Infinite Menus, Copyright 2006, OpenCube Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Windspike’s Wednesday Wonderings: Are We Better Off Today Than We Were Before We Invaded Iraq?

As we creep up on George Bush’s artificial deadline of 15 September and the MSM salivates over the run up to the General’s report, we forget the real question of import:

Are we better off today than we were before we invaded Iraq? Here, I’m using the royal “we” as in We the people…of the United States….

I know, I’ve wondered this aloud before (and some have suggested it’s too early to tell), but it crept back into my head after a friend of mine forwarded one powerful sentence that I think the blogosphere aught consider:

The problem with Iraq is that when you’re doing the wrong thing there’s no right way to do it.

What say you?

Any folk out there betting how big the magic pill will be as it’s delivered on 15 September with all the fanfare the President’s Political Propaganda Catapult the American people will tolerate?

Blog on friends, blog on all.

Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us
  • De.lirio.us
  • digg
  • Fark
  • Reddit

12 Responses to “Windspike’s Wednesday Wonderings: Are We Better Off Today Than We Were Before We Invaded Iraq?”

  1. As we creep up on George Bush’s artificial deadline of 15 September…

    Wrong again. Call it what you want, but this deadline is in the supplemental spending bill that Congress passed back in May. The artificial deadline, therefore, is mandated by Congress, not the President. Even if he helped determine the date, it is the two of the three co-equal branches of government that set this date.

  2. I’m calling it artificial because the president keeps deflecting comment until he gets his full, and much hearalded report from his boots on the ground general. I can’t think of a more artificial deadline. Can you? I’m not the one who introduced the term “artificial” when it came to deadlines and time lines. The President did. Much like “Activist” judges. It’s not my term. Can you define it when the president uses it as it relates in comparison this date? What’s the difference, Steve? It seems the President and his crack team of propagandist s are engaged in a rhetorical battle to define the language. I’m just holding them accountable and pointing out hypocrisy where I see it. If you ask me, the 15th is just as artificial as any suggestion of planned troop draw down.

  3. P.S. I might add, Steve, you don’t address any of my questions in the post.

    You really are deflecting the issue for a random and irrelevant point. Very much like a GOP branded politician. Are you trained in the propagandist training camps run by Uncle Karl Rove? You do this all the time and are very good at it.

  4. You really are deflecting the issue for a random and irrelevant point. Very much like a GOP branded politician. Are you trained in the propagandist training camps run by Uncle Karl Rove? You do this all the time and are very good at it.

    Thank you. No I did not get my training from Rove. And might I say that your ability to call things by every name but what they truly are is very Clintonian and very much like the politicians of the Democratic Party. One more thing; my use of the phrase “activist” judges is very appropriate for the definition I gave it, regardless of who coined the phrase.

  5. Steve, care to address any of the very legitimate and salient questions in the post? If not, I don’t see why you bother continuing to comment herein.

  6. You had one relevant question:

    Are we better off today than we were before we invaded Iraq?

    Yes, as I’ve explained before.

    I’m calling it artificial because the president keeps deflecting comment until he gets his full, and much hearalded report from his boots on the ground general.

    Gee, the boss doesn’t want to comment until he sees the report by the guy running things over in Iraq. And you have a problem with this because… For Bush to actually try to answer without the full and official report would not be smart. That’s true of anybody. And I haven’t checked, but it probably opens him up to litigation.

    I can’t think of a more artificial deadline. Can you? I’m not the one who introduced the term “artificia l” when it came to deadlines and time lines. The President did.

    And as I mentioned, that timeline is in the bill passed by Congress. It wasn’t made by Bush as some part of executive order or signing statement. I don’t know how to make it any plainer to you. Is it artificial? OK, it is. I also think it’s a political ploy by Congress, including the Republicans.   Personally, Congress knows what the goals are (winning the war, a stable Iraq), and should know how to help the President attain them. Instead, Congress has been antagonistic since the vote was taken to authorize military force in Iraq, especially the Democrats who voted for it in the first place, and has done everything to avoid its own responsibili ty and culpability for what is going wrong in Iraq. Can you imagine Republicans in the Congress of 1944 doing that to FDR during WWII? There was a minor attempt, and Dewey (the Republican candidate) told them not to.

    It seems the President and his crack team of propagandist s are engaged in a rhetorical battle to define the language. I’m just holding them accountable and pointing out hypocrisy where I see it.

    And the Congress and their crack team of propagandist s will be engaged in a rhetorical battle of their own. Yet, you don’t hold them accountable or point out their hypocrisy. What do you think Congress is there for, to suck more taxpayer money into their pockets? And speaking of hypocrisy, why hasn’t anybody bother holding those members of Congress, the ones that voted for military force but now say they deserve a do-over, why aren’t you holding them accountable?

  7. What do you think Congress is there
    for, to suck more taxpayer money into their pockets?

    You are worried about how much money congress is spending when your supposedly spendthrift president is relegating future generations to serious tax hikes to pay for his democracy experiment in Iraq? Holy bejezus, Steve?

    And, people are getting killed for it? And you are worried about what?

  8. You are worried about how much money congress is spending when your supposedly spendthrift president is relegating future generations to serious tax hikes to pay for his democracy experiment in Iraq?

    Are you kidding me? Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (just those three items) suck down more taxes in one year than Iraq has cost in its entirety. And those items are permanent (for now) and getting more costly year after year, and NOBODY is doing a damn thing about it, except use the tried and true method favored by liberal Democrats: raise taxes to pay for them. Then we have the prospect of mini Hillary-care systems popping up among the 50 states, not to mention the full-blown boondoggle of Hillary-care and the socialist nationalized health system loved by liberal Democrats (and squishy Republicans) . Top it off with the idea of sanctuary cities, all run by liberal Democrats, who want more poor people, in the form of illegal aliens, to justify my tax dollars going to pay for continually failed nanny-state policies, all the while not doing anything to stop illegal aliens from killing, you know, Americans. People are getting killed for it? And you are worried about what?

  9. Steve are you pulling statistics out of your behind again? Forgive me if I don’t hold you at your word. How much does it cost for one KIA GI? How much does it cost for one Iraqi Civilian KIA?

    The GOP modus operandi seems to be borrow money for a war we never needed and pay it back later? Which is more fiscally responsible?

    What illegal aliens are doing the killing? What about the Americans killing Americans? Your point is poor.

    Frankly, your comment is so full of conjecture and hyperbole that I think you actually believe it, but I’ve half a mind to delete it just because you’ve got no proof behind any of your statement.

  10. Windspike said:

    Steve are you pulling statistics out of your behind again? Forgive me if I don’t hold you at your word.

    That’s fine. Per the OMB, Social Security Outlays for 2008 will be over $652 billion; Medicare and Medicaid Outlays for 2008 will be over $600 billion. Each of these mandatory outlays is roughly 8%-9% higher than 2007. I’m assuming the GAO has numbers as well, and they would probably be similar to what the OMB has. Also according the OMB, total outlays for Veteran’s Affairs will increase about 16%.

    How much does it cost for one KIA GI?

    It’s terrible to think of our soldiers being killed in a war the U.S. didn’t start or want, and I feel for the families very much, much like you seem to do (I was visiting a small town in Arkansas, about 500 people, over the past weekend and one of their own was killed in Iraq earlier this year; he was honored very nicely at the county fair that was going on). But, these are volunteers. This is what they chose to do for a living, and this is, harsh as it sounds, the potential price to pay when serving voluntarily in the military. This isn’t Vietnam, although the same types of effects could occur in Iraq as happened in Vietnam if we surrender.

  11. I don’t mind being called a liar by the likes of you. But to threaten to delete a comment just because you don’t believe the facts I know to be true, that is almost UnAmerican. The numbers are quite valid. Per the OMB, Social Security Outlays for 2008 will be over $652 billion; Medicare and Medicaid Outlays for 2008 will be over $600 billion. Each of these mandatory outlays is roughly 8%-9% higher than 2007. I’m assuming the GAO has numbers as well, and they would probably be similar to what the OMB has. Also according the OMB, total outlays for Veteran’s Affairs will increase about 16%.

    How much does it cost for one KIA GI?

    It’s terrible to think of our soldiers being killed in a war the U.S. didn’t start or want, and I feel for the families very much, much like you seem to do (I was visiting a small town in Arkansas, about 500 people, over the past weekend and one of their own was killed in Iraq earlier this year; he was honored very nicely at the county fair that was going on). But, these are volunteers. This is what they chose to do for a living, and this is, harsh as it sounds, the potential price to pay when serving voluntarily in the military. This isn’t Vietnam, although the same types of effects could occur in Iraq as happened in Vietnam if we surrender.

  12. Steve,

    Looks like some of your comments are getting bounced automaticall y by the spam software. I’ve restored the ones that were not redundant. I didn’t delete your comment. I was just musing about it. I don’t usually delete comments that are not spam. You should know that.

    Incidentally  , there’s a big difference between SS and Medicare etc and the Iraq war. With SS and the other social programs, people are paying into them, not just sucking cash out. This is not like Iraq which is basically sucking cash our of our treasury that we don’t have. How do you think we are/will paying for it?

    Volunteers should not be tossed down a rabbit hole with no means of getting out. Nor should they be deployed in a war that has no strategy for winning the peace. The cost of one GI in my book is priceless. There is no number. It’s reprehensibl e that you suggest we didn’t start the war in Iraq. We did and you know it. There was no real legit and justified reason for going in there, unless you bought the WMD bait and switch. I did, and I”m seriously pissed that I was fooled for it.

    What is wrong with Vietnam today that we are at fault for pulling our troops out way back in 1972 -4?

Leave a Reply

Fish.Travel