Obama-Spend-O-Meter

[MonsterMark]

$850,000,000,000 for entitlement programs
$850,000,000,000 for global poverty tax



Never before has the American public become so enamored with a nobody. A nobody they know nothing about. A nobody who, thru his proposals, threatens the very essence of what made America great.

This nobody wants the government to control every aspect of your life. This nobody wants all solutions to flow thru the government's hands.

Barack Obama - The United States Greatest Threat. He will pander to the Left to enact the world's bigger money grab. Watch your wallet and your job. American industry will not survive 4 years of Barack Obama.

Taxes skyrocket.
Unemployment surges.
Energy costs cascade.
Government intervention spirals out of control.

All told, over $850 BILLION in new spending.
Plus another $850 BILLION poverty tax



Stealing from the providers and giving to the takers.
Socialism at it's finest.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama’s Health Care Plan Will Cost Up To $65 Billion A Year; Equal To $260 Billion Over Four Years. “[Obama] campaign officials estimated that the net cost of the plan to the federal government would be $50 billion to $65 billion a year, when fully phased in, and said the revenues from rolling back the tax cuts were enough to cover it.” (Robin Toner and Patrick Healy, “Obama Calls For Wider And Less Costly Health Care Coverage,” The New York Times, 5/30/07)

Obama’s Energy Plan Will Cost $150 Billion Over 10 Years, Equal To $15 Billion Annually And $60 Billion Over Four Years. “Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 25)

Obama’s Tax Plan Will Cost Approximately $85 Billion A Year; Equal To $340 Billion Over Four Years. “[Obama’s] proposed tax cuts and credits, aimed at workers earning $50,000 or less per year, would cost the Treasury an estimated $85 billion annually.” (Margaret Talev, “Obama Proposes Tax Code Overhaul To Help The Poor,” McClatchy Newspapers, 9/19/07)

Obama’s Plan Would Raise Taxes On Capital Gains And Dividends, And On Carried Interest. Obama’s tax plan includes: “ncreasing the highest bracket for capital gains and dividends and closing the carried interest loophole.” (Obama For America, “Barack Obama: Tax Fairness For The Middle Class,” Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/8/08)

Obama’s Economic Stimulus Package Will Cost $75 Billion. “Barack Obama’s economic plan will inject $75 billion of stimulus into the economy by getting money in the form of tax cuts and direct spending directly to the people who need it most.” (Obama For America, “Barack Obama’s Plan To Stimulate The Economy,” Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, 1/13/08)

Obama’s Early Education And K-12 Package Will Cost $18 Billion A Year; Equal To $72 Billion Over Four Years. “Barack Obama’s early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year.” (Obama For America, “Barack Obama’s Plan For Lifetime Success Through Education,” Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, 11/20/07, p. 15)

Obama’s National Service Plan Will Cost $3.5 Billion A Year; Equal To $14 Billion Over Four Years. “Barack Obama’s national service plan will cost about $3.5 billion per year when it is fully implemented.” (Obama For America, “Helping All Americans Serve Their Country: Barack Obama’s Plan For Universal Voluntary Citizen Service,” Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, 12/5/07)

Obama Will Increase Our Foreign Assistance Funding By $25 Billion. “Obama will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and he will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 53)

Obama Will Provide $2 Billion To Aid Iraqi Refugees. “He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 51)

Obama Will Provide $1.5 Billion To Help States Adopt Paid-Leave Systems. “As president, Obama will initiate a strategy to encourage all 50 states to adopt paid-leave systems. Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs for employees and employers.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 15)

Obama Will Provide $1 Billion Over 5 Years For Transitional Jobs And Career Pathway Programs, Equal To $200 Million A Year And $800 Million Over Four Years. “Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs that implement proven methods of helping low-income Americans succeed in the workforce.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 42)

Obama Will Provide $50 Million To Jump-Start The Creation Of An IAEA-Controlled Nuclear Fuel Bank. Obama: “We must also stop the spread of nuclear weapons technology and ensure that countries cannot build -- or come to the brink of building -- a weapons program under the auspices of developing peaceful nuclear power. That is why my administration will immediately provide $50 million to jump-start the creation of an International Atomic Energy Agency-controlled nuclear fuel bank and work to update the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Renewing American Leadership,” Foreign Affairs, 7-8/07)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[5spdLS]

And I'd rather have all that than have Hillarity in office... sad.

 

[shagdrum]

Never before has the American public become so enamored with a nobody. A nobody they know nothing about. A nobody who, thru his proposals, threatens the very essence of what made America great.

This nobody wants the government to control every aspect of your life. This nobody wants all solutions to flow thru the government's hands.

Barack Obama - The United States Greatest Threat. He will pander to the Left to enact the world's bigger money grab. Watch your wallet and your job. American industry will not survive 4 years of Barack Obama.

Taxes skyrocket.
Unemployment surges.
Energy costs cascade.
Government intervention spirals out of control.

All told, over $850 BILLION in new spending. Stealing from the providers and giving to the takers.
Socialism at it's finest.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama’s Health Care Plan Will Cost Up To $65 Billion A Year; Equal To $260 Billion Over Four Years. “[Obama] campaign officials estimated that the net cost of the plan to the federal government would be $50 billion to $65 billion a year, when fully phased in, and said the revenues from rolling back the tax cuts were enough to cover it.” (Robin Toner and Patrick Healy, “Obama Calls For Wider And Less Costly Health Care Coverage,” The New York Times, 5/30/07)

Obama’s Energy Plan Will Cost $150 Billion Over 10 Years, Equal To $15 Billion Annually And $60 Billion Over Four Years. “Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 25)

Obama’s Tax Plan Will Cost Approximately $85 Billion A Year; Equal To $340 Billion Over Four Years. “[Obama’s] proposed tax cuts and credits, aimed at workers earning $50,000 or less per year, would cost the Treasury an estimated $85 billion annually.” (Margaret Talev, “Obama Proposes Tax Code Overhaul To Help The Poor,” McClatchy Newspapers, 9/19/07)

Obama’s Plan Would Raise Taxes On Capital Gains And Dividends, And On Carried Interest. Obama’s tax plan includes: “ncreasing the highest bracket for capital gains and dividends and closing the carried interest loophole.” (Obama For America, “Barack Obama: Tax Fairness For The Middle Class,” Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/8/08)

Obama’s Economic Stimulus Package Will Cost $75 Billion. “Barack Obama’s economic plan will inject $75 billion of stimulus into the economy by getting money in the form of tax cuts and direct spending directly to the people who need it most.” (Obama For America, “Barack Obama’s Plan To Stimulate The Economy,” Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, 1/13/08)

Obama’s Early Education And K-12 Package Will Cost $18 Billion A Year; Equal To $72 Billion Over Four Years. “Barack Obama’s early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year.” (Obama For America, “Barack Obama’s Plan For Lifetime Success Through Education,” Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, 11/20/07, p. 15)

Obama’s National Service Plan Will Cost $3.5 Billion A Year; Equal To $14 Billion Over Four Years. “Barack Obama’s national service plan will cost about $3.5 billion per year when it is fully implemented.” (Obama For America, “Helping All Americans Serve Their Country: Barack Obama’s Plan For Universal Voluntary Citizen Service,” Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, 12/5/07)

Obama Will Increase Our Foreign Assistance Funding By $25 Billion. “Obama will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and he will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 53)

Obama Will Provide $2 Billion To Aid Iraqi Refugees. “He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 51)

Obama Will Provide $1.5 Billion To Help States Adopt Paid-Leave Systems. “As president, Obama will initiate a strategy to encourage all 50 states to adopt paid-leave systems. Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs for employees and employers.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 15)

Obama Will Provide $1 Billion Over 5 Years For Transitional Jobs And Career Pathway Programs, Equal To $200 Million A Year And $800 Million Over Four Years. “Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs that implement proven methods of helping low-income Americans succeed in the workforce.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 42)

Obama Will Provide $50 Million To Jump-Start The Creation Of An IAEA-Controlled Nuclear Fuel Bank. Obama: “We must also stop the spread of nuclear weapons technology and ensure that countries cannot build -- or come to the brink of building -- a weapons program under the auspices of developing peaceful nuclear power. That is why my administration will immediately provide $50 million to jump-start the creation of an International Atomic Energy Agency-controlled nuclear fuel bank and work to update the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Renewing American Leadership,” Foreign Affairs, 7-8/07)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are all just projections...

