Obama - "We're Out of Money"

[SeniorChief]

No shit, Sherlock...

(from Drudge) -

In a sobering holiday interview with C-SPAN, President Obama boldly told Americans: "We are out of money."

C-SPAN host Steve Scully broke from a meek Washington press corps with probing questions for the new president.

SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?

OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades.

So we've got a short-term problem, which is we had to spend a lot of money to salvage our financial system, we had to deal with the auto companies, a huge recession which drains tax revenue at the same time it's putting more pressure on governments to provide unemployment insurance or make sure that food stamps are available for people who have been laid off.

So we have a short-term problem and we also have a long-term problem. The short-term problem is dwarfed by the long-term problem. And the long-term problem is Medicaid and Medicare. If we don't reduce long-term health care inflation substantially, we can't get control of the deficit.

So, one option is just to do nothing. We say, well, it's too expensive for us to make some short-term investments in health care. We can't afford it. We've got this big deficit. Let's just keep the health care system that we've got now.

Along that trajectory, we will see health care cost as an overall share of our federal spending grow and grow and grow and grow until essentially it consumes everything...

SCULLY: When you see GM though as “Government Motors,” you're reaction?

OBAMA: Well, you know – look we are trying to help an auto industry that is going through a combination of bad decision making over many years and an unprecedented crisis or at least a crisis we haven't seen since the 1930's. And you know the economy is going to bounce back and we want to get out of the business of helping auto companies as quickly as we can. I have got more enough to do without that. In the same way that I want to get out of the business of helping banks, but we have to make some strategic decisions about strategic industries...

SCULLY: States like California in desperate financial situation, will you be forced to bail out the states?

OBAMA: No. I think that what you're seeing in states is that anytime you got a severe recession like this, as I said before, their demands on services are higher. So, they are sending more money out. At the same time, they're bringing less tax revenue in. And that's a painful adjustment, what we're going end up seeing is lot of states making very difficult choices there...

SCULLY: William Howard Taft served on the court after his presidency, would you have any interest in being on the Supreme Court?

OBAMA: You know, I am not sure that I could get through Senate confirmation...

Developing...

[SimonDavid]

No shit, Sherlock...

(from Drudge) -

In a sobering holiday interview with C-SPAN, President Obama boldly told Americans: "We are out of money."

C-SPAN host Steve Scully broke from a meek Washington press corps with probing questions for the new president.

SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?

OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades.

So we've got a short-term problem, which is we had to spend a lot of money to salvage our financial system, we had to deal with the auto companies, a huge recession which drains tax revenue at the same time it's putting more pressure on governments to provide unemployment insurance or make sure that food stamps are available for people who have been laid off.

So we have a short-term problem and we also have a long-term problem. The short-term problem is dwarfed by the long-term problem. And the long-term problem is Medicaid and Medicare. If we don't reduce long-term health care inflation substantially, we can't get control of the deficit.

So, one option is just to do nothing. We say, well, it's too expensive for us to make some short-term investments in health care. We can't afford it. We've got this big deficit. Let's just keep the health care system that we've got now.

Along that trajectory, we will see health care cost as an overall share of our federal spending grow and grow and grow and grow until essentially it consumes everything...

SCULLY: When you see GM though as “Government Motors,” you're reaction?

OBAMA: Well, you know – look we are trying to help an auto industry that is going through a combination of bad decision making over many years and an unprecedented crisis or at least a crisis we haven't seen since the 1930's. And you know the economy is going to bounce back and we want to get out of the business of helping auto companies as quickly as we can. I have got more enough to do without that. In the same way that I want to get out of the business of helping banks, but we have to make some strategic decisions about strategic industries...

SCULLY: States like California in desperate financial situation, will you be forced to bail out the states?

OBAMA: No. I think that what you're seeing in states is that anytime you got a severe recession like this, as I said before, their demands on services are higher. So, they are sending more money out. At the same time, they're bringing less tax revenue in. And that's a painful adjustment, what we're going end up seeing is lot of states making very difficult choices there...

SCULLY: William Howard Taft served on the court after his presidency, would you have any interest in being on the Supreme Court?

OBAMA: You know, I am not sure that I could get through Senate confirmation...

Developing...
Did you read past the first sentence?

[SeniorChief]

Did you read past the first sentence?

Absolutely. He's lying about the car companies and he's going to rape us on taxes and "free" healthcare.

