Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-08-2007, 07:37 PM
 
114 posts, read 120,379 times
Reputation: 20

Advertisements

With the end of the year approaching, its traditionally a time to look back. So with that in mind I'm posting Bush blunders tied to the current date thru year-end. With a 2008 election year around the corner maybe history can teach us a thing or two before we cast our next presidential vote ....

On This Date in Bush History 12/8: A Soldier's Plea

"Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty." Benjamin Franklin's Thirteen Virtues

2004: To the cheers of his fellow troops, a soldier complained to President Bush's Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, saying "Our vehicles are not armored. We’re digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass ... to put on our vehicles to take into combat". Spc. Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee National Guard added, "We do not have proper armored vehicles".

While saying that work is being done to improve the situation, Mr. Rumsfeld added that "you go to war with the army you have". The truth, of course, is that President Bush's people picked the schedule for this fight. It didn't have to happen until the Pentagon could provide U.S. troops with the protection they deserve.

"I think war is a dangerous place." President Bush, May 7th 2003

MOD CUT

Last edited by NewToCA; 12-17-2007 at 10:45 AM.. Reason: marketing
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-08-2007, 09:18 PM
 
Location: Arizona
5,407 posts, read 7,794,780 times
Reputation: 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueButGlad View Post
With the end of the year approaching, its traditionally a time to look back. So with that in mind I'm posting Bush blunders tied to the current date thru year-end. With a 2008 election year around the corner maybe history can teach us a thing or two before we cast our next presidential vote ....

On This Date in Bush History 12/8: A Soldier's Plea

"Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty." Benjamin Franklin's Thirteen Virtues

2004: To the cheers of his fellow troops, a soldier complained to President Bush's Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, saying "Our vehicles are not armored. We’re digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass ... to put on our vehicles to take into combat". Spc. Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee National Guard added, "We do not have proper armored vehicles".

While saying that work is being done to improve the situation, Mr. Rumsfeld added that "you go to war with the army you have". The truth, of course, is that President Bush's people picked the schedule for this fight. It didn't have to happen until the Pentagon could provide U.S. troops with the protection they deserve.

"I think war is a dangerous place." President Bush, May 7th 2003
Three years ago. And the criminal part is nobody took the administration to task for this. Thank God Joe Biden and others in Congress pushed the MRAPs through finally, after years of field commanders begging for these vehicles.

Rumsfeld's illogical vision of a "lighter army" and his tragic misconception that Iraq would be a cakewalk has cost about 1000 American lives, who knows how many more with limbs blown off or with brain injuries.
They are finally starting to get those vehicles now.

Last edited by NewToCA; 12-17-2007 at 10:45 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2007, 09:25 PM
 
114 posts, read 120,379 times
Reputation: 20
Thanks for the post. You are quite correct. They were so sure of themselves. They ignored the experts warning that it would be no cake walk, and as a result of their arrogance and ignorance thousands died or suffered terrible injury.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2007, 12:04 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,108,083 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueButGlad View Post
With the end of the year approaching, its traditionally a time to look back. So with that in mind I'm posting Bush blunders tied to the current date thru year-end. With a 2008 election year around the corner maybe history can teach us a thing or two before we cast our next presidential vote ....

On This Date in Bush History 12/8: A Soldier's Plea

"Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty." Benjamin Franklin's Thirteen Virtues

2004: To the cheers of his fellow troops, a soldier complained to President Bush's Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, saying "Our vehicles are not armored. We’re digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass ... to put on our vehicles to take into combat". Spc. Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee National Guard added, "We do not have proper armored vehicles".

While saying that work is being done to improve the situation, Mr. Rumsfeld added that "you go to war with the army you have". The truth, of course, is that President Bush's people picked the schedule for this fight. It didn't have to happen until the Pentagon could provide U.S. troops with the protection they deserve.

"I think war is a dangerous place." President Bush, May 7th 2003
Perhapse if Clinton didnt cut the military to the bare bones that it was, the vehicles MIGHT have been armored.. who knows.. you can always second guess the past.

Last edited by NewToCA; 12-17-2007 at 10:46 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2007, 12:17 AM
 
638 posts, read 2,280,904 times
Reputation: 294
bily4, isnt it over 4 thousand now?

And pghquest, why would we have a ridiculously oversized military for no reason?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2007, 01:15 AM
 
922 posts, read 1,908,973 times
Reputation: 507
so you think that clinton left the military the right size? for what? its so small that bush had to have all the guard go active. the guard is nothing but a bunch of middle age married guys that thought they had a cushy weekend job. and before you reply Im a nam vet that was drafted. #44 that year they went to 144. the guard guys thought they were pulling a fast one then. we need alot more people back on active duty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2007, 07:48 AM
 
Location: Arizona
5,407 posts, read 7,794,780 times
Reputation: 1198
Un - Friggin - Believable. People want to pin THIS on Clinton too??

"Bare Bones" ? That is absolutely bogus. Care to provide any real data?? It is called responsibility. Some draw down was appropriate after the end of the Cold War. We were still spending more on military than anybody else. That way we all didn't have to get taxed unnecessarily. That is what you are all about first and foremost, isn't it? Fiscal Conservatism? Leave my money alone??

You want to pin using the national guard on Clinton now...because Bush doesn't understand how to plan for an invasion and now wants to police the Middle East forever? That is Clinton's fault too, huh??

Remarkable.


Actually, in the Bush administration's four years, defense spending fell by 18 percent -- more than 4 percent each year. In the Clinton administration's seven years, defense spending has fallen by slightly less than 10 percent, which is slightly more than 1 percent each year. Moreover, Rice conveniently ignores the six-year plan Bush presented to Congress in January 1993, which projected a continuing decline in defense spending through 1999. Clinton's actual defense budgets were $2 billion more than the final Bush defense plan for 1994-99, as Daniel Goure and Jeffrey Ranney explain in their new book, Averting the Defense Train Wreck in the New Millennium.

The nonpay portion of the operations and maintenance account in the defense budget, which funds training, readiness, and maintenance, is 13 percent higher now than when Bush left office. Moreover, if the spending on operations and maintenance is calculated on a per capita basis, it is nearly 40 percent higher today than in 1993.

Rice also accuses the Clinton administration of cutting defense spending to its lowest point as a percentage of GDP since Pearl Harbor. Using shares of GDP as a measure of military capability is both meaningless and misleading. If Clinton had not presided over such an extraordinary period of economic growth, his current defense budget might account for four, instead of three, percent of GDP. Should he be castigated for helping the economy grow? By Rice's GDP standard, Jimmy Carter was better for defense than George Bush.

During the Clinton administration, the U.S. share of worldwide military spending has increased. America now outspends all of its adversaries or potential adversaries combined. Together with its allies, it accounts for nearly 80 percent of the world's military expenditures.

Foreign Affairs - Money for Nothing: A Penny Saved, Not a Penny Earned, in the U.S. Military - Lawrence Korb et al.


If anyone is truly interested at the grievous wrongs committed to our troops by the Pentagon and the administration in this War and its delays to protect our troops, this link provides a nice summary.
The part that kills me is we were supplying Iraqi troops with MRAPS first, before our own guys.

USATODAY.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2007, 12:03 PM
 
114 posts, read 120,379 times
Reputation: 20
This always blaming Bush's mistakes on Clinton gets really tiresome. Bush had a GOP congress at his disposal for 2 years before he invaded Iraq, on his own schedule.

I don't see that planning an occupation however, without enough armored vehicles and body armor for the troops is very smart. With a GOP president and a GOP Congress I can't see this as a blame the democrats thing. They had time to fund and get this equipment. The Pentagon estimates that something like 1/4 of the casualties could have been avoided had this equipment been provided.

It was the arrogance of Bush and Rumsfeld that Iraq would be a cakewalk that is the source of this problem. They ignored those who said it would be tougher than they anticipated. The experts were right, the Bush people were wrong, and soldiers died or suffered terrible injury as a result.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2007, 12:04 PM
 
114 posts, read 120,379 times
Reputation: 20
Default On This Date in Bush History 12/9: Silenced Science

On This Date in Bush History 12/9: Silenced Science

2001: The ever-delusional Dick Cheney says today, "It's been pretty well confirmed that [9/11 highjacker Mohamed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service ... before the attack". Most who looked into this came to believe it not to be true, but Cheney kept repeating this. After extensive investigation, the 9/11 commission said, "We do not believe that such a meeting occurred". By June 20th 2004 even Mr. Cheney was admitting, sort of, that maybe what he had been saying for quite awhile now was false. Strangely, he chose to do this in his own unique, ever delusional way. In a CNBC interview Mr. Cheney is asked about Atta: "You have said in the past that it was, quote, 'pretty well confirmed' ". Mr. Cheney interrupts to say, "No, I never said that". If that’s what you want to believe, Mr. VP.

2002: President Bush announces the nomination of John Snow for Treasury Secretary today, replacing Paul O'Neill. To help Snow push more tax cuts for the wealthy an analysis of unfunded future government obligations that had been ordered by O'Neill was removed from budget documents issued under new Treasurer Snow. Scott Burns of The Dallas Morning News said the removed data "shows the United States is broke". Burns believes the analysis was deleted because the tax cut "sales job would be awkward if an official government document announced we were already $43 trillion in the hole". Rather than be honest with the American people, giving them the hard facts of the nation's obligations, the Bush administration removed those facts from the budget, thus advancing a more important goal: more tax cuts for the rich.

2006: The Union of Concerned Scientists announced today that 10,000 scientists have signed a petition calling on the Bush administration to cease muzzling of scientific findings that "are in conflict with the administration's policies or with the views of its political supporters".

MOD CUT

Last edited by NewToCA; 12-17-2007 at 10:44 AM.. Reason: marketing
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2007, 10:46 AM
 
114 posts, read 120,379 times
Reputation: 20
Default On This Date in Bush History 12/10: Competence Punished

On This Date in Bush History 12/10: Competence Punished

2001: President Bush says today, "I couldn’t imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hanukkah." Nor the 4th of July, one supposes.

2002: Today President Bush nominates William Donaldson to head the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), replacing the widely criticized Harvey Pitt. In the wake of the Enron and Worldcom scandals Mr. Donaldson would implement tough reforms, including a requirement that CEOs certify their financial reporting. Inaccurate reporting cost employees and investors huge amounts of money, as witnessed by the losses of Enron retirees, employees, and shareholders. Mr. Donaldson seemed the rarest of high-level Bush appointees; someone who was competent, qualified, and actually doing a good job. President Bush’s friends in the business world were not enthusiastic about Donaldson's reforms; reforms designed to protect people who might otherwise be harmed by future Worldcom or Enron type corporate deceptions. As is usually the case when being given the choice of protecting the little guys (those who might be victimized by future Enron-like collapses), or the big guys (powerful, wealthy corporations) President Bush went with the big guys. It was good-bye to Mr. Donaldson and hello to new SEC head Christopher Cox (a man who, incredibly enough, was once a defendant in a lawsuit that alleged he misled investors; that suit was settled out of court).

2004: President Bush says today, "And so during these holiday seasons, we thank our blessings".

MOD CUT

Last edited by NewToCA; 12-17-2007 at 10:43 AM.. Reason: marketing
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:35 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top