A general rule of thumb in Washington is that the said costs and said projections of a proposed program always end up being only a fraction of the actual costs. Look at social security. Another example is Medicare. As Sue Blevins, President of the Institute for Health and Freedom points out:

When Medicare was debated in 1965 (the year it was signed into law), business and taxpayer groups were concerned that program expenditures might grow out of control. However, single-payer advocates assured them that all seniors could easily be covered under Medicare with only a small increase in workers' payroll taxes. The federal government's lead actuary in 1965 projected that the hospital program (Medicare Part A) would grow to only $9 billion by 1990. The program ended up costing more than $66 billion that year.​

In 1968, just three years after Medicare had passed, a study showed that public spending on medical care had doubled.

Today we spend more then $27,0000 dollars anually per senior citizen.

Obama's $850 Billion in projected additional spending is an unrrealistically conservative estimate (no pun intended), assuming he inacts all his proposals.

 

[TheDude]

Weren't you saying similar about Hillary before, when she was shining? Now that his numbers are rising, he's public enemey #1?

 

[MonsterMark]

The Wisconsin primary is Feb 19th. It is a open primary.
I am voting for Hillary.

If she makes it to the general, I really don't know which way I am going.

I am tempted to go with the flow and let the Dems have it all.
All the credit and all the blame. But I don't see another Reagan on the horizon although I think the Republicans could pull off another Contract with America if the right guy leads the way.

But, I am reluctant to let Obama destroy the Country in his 1st 2 years. Hillary would be easier to work with actually. Obama would wander around clueless.

Either way I see it, it is a lose-lose proposition for the United States.

 

[04SCTLS]

Bush has squandered this much money on the war in Iraq.
At least here the money will be spent mostly at home. If Obama makes good on his promise to pull out as soon as possible which the majority of americans want he'll have the money to do this and then some.

 

[shagdrum]

Bush has squandered this much money on the war in Iraq.

Squandered? Governments primary purpose is defense of our nation and our national interests. None of the entitlement programs are constitutionally justified, and is outside of the governments primary purpose.

At least here the money will be spent mostly at home. If Obama makes good on his promise to pull out as soon as possible which the majority of americans want he'll have the money to do this and then some.

Public sentement isn't in support of pulling out of the war. If it was, we would already be out, since that is what the dems in power in congress keep pushing for. The fact is, the congressmen and senators know that the public doesn't by and large doesn't support pulling out. In fact, the polls you see the media citing never say that. The media says that the polls show the public doesn't support the war, but won't go so far as to claim that they want us to pull out. Even saying that the public doesn't support the war is usually a stretch given the wording in a lot of these polls ("do you support the direction that the war is going?").

Basically, given the results of the elections in 2006 and change in control of both houses, if the public truely wanted us out of Iraq, we would already be out of Iraq.

The public wants us to succeed in Iraq. This means a change of direction (the surge). You'll note that since the surge has proven successful, the liberal media and the democrat candidates have stopped talking about it (except in some circumstances to appease the idiotic "anti-war" base).

You are foolin yourself if you think either Hillary or Obama would pull out of Iraq if elected. They don't wanna tie themselves or their party to losing in Iraq. They are trying to get Bush to pull out of Iraq so they can "have it both ways" politically. If Bush were to pull out, they could claim he lost the war as well as saying to their psycho base "Hey, we got the troops out and ended the war".

 

[MonsterMark]

Bush has squandered this much money on the war in Iraq.
At least here the money will be spent mostly at home. If Obama makes good on his promise to pull out as soon as possible which the majority of americans want he'll have the money to do this and then some.

I think I am going to invent a pill that one can take every morning to get smart. I think I'll call it the CLUELESS pill.

Another attack on U.S. and the INVESTMENT in Iraq will be peanuts compared to the money we will waste chasing our tail and destroying our freedoms.

Humm, Obama takes office, we pull out and lose in Iraq. Iraq goes ballistic. Iran starts a war. All hell breaks loose.

Guess who'll be screaming the loudest?

 

[04SCTLS]

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

All these polls show the majority of americans consider the Iraq war a mistake and favor withdrawing within 2 years.

Only the hard core conservatives support the war effort unconditionally.

The democrats have not had the votes in congress to defeat the stubborn Bush white house, but with a new election and a leader willing to pull the troops out the sentiment will change.

So shagdrum, for you it's ok for Bush to spend up to a trillion dollars or more plus countless lives premptively attacking a country that didn't attack us as a "defensive" measure, but spending an equal or lesser amount on health, alternative energy, education, family leave, public service and other worthy causes is somehow tanamount to treason.
McCain is assured to win the Republican nomination and Obama if he is the Democratic candidate as seems almost assured will beat McCain so all the conservatives may as well start packing their bags for some other place to chatter their dogma.

 

[04SCTLS]

I think I am going to invent a pill that one can take every morning to get smart. I think I'll call it the CLUELESS pill.

Another attack on U.S. and the INVESTMENT in Iraq will be peanuts compared to the money we will waste chasing our tail and destroying our freedoms.

Humm, Obama takes office, we pull out and lose in Iraq. Iraq goes ballistic. Iran starts a war. All hell breaks loose.

Guess who'll be screaming the loudest?

I guess you will be MonsterMark.
You always envoke the doomsday scenario.
Look at all the hit's Britain took during WWII.
The brits kept a stiff upper lip and persevered.
We can take a few hits and survive.
If we leave they'll have much less reason to attack us
since we're on the other side of th.e world.
You give the Terrorists too much credit.
Their spectacularly lucky 9/11 attack is sending you into fit's of fear.
If we pulled out of Iraq and the Arabs have a nuclear exchange with Isreal that will be their problem and will not destroy America.

 

[MonsterMark]

I guess you will be MonsterMark. Amen to that brother.

You always envoke the doomsday scenario. Yes, I know it is like crying wolf, but watch what happens. You thought there was pillaging during Katrina?

Look at all the hit's Britain took during WWII.Look at Britain now. The government took all of their guns and now they are going to allow Sharia law in their courts. Ever take a look at the cameras EVERYWHERE.

The brits kept a stiff upper lip and persevered. We don't have the balls anymore.

We can take a few hits and survive. We barely survived a couple of planes carrying gas and passengers.

If we leave they'll have much less reason to attack us since we're on the other side of th.e world. Nice thought. How you gonna gas up your car next week? Going to start walking?

You give the Terrorists too much credit. No I don't. They are just getting started.

Their spectacularly lucky 9/11 attack is sending you into fit's of fear. Doesn't it make you sick how easy it was to attack the Pentagon and save for the few brave souls on the Pennsylvania flight, the White House. We are sitting ducks with all our eggs in one basket (Washington).

If we pulled out of Iraq and the Arabs have a nuclear exchange with Isreal that will be their problem and will not destroy America. Are you really that naive to think that we will sit on the sidelines. We'll be at war with Russia and China in a heartbeat.

..

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I just don't like him, or what he invisions for this country.
Bush did an unbeliveable job of making this country hated throughout the world, and this joker with his absense of any direction in foreign policy scares the hell out of me.
If Hillary does not get the nomination, this will be the first year since I have been voting, that I will not go to the voting booth.
Bob.

 

[fossten]

Nice thought. How you gonna gas up your car next week? Going to start walking?

This is a huge problem. It will be too late to drill in ANWR once the gas really stops flowing. This needs to be started now, and McCain, Obama, and Hillary are all against it.

Their spectacularly lucky 9/11 attack is sending you into fit's of fear. Doesn't it make you sick how easy it was to attack the Pentagon and save for the few brave souls on the Pennsylvania flight, the White House. We are sitting ducks with all our eggs in one basket (Washington).

This could be a good thing. Ever read Clancy's books Debt of Honor and Executive Orders?

If we pulled out of Iraq and the Arabs have a nuclear exchange with Isreal that will be their problem and will not destroy America. Are you really that naive to think that we will sit on the sidelines. We'll be at war with Russia and China in a heartbeat.

Automatically, just like that? That's a very large stretch. I believe the three of us would take steps to avoid war.

 

[MonsterMark]

Automatically, just like that? That's a very large stretch. I believe the three of us would take steps to avoid war.

Geee, I guess it's just me and George Bush that see the gathering threat.

Russia and China are doing all sorts of deals. They are getting in bed with each other as we speak.

When Russia and China speak with one voice, what are we going to do about it except capitulate? Especially when they both back Iran!

 

[fossten]

Geee, I guess it's just me and George Bush that see the gathering threat.

Russia and China are doing all sorts of deals. They are getting in bed with each other as we speak.

When Russia and China speak with one voice, what are we going to do about it except capitulate? Especially when they both back Iran!

You've got to be kidding. Putin can't afford a war because he's still rebuilding his country, and China needs us trade-wise too badly right now. It would be economic suicide for either country to start World War Whatever.

Oh, and please show any and all evidence that supports this cockeyed theory of yours.

And even if this is true, what are we going to do about it? We will have to duke it out with them either way you slice it. So what's your solution?

 

[shagdrum]

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

That is citing some polls from news sources that have been shown to have a bias and reflect that in their polls.

The polls that would real interesting would be the DNC and RNC internal polls. There would be some accuracy. Outside of that, at least find someone independent; not CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, USA TODAY, the AP, the LOS ANGELES TIMES, or the New York Times. Find someone that at least might be objective.

All these places have show to have consistently bias polling. Every one of them had Gore winning in the 2000 elections going into it. Earlier that year, they had him winning decidedly. The week before the election, according to their polling, it looked like Gore might win the electoral college, and Bush would win the popular vote. I remember Limbaugh being asked the day before the election on this exact senario on one of the major networks. All the networks had polls showing Florida for Gore. All these networks called Florida early for Gore too, based on the extremely flawed method of exit polling (showing their reliance of flawed polling methods). I can tell you now that each of of those places will polls showing the democratic presidential and congressional/senatorial candidates doing much better going into the election this November then they will end up doing. The has been this case for at least as long as I have been alive.

All these polls show the majority of americans consider the Iraq war a mistake and favor withdrawing within 2 years.

Who cares if they consider it a mistake. That is nothing more then Monday morning quarterbacking. The people supported the war going in as well as the congress and senate. Weather they think in hindsight we should have gone in or not is irrelevant; we are there. Saying, "looking back, I don't think we should've gone into Iraq", is not the same as "I currently don't support the war.", or "I think we should pull out".



Besides, once you commit to war, the military and the president run it. The people don't get to run the war and decide on strategy.

Only the hard core conservatives support the war effort unconditionally.

Once you commit to a war, you stay in until you win it (or you don't commit). The American public and Congress commited to this war. All those questions in those polls about "should we have gone into Iraq" are worthless. We are there. You don't change your mind and pull out halfway through.

The democrats have not had the votes in congress to defeat the stubborn Bush white house, but with a new election and a leader willing to pull the troops out the sentiment will change.

The democrats control both houses! They have the votes. They know something that isn't reflected in the bias polls of the mainstream media; they american public wants a victory, not to pull out in defeat.

So shagdrum, for you it's ok for Bush to spend up to a trillion dollars or more plus countless lives premptively attacking a country that didn't attack us as a "defensive" measure, but spending an equal or lesser amount on health, alternative energy, education, family leave, public service and other worthy causes is somehow tanamount to treason.

That statement is distortion and exaguration. You are trying to mischaracterize my view. I said nothing of treason, and you are injecting "equal or lesser amount", "countless lives" and "worthy causes" which are an attempt to distort and mischaracterize.

Let me correct the statement for you:

it's justified for Bush to spend up to a trillion dollars or more to premptively attacking a country that was openly hostile to us, did attack us (shooting at our planes, attempted assasination of Bush Sr.; an act which alone justifies a strong military response to end the threat), and supported terrorists including Al Queda, while striving for WMD's, including nukes. The president is justified in these actions to protect our nation and our national interests. Any price tag is justified for war once it is declared, as that is the government's primary purpose, to defend us and protect and preserve our freedoms. Spending an equal or lesser amount on health, alternative energy, education, family leave, public service or any other social cause is not constitutionally justified, unneccessarily takes away freedoms and is usually just wishful thinking that ends up doing more harm then good.​

I am shagdrum, and I approved this statement.

The whole original premise that it is an either/or thing between entitlement spending and funding the war is a blatant mischaracterization, as well.

McCain is assured to win the Republican nomination and Obama if he is the Democratic candidate as seems almost assured will beat McCain so all the conservatives may as well start packing their bags for some other place to chatter their dogma.

I love how you libs think you have a right to change anything as you see fit. You are entitled to the power to do so. The arrogance here is amazing.

It is hardly "assured" that Obama would beat McCain.

You seem to be getting a little emotional and lashing out...

...take some deep breaths...

wooosaaaa

 

[shagdrum]

You've got to be kidding. Putin can't afford a war because he's still rebuilding his country, and China needs us trade-wise too badly right now. It would be economic suicide for either country to start World War Whatever.

Oh, and please show any and all evidence that supports this cockeyed theory of yours.

And even if this is true, what are we going to do about it? We will have to duke it out with them either way you slice it. So what's your solution?

Can someone cite an example of China ever really wanting to expand their empire? That was the difference between the USSR and China that Nixon exploited to get us out of Vietnam. While communism was a threat, it was mainly the communism coming from the USSR, which was wanting to expand the ideology. China had no interest in it, but the fear that they would enter into the Vietnam conflict was what kept us from invading and conquering the North; it made the Vietnam War unwinable. Nixon buddied up with China and basically nullified that threat, then pulled us out of Vietnam.


This is my understanding, please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[shagdrum]

You give the Terrorists too much credit.

No, you severly underestimate them. You are a fool if you underestimate your enemy. For whatever reason, you are knowingly doing that, and that same mentality got us 9/11. Those terrorist attacks proved your claims wrong, you just don't wanna see it. Look at how Britian underestimated Hitler and called Churchill an extremist for calling Hitler on what he was doing. Sound familiar? The media is doing the same thing in this country that the British media was doing then; downplaying the threat. And like the British population did then (until it blew up in their face) you are buying into the media propaganda.

You love articles, read this one:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/02/12/the_media_and_politics

Then, read this one (I don't have the link for this one, I had saved it on my Myspace page months ago):

Army officer calls media propaganda weapon for the enemy
Category: News and Politics


From John Carlson's article in Des Moines Register:

"Media is enemy's best weapon":

"Hello, media, do you know you indirectly kill American soldiers every day? You inspire and report the enemy's objective every day. You are the enemy's greatest weapon. The enemy cannot beat us on the battlefield so all he does is try to wreak enough havoc and have you report it every day. With you and the enemy using each other, you continually break the will of the American public and American government.

"We go out daily and bust and kill the enemy, uncover and destroy huge weapons caches and continue to establish infrastructure. So daily we put a whoopin on the enemy, but all the enemy has to do is turn on the TV and get re-inspired. He gets to see his daily roadside bomb, truck bomb, suicide bomber or mortar attack. He doesn't see any accomplishments of the U.S. military (FOX, you're not exempt, you suck also).

"Let's give you an example. A couple of days ago we conducted an air assault. We lifted troops into an area for an operation. The operation went well and our ground troops killed (insurgents) and took several prisoners, freed a few hostages and uncovered a weapons cache containing munitions and chemicals that were going to be used in improvised bombs.

"The next morning I woke up and turned on Armed Forces Network and watched the NBC nightly news. Nothing, none of that reported. But the daily car bombs report was reported, and the file footage was not even from the event. There was a car bomb in the Sadr City area and your news report showed old car bomb footage from another part of town, from some other time.

"So we really set the enemy back that night but all the enemy had to do was turn on the news and be reassured that the enemy's agenda (objective) was still going to be fed to the American public.

"We, the soldiers, keep breaking the back of the enemy. You, the media, keep rejuvenating the enemy.

"How hard would it be to contact the Public Affairs Officer of the 1st CAV. 36th CAB 25th ID or the Marines and ask what did you guys accomplish today--good and bad?? How about some insurgent blooper videos? Now that would be something to show on the evening news.

"Media, we know you hate the George Bush administration, but report both sides, not just your one-sided agenda. You have got to realize how you are continually motivating every extremist, jihadist, and terrorist to continue their resolve to kill American soldiers."​

 

[04SCTLS]

I'll have to read it later but will get back to you.
Wife wants to go to the hotel for belated valentine fun.
Short of a nuclear device they can only slightly hurt us with suicide bombers which we don't yet have because of our religious tolerance here.( how ironic)

9/11 was more spectacular than catastrophic.
2 buildings collapsing and 3000 deaths is not a blitz.
Hitler had the industrial might of Germany behind him.
Apples and oranges comparison.

 

[shagdrum]

I'll have to read it later but will get back to you.
Wife wants to go to the hotel for belated valentine fun.

Have fun.

9/11 was more spectacular than catastrophic.

It was still a catastrophy. Just not on the scale that Germany could wage. 3000+ civilians killed in one attack is nothing short of a catastrophy.

Hitler had the industrial might of Germany behind him. Apples and oranges comparison.

The time I am talking about in British history is before Germany ever bombed Britian. It was during the time of Neville Chamberlain. It is not an apples and oranges comparison because the logic and rhetoric in the arguments on both sides and the active role the media played in pushing an agenda was the same then as it is today, and that is what is being focused on; not the threat posed by Germany to Britian v. Al Queda (or terrorism in general) to America, which is irrelevant to the point.

You really need to read those article first.

 

[Joeychgo]

Who cares if they consider it a mistake. That is nothing more then Monday morning quarterbacking. The people supported the war going in as well as the congress and senate. Weather they think in hindsight we should have gone in or not is irrelevant; we are there. Saying, "looking back, I don't think we should've gone into Iraq", is not the same as "I currently don't support the war.", or "I think we should pull out".

Besides, once you commit to war, the military and the president run it. The people don't get to run the war and decide on strategy.

Well, for me at least, I know were misled into war. Now, was it deliberate? I dont know. But the biggest reason for us going to war was WMD and Iraq's liklihood to use them against us. They turned out to have no WMD. I dont know if we were mislead deliberately or not. But, your right. We're there. So the question is mainly - what now? GW has made it clear. It's the next guy's problem.

 

[shagdrum]

Well, for me at least, I know were misled into war. Now, was it deliberate?

Saying we were misled implies deliberate. The only person deliberately misleading in this whole affair was Hussein. He was puposely trying to convince people that he had WMD's. We had no choice but to assume that he did, as all the info pointed to that.

But the biggest reason for us going to war was WMD and Iraq's liklihood to use them against us. They turned out to have no WMD.

WMD's were one of the biggest selling points. The fear wasn't so much that they would use them as that they would give them to terrorists, whom they were supporting (including Al Queda). The support of terrorists mixed with the claims bluster by Sadam that he had WMD's was the biggest reason to go to war.

As to them having no WMD's we know they had some, we gave them to them in the 1980's. We also know that Sadam was actively seeking them and was pursuing nukes.

GW has made it clear. It's the next guy's problem.

Essentially, yes. We are gonna be there a while, and it will fall on the next presidents shoulders. That isn't to say that Bush is ignoring any responsibility there, it is a long enough conflict that it will go to the next president, like WWII fell on Truman's shoulders, and Vietnam fell into LBJ's, and then Nixon's laps.

 

[Joeychgo]

Truman got WWII because Roosevelt Died.

Fact is - Iraq was nowhere near the threat to us that was told to us. Then - it has been mishandled since the "Mission Accomplished" sign went up. That is why the next president will have to deal with this.

 

[shagdrum]

Fact is - Iraq was nowhere near the threat to us that was told to us. Then - it has been mishandled since the "Mission Accomplished" sign went up. That is why the next president will have to deal with this.

Iraq had tried to assasinate one US president (an act of war), had strong ties to terrorists and was trying to amass WMD's. Given those facts and the fact that Saddam made a strong effort to make Iraq seem like a threat with WMD's, they looked like, and very possibly were the biggest threat at the time to any objective mind. You can't logically claim that they weren't a strong threat, considering their ties to terrorists. To claim they weren't a threat is willful ignorance.

You can't rationally fault the decision to go into Iraq based on information not availible at the time.

 

[MonsterMark]

Fact is - Iraq was nowhere near the threat to us that was told to us. Then - it has been mishandled since the "Mission Accomplished" sign went up. That is why the next president will have to deal with this.

Lack of short and long term memory must be a disease around here.

Who was crying wolf first?

Time to be honest with yourself and quit blaming Bush for doing the right thing.

Democrats are liars!