all of you who tried to tell me how well the Afghanistan situation was going and how we should trust your spiritual leader Bush to create democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, try telling me that now. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2759789.stm) I told you the son of a bitch was a liar. When are you going to figure it out?

I am not at all surprised. The White House played Afghanistan for it's PR value; when our adventure there failed to yield bin Laden's head on a platter, it was time for the Bush Family Circus to move onto an easier target. Wanna make book on how much attention we pay to rebuilding Iraq?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
No you didn't. You hypothesis according to title and first post is the budget included zip, notta, nothing for Afghanistan. The very article you site argues against your argument.

You are using a strawman of your own argument, misrepresenting your argument to make it defendable.

Walt
Not at all. Bush budgeted $0 for Afghanistan. Why? Because his administration has put Afghanistan so far on the back burner of their concerns that it was forgotten. When the omission was pointed out, they scrambled to include a $300-million appropriation. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Later when someone pointed out that money was received from past appropriations. I then agreed that was true, but that it was still less than what was promised and less than what was needed.

Try reading what I write and not what you'd like me to say to make it easy for you to attack.

What is "notta"? Did you mean "nada"?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Wayne, do you feel the people of Afghanistan are getting less now then they did under the Taliban? Do you believe they were better off under the Taliban?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Wayne, do you feel the people of Afghanistan are getting less now then they did under the Taliban? Do you believe they were better off under the Taliban?
Those questions are irrelevant.