But we've already covered these topics in other threads.

[SimonDavid]

Absolutely. He's lying about the car companies and he's going to rape us on taxes and "free" healthcare.

But we've already covered these topics in other threads.
So why bring them up yet again?
But here is what counts; Obama could say the sun rose in the east and the likes of you would squawk "He's lying about the sun! He just wants us to look East every morning so we will eventually adopt Eastern block communism!"
He is telling the truth in a direct and simple way. I am sure that had he instead chirped "9/11!" after each question you would have toasted his comments.

[radioguy]

So why bring them up yet again?
But here is what counts; Obama could say the sun rose in the east and the likes of you would squawk "He's lying about the sun! He just wants us to look East every morning so we will eventually adopt Eastern block communism!"
He is telling the truth in a direct and simple way. I am sure that had he instead chirped "9/11!" after each question you would have toasted his comments.

The point is, Obama states that we are out of money, yet still plans on spending billions and billions more money that he just admitted we don't have.

Let me guess... You're ok with this... Right?


.

[SimonDavid]

"So, one option is just to do nothing. We say, well, it's too expensive for us to make some short-term investments in health care. We can't afford it. We've got this big deficit. Let's just keep the health care system that we've got now."

Let me guess...this is your solution...right?

[SeniorChief]

So why bring them up yet again?


Because you asked me to. I was merely focusing on the fact that he's broke-dicked our country financially, to the point we're out of money. You asked if I had read the rest and I responded, "absolutely." I thought I was clear that those other points have been drumbeated earlier. I can't understand why that wasn't clear with you. Perhaps I should dumb-down my posts more so you can comprehend?

[SimonDavid]

Because you asked me to. I was merely focusing on the fact that he's broke-dicked our country financially, to the point we're out of money. You asked if I had read the rest and I responded, "absolutely." I thought I was clear that those other points have been drumbeated earlier. I can't understand why that wasn't clear with you. Perhaps I should dumb-down my posts more so you can comprehend?
No, the question was why post another thread if the subjects were thoroughly covered elsewhere.
In the future I will dumb down my questions so you can comprehend.

[MintJulep]

But here is what counts; Obama could say the sun rose in the east and the likes of you would squawk "He's lying about the sun! He just wants us to look East every morning so we will eventually adopt Eastern block communism!"
He is telling the truth in a direct and simple way. I am sure that had he instead chirped "9/11!" after each question you would have toasted his comments.Sound familiar?

[radioguy]

"So, one option is just to do nothing. We say, well, it's too expensive for us to make some short-term investments in health care. We can't afford it. We've got this big deficit. Let's just keep the health care system that we've got now."

Let me guess...this is your solution...right?

YES!

You don't continue to spend money when America is this far in debt.

[SeniorChief]

No, the question was why post another thread if the subjects were thoroughly covered elsewhere.


Dear Douchebag -

WHERE on this forum - has it ever been reported Obama saying "We're Out of Money."

Go ahead.

I'll wait.

[Mason66]

That can't be what he said word for word.

I have never seen him talk without him saying UH UH UH over and over again, the funny thing is he even does it with a teleprompter.

[Smurf-Herder]

He immediately diverted to the Healthcare issue, in his interview. Being "out of money" isn't as directly related to the healthcare issue as it is related to overall wasted spending causing unnecessary debt.

He's diverting away from his specific proposals amounting to four times more borrowed spending than any other US Administration in history. Bush only gave the first half of TARP - which a lot of conservatives disagreed with, in the first place. Now we have a budget with over four times Bush's worst "budget deficit", with a $400 Billion+ Omnibus, a $787 Billion Rush "Stimulus", of which only $20 Billion has been spent so far, with very few "real" shovel-ready projects actually existing; and of course, the other half of the originally contested TARP money - which still has to account for where it's being spent.

Yes, in some respects Bush fit the description of a NeoCon, more than a conservative; and this may have been an example of that ......... along with the Immigration Bill and the North American Union BS. But the point is, Obama is just going wild with the money, with absolute authority in "private sector" affairs ......... and now he's just telling us "We're out of money."

Like, No Shit Sherlock.

To me, his obvious purpose in stating the obvious ( :D ) is to get us used to hopelessness, without looking like a fear monger; along with fixing the blame on anything else but him. And to psychologically enforce the feeling that nobody can fix it ..... so everything he does is accepted as "well, there is no other choice - because afterall, we are out of money."

It's just part of the Obama-conditioning ops.

[Cat slave]

That can't be what he said word for word.

I have never seen him talk without him saying UH UH UH over and over again, the funny thing is he even does it with a teleprompter.


Wonder who does his writing for him...whoever it is they should be fired for
putting in so many "uhs".....or maybe its the messiah who needs firing. Yeah,
I like the latter idea much better. What an insufferable putz.

[SimonDavid]

Dear Douchebag -

WHERE on this forum - has it ever been reported Obama saying "We're Out of Money."

Go ahead.

I'll wait.
That was not my question, was it?
I said, did you read past the first sentence?
You said "Absolutely. He's lying about the car companies and he's going to rape us on taxes and "free" healthcare.
But we've already covered these topics in other threads."

I asked why another thread on his alleged ""lying about the car companies and he's going to rape us on taxes and "free" healthcare".

[SimonDavid]

Sound familiar?
No, I do not toast anyone's using September 11 as a political tool.

[SimonDavid]

YES!

You don't continue to spend money when America is this far in debt.
Again I have to ask, as you Bush Cultists never fail to amaze me with your hypocrisy, how far is "too far"? Spending $12 billion per month in Iraq, losing $9 billion, still missing, was apparently never a problem for you.

[MintJulep]

No, I do not toast anyone's using September 11 as a political tool.Oh, suuuurre you wouldn't. You had nothing but an open mind for any and every thing Bush said or attempted.........

[SimonDavid]

Oh, suuuurre you wouldn't. You had nothing but an open mind for any and every thing Bush said or attempted.........
Perhaps you misunderstand. Bush, Cheney, Giuliani and others have used September 11 as a fear-mongering tactic for political gain. I do not toast the use of such a tragedy, whomever uses it.

[MintJulep]

Perhaps you misunderstand. Bush, Cheney, Giuliani and others have used September 11 as a fear-mongering tactic for political gain. I do not toast the use of such a tragedy, whomever uses it.This is what you wrote, the bold of which I was referring to by "sound familiar?":

"But here is what counts; Obama could say the sun rose in the east and the likes of you would squawk "He's lying about the sun! He just wants us to look East every morning so we will eventually adopt Eastern block communism!" He is telling the truth in a direct and simple way. I am sure that had he instead chirped "9/11!" after each question you would have toasted his comments."

[SimonDavid]

This is what you wrote, the bold of which I was referring to by "sound familiar?":

"But here is what counts; Obama could say the sun rose in the east and the likes of you would squawk "He's lying about the sun! He just wants us to look East every morning so we will eventually adopt Eastern block communism!" He is telling the truth in a direct and simple way. I am sure that had he instead chirped "9/11!" after each question you would have toasted his comments."
No, it does not "look familiar". Are you claiming I plagiarize?

[MintJulep]

No, it does not "look familiar". Are you claiming I plagiarize?Do you not "get" it?

[SimonDavid]

Do you not "get" it?
Apparently not. "Explain" it to me.

[MintJulep]

Apparently not. "Explain" it to me.Ummm, well, it's like this. You could take your sentence and replace Obama with Bush and it would sound identical to the past eight years.

Did you miss the short bus this morning? :D

[doctordog]

Ummm, well, it's like this. You could take your sentence and replace Obama with Bush and it would sound identical to the past eight years.

Did you miss the short bus this morning? :D

He doesn't have enough sandwich for a picnic:lmao2:

[MintJulep]

He doesn't have enough sandwich for a picnic:lmao2:Methinks he has imbided too much today on this....

http://i39.tinypic.com/2cdz5h3.jpg

Foolaid, anyone?

:lmao2:

[SimonDavid]

Ummm, well, it's like this. You could take your sentence and replace Obama with Bush and it would sound identical to the past eight years.

Did you miss the short bus this morning? :D
Ah, but Bush is guilty of most of those things of which he is accused. Obama, on the other hand, is not "trying to destroy the economy", or intending to surrender to terrorists, or turn loose terrorists to become bomb toting schoolbus drivers, or much of the other nonsense that is dropped like bird droppings as fact. So your analogy is fallacious.

[GetAClue]

Ah, but Bush is guilty of most of those things of which he is accused. Obama, on the other hand, is not "trying to destroy the economy", or intending to surrender to terrorists, or turn loose terrorists to become bomb toting schoolbus drivers, or much of the other nonsense that is dropped like bird droppings as fact. So your analogy is fallacious.

His actions say otherwise.

[SimonDavid]

His actions say otherwise.
No. No, they do not. Try actually paying attention, rather than exclusively listening to/reading/watching Right Wing propagandists, then you will have a truly "fair and balanced" view. No guarantee such an experience will get through, but we can be optimistic.

[GetAClue]

No. No, they do not. Try actually paying attention, rather than exclusively listening to/reading/watching Right Wing propagandists, then you will have a truly "fair and balanced" view. No guarantee such an experience will get through, but we can be optimistic.

I'm sorry, but no I don't sit around watching "right wing" propagandists. I have been paying attention and am able to think for myself, thank you. Just because I happen to share an opinion with someone does not mean I let them do my thinking.

I have been of the opinion that Obama is a socialist since I first heard his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. That was LONG before many people were doing any analysis of his speeches. It does not take a doctorate in economics to see where all of this borrowing and spending is taking us. That along with his heavy involvement and control of certain sectors of private industry, tells me all I need to know.

[SimonDavid]

I'm sorry, but no I don't sit around watching "right wing" propagandists. I have been paying attention and am able to think for myself, thank you. Just because I happen to share an opinion with someone does not mean I let them do my thinking.

I have been of the opinion that Obama is a socialist since I first heard his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. That was LONG before many people were doing any analysis of his speeches. It does not take a doctorate in economics to see where all of this borrowing and spending is taking us. That along with his heavy involvement and control of certain sectors of private industry, tells me all I need to know.
Ah, good, you think for yourself, your views just happen to coincidentally coincide with Right Wing propaganda, and you made up your mind about Obama on your first glimpse of him in 2004. Got it.

[GetAClue]

Ah, good, you think for yourself, your views just happen to coincidentally coincide with Right Wing propaganda, and you made up your mind about Obama on your first glimpse of him in 2004. Got it.

And your views are right in line with Keith Oberman and the left wing loonies. I take it you get your marching orders from the View? Got it!

[SimonDavid]

And your views are right in line with Keith Oberman and the left wing loonies. I take it you get your marching orders from the View? Got it!
Are they really? No, on closer examination they are not. I have criticized Obama for many of his actions, but I do not believe the nonsense that he is a closet, or out in the open, for that matter, socialist, nor that he intends to "destroy the economy" for as yet unnamed reasons. He is no "messiah", but nor does he govern from a position of fear and manipulation. He sees the need for security, but is unwilling to, as so many here appear to be anxious for, abandon the principles which have sustained the US through many crises more dire than these. That is what differentiates him from what came so recently before.

[Smurf-Herder]

BTW, I don't think Obama's a socialist ............... he's much worse than that.

Give him a chance. He's just getting started.

[Binky]

Dear Douchebag -

WHERE on this forum - has it ever been reported Obama saying "We're Out of Money."

Go ahead.

I'll wait.



:lmao2: I love it!

[Binky]

BTW, I don't think Obama's a socialist ............... he's much worse than that.

Give him a chance. He's just getting started.


That's exactly what I'm afraid of. :doh:

[SimonDavid]

:lmao2: I love it!
What do you love? The childish name-calling? Or the disingenuous nature of the question?

[doctordog]

Are they really? No, on closer examination they are not. I have criticized Obama for many of his actions, but I do not believe the nonsense that he is a closet, or out in the open, for that matter, socialist, nor that he intends to "destroy the economy" for as yet unnamed reasons. He is no "messiah", but nor does he govern from a position of fear and manipulation. He sees the need for security, but is unwilling to, as so many here appear to be anxious for, abandon the principles which have sustained the US through many crises more dire than these. That is what differentiates him from what came so recently before.

He has so far demonstrated the least amount of honesty and integrity of any President so far except of course Slick Willie.

[GetAClue]

Are they really? No, on closer examination they are not. I have criticized Obama for many of his actions, but I do not believe the nonsense that he is a closet, or out in the open, for that matter, socialist, nor that he intends to "destroy the economy" for as yet unnamed reasons. He is no "messiah", but nor does he govern from a position of fear and manipulation. He sees the need for security, but is unwilling to, as so many here appear to be anxious for, abandon the principles which have sustained the US through many crises more dire than these. That is what differentiates him from what came so recently before.

But contrary to your stated beliefs, his actions HAVE demonstrated his socialist, if not fascist in nature. The bank bailout, the taking over of General Motors, Cap and Trade, etc. are ALL socialist agenda programs. Throw Nationalized Heath Care and it is quite apparent that his policies do support the assertion that he is a socialist.

He can spout all day long that he is not a socialist and those sheep in the media and elsewhere that hang on his every word because they like the way he says things, can say otherwise. But those of us that are not mesmerized by his speech and persona can see thru the veil.

[SimonDavid]

He has so far demonstrated the least amount of honesty and integrity of any President so far except of course Slick Willie.
Odd you leave Bush out of that equation, but expected.

[SimonDavid]

But contrary to your stated beliefs, his actions HAVE demonstrated his socialist, if not fascist in nature. The bank bailout, the taking over of General Motors, Cap and Trade, etc. are ALL socialist agenda programs. Throw Nationalized Heath Care and it is quite apparent that his policies do support the assertion that he is a socialist.

He can spout all day long that he is not a socialist and those sheep in the media and elsewhere that hang on his every word because they like the way he says things, can say otherwise. But those of us that are not mesmerized by his speech and persona can see thru the veil.
The bank bailout was begun by Bush and the "conservatives" claimed this was essential, as the banks were "too big to fail"; the same flawed logic was in play with General Motors, although the job loss should GM fail would be no less devastating. "Nationalized Health Care" is, if you notice, not even on the table. A "single payer system" is being dismissed out of hand.
Again, look at what is actually happening instead of the Right Wing bluster and spin.

[doctordog]

Odd you leave Bush out of that equation, but expected.

Bush showed the world that we are done accepting terrorist attacks as a normal way of life, for that he gets my eternal thanks. Obama is inviting attacks of violence, financial attacks, and government attacks in the name of liberalism destroying all that working people hold dear.

[GetAClue]

The bank bailout was begun by Bush and the "conservatives" claimed this was essential, as the banks were "too big to fail"; the same flawed logic was in play with General Motors, although the job loss should GM fail would be no less devastating. "Nationalized Health Care" is, if you notice, not even on the table. A "single payer system" is being dismissed out of hand.
Again, look at what is actually happening instead of the Right Wing bluster and spin.

Wrong. Conservatives were against TARP under Bush also. There were some RINOs that supported TARP, Auto Bailouts and on and on. But Conservatives have been screaming no on this from the outset.

Please try to keep up.

[MintJulep]

"Nationalized Health Care" is, if you notice, not even on the table. A "single payer system" is being dismissed out of hand.
Please tell me you are not this gullible. A single payer system is "dismissed" only until the insurance companies are put out of business. Your Messiah's "plan" is a stepping-stone to full-on socialized medicine.

It is you who needs to look at what is happening instead of automatically lapping up what you are fed at the troughs of the Puffing Post and PG.

[SimonDavid]

Please tell me you are not this gullible. A single payer system is "dismissed" only until the insurance companies are put out of business. Your Messiah's "plan" is a stepping-stone to full-on socialized medicine.

It is you who needs to look at what is happening instead of automatically lapping up what you are fed at the troughs of the Puffing Post and PG.
For what it is worth (and I have said Obama is no "messiah" numerous times, as you know, in fact preferred Hillary, although any Democratic candidate would have had my support...we discussed this at length, so one might think you have stooped to lying) I prefer a "full-on socialized medicine" plan to the profit driven system we currently have. Obama's reticence to act on such a plan is a disappointment to me.

[SimonDavid]

Wrong. Conservatives were against TARP under Bush also. There were some RINOs that supported TARP, Auto Bailouts and on and on. But Conservatives have been screaming no on this from the outset.

Please try to keep up.
I do keep up, I assure you. "Conservatives", aka the "Base", have supported Bush in virtually every move. Those are the ones to which I refer. Again, if you were against Bush, then good for you. As I said, that is most refreshing.

[SimonDavid]

Bush showed the world that we are done accepting terrorist attacks as a normal way of life, for that he gets my eternal thanks. Obama is inviting attacks of violence, financial attacks, and government attacks in the name of liberalism destroying all that working people hold dear.
In doing so he increased terrorism worldwide, and created a massive recruiting tool. Good job.

[MintJulep]

In doing so he increased terrorism worldwide, and created a massive recruiting tool. Good job.Your opinion only. There is absolutely NO data to support it.

[MintJulep]

For what it is worth (and I have said Obama is no "messiah" numerous times, as you know, in fact preferred Hillary, although any Democratic candidate would have had my support...we discussed this at length, so one might think you have stooped to lying) I prefer a "full-on socialized medicine" plan to the profit driven system we currently have. Obama's reticence to act on such a plan is a disappointment to me.Trust me, I would have preferred Hillary too.

That said, I do not prefer a low quality, overpriced "free" system which you and the Chosen One tout. Most people are too ignorant to even know what a single payer system means. The unwashed, ignorant masses only need to hear "free". I want to retain the right to choose my doctors and medical care. I don't want to wait years to see a specialist inside of a dirty-walled, unsanitary, understaffed facility. Maybe you should move to Cuba if such care is your utopian dream.

[SimonDavid]

Trust me, I would have preferred Hillary too.

That said, I do not prefer a low quality, overpriced "free" system which you and the Chosen One tout. Most people are too ignorant to even know what a single payer system means. The unwashed, ignorant masses only need to hear "free". I want to retain the right to choose my doctors and medical care. I don't want to wait years to see a specialist inside of a dirty-walled, unsanitary, understaffed facility. Maybe you should move to Cuba if such care is your utopian dream.
No, more like Canada, or better. But let us remember your own vested interest in the profit driven insurance industry.

[SimonDavid]

Your opinion only. There is absolutely NO data to support it.
I guess this report (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:3Re39SZ8EMUJ:oversight.house.gov/documents/20060428112209-29811.pdf+data+rise+of+terrorism+since+bush&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) was left out of your comprehensive data base.

[MintJulep]

I guess this report (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:3Re39SZ8EMUJ:oversight.house.gov/documents/20060428112209-29811.pdf+data+rise+of+terrorism+since+bush&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) was left out of your comprehensive data base.No where in the report does it say Bush increased terrorism worldwide -- as you claimed, and for good reason. There is simply nothing to support such a ludricious claim, it is pure opinion. I can write Islamos slit Theo Van Gogh's throat because they didn't like Booossh, but it does not make it true.

Stop making excuses for the slaughtering savages. Had Booooosssh never been born, they'd still be a cuttin' and a scrapin'. It's what savages do.

[SimonDavid]

No where in the report does it say Bush increased terrorism worldwide -- as you claimed, and for good reason. There is simply nothing to support such a ludricious claim, it is pure opinion. I can write Islamos slit Theo Van Gogh's throat because they didn't like Booossh, but it does not make it true.

Stop making excuses for the slaughtering savages. Had Booooosssh never been born, they'd still be a cuttin' and a scrapin'. It's what savages do.
No excuses for savages. Simple facts:

Terrorism Has Surged Since 2003: In the three years since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush
Administration’s own data has revealed an astonishing increase in worldwide terrorism:
2003
175 “significant” attacks
(208 total attacks)
625 deaths
3,646 injuries

2004
651 “significant” attacks
(3,168 total attacks)
1,907 deaths
6,704 injuries

2005
11,111 terrorist attacks
14,602 deaths
3,646 injuries
24,705 injuries

Reports by independent organizations, such as the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service,
the British-based insurance firm Aon Corp., and the independent Terrorism Research Center,
confirm that terrorism is increasing rapidly.
The nonprofit National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, which was established after the Oklahoma City bombings, lists 4,924 incidents of terrorism in 2005, up from 2,646 in 2004 and 1,898 in 2003.
Although there are differences in every organization’s methodology, each independent assessment shows that global terrorism is on the rise.

His actions increased terrorism worldwide. He did not decrease terrorism. It increased under his watch.
The claim being refuted was that Bush's actions had some deleterious effect on terrorism. They did not.

[GetAClue]

No excuses for savages. Simple facts:

Terrorism Has Surged Since 2003: In the three years since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush
Administration’s own data has revealed an astonishing increase in worldwide terrorism:
2003
175 “significant” attacks
(208 total attacks)
625 deaths
3,646 injuries

2004
651 “significant” attacks
(3,168 total attacks)
1,907 deaths
6,704 injuries

2005
11,111 terrorist attacks
14,602 deaths
3,646 injuries
24,705 injuries

Reports by independent organizations, such as the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service,
the British-based insurance firm Aon Corp., and the independent Terrorism Research Center,
confirm that terrorism is increasing rapidly.
The nonprofit National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, which was established after the Oklahoma City bombings, lists 4,924 incidents of terrorism in 2005, up from 2,646 in 2004 and 1,898 in 2003.
Although there are differences in every organization’s methodology, each independent assessment shows that global terrorism is on the rise.

His actions increased terrorism worldwide. He did not decrease terrorism. It increased under his watch.
The claim being refuted was that Bush's actions had some deleterious effect on terrorism. They did not.

Please provide a link to this report.

[SeniorChief]

Please provide a link to this report.

Think Progress
http://thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline/
A Communist Liberal Bush-Bash site.

[SeniorChief]

His actions increased terrorism worldwide. He did not decrease terrorism. It increased under his watch.

You Sir, are a fucking idiot.

[Binky]

What do you love? The childish name-calling? Or the disingenuous nature of the question?


I loved where Senior Chief said, "go ahead, I'll wait." :lmao2:

[GetAClue]

No excuses for savages. Simple facts:

Terrorism Has Surged Since 2003: In the three years since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush
Administration’s own data has revealed an astonishing increase in worldwide terrorism:
2003
175 “significant” attacks
(208 total attacks)
625 deaths
3,646 injuries

2004
651 “significant” attacks
(3,168 total attacks)
1,907 deaths
6,704 injuries

2005
11,111 terrorist attacks
14,602 deaths
3,646 injuries
24,705 injuries

Reports by independent organizations, such as the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service,
the British-based insurance firm Aon Corp., and the independent Terrorism Research Center,
confirm that terrorism is increasing rapidly.
The nonprofit National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, which was established after the Oklahoma City bombings, lists 4,924 incidents of terrorism in 2005, up from 2,646 in 2004 and 1,898 in 2003.
Although there are differences in every organization’s methodology, each independent assessment shows that global terrorism is on the rise.

His actions increased terrorism worldwide. He did not decrease terrorism. It increased under his watch.
The claim being refuted was that Bush's actions had some deleterious effect on terrorism. They did not.

Sorry about asking for the link, I just saw it in the post above. However, your data is a bit skewed. A majority of the attacks cited in the report were acts of terror against Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. They could also be labeled as acts of war by enemy forces. Your numbers are disingenuous in that they imply that random terror attacks against unsecured civilian targets have gone up. Sure terrorists were fighting back against the troops. And while they were, they were being eliminated by our forces. It goes right into the saying, “if they are fighting us over there, it beats having them attacking us here.”

You really need to come up with a better stat than that.

[SimonDavid]

Think Progress
http://thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline/
A Communist Liberal Bush-Bash site.

You Sir, are a fucking idiot.
And you sir, cannot read. Look at the link I provided. The site is and html version of an oversight.house.gov pdf document.

[SimonDavid]

I loved where Senior Chief said, "go ahead, I'll wait." :lmao2:
Yes, that is the height of witticism.

[SimonDavid]

Sorry about asking for the link, I just saw it in the post above. However, your data is a bit skewed. A majority of the attacks cited in the report were acts of terror against Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. They could also be labeled as acts of war by enemy forces. Your numbers are disingenuous in that they imply that random terror attacks against unsecured civilian targets have gone up. Sure terrorists were fighting back against the troops. And while they were, they were being eliminated by our forces. It goes right into the saying, “if they are fighting us over there, it beats having them attacking us here.”

You really need to come up with a better stat than that.
In fact, the report does not list the nature of the attacks.
It defines "international terrorism" thusly:

The Law Requires Data on “Acts of International Terrorism”: The principal difference between the definition of terrorism used in 2004 and the definition used in 2005 is that the 2004 definition applied to acts of “international terrorism” whereas the 2005 definition eliminates the “international” requirement. According to the State Department, the new definition was applied “in order to meet new Congressional requirements.”

In fact, the statutory definition of international terrorism has remained in place since well before 2003. Section 2656f(a) of title 22 of the U.S. Code requires the Secretary of State to transmit to Congress by April 30 of each year a “full and complete report” that includes “acts of international terrorism.” The definition of “international terrorism” is set forth explicitly in
section (d) of the statute. In preparing the report on the 2005 data, the Bush Administration has disregarded this express statutory definition.

[doctordog]

In fact, the report does not list the nature of the attacks.
It defines "international terrorism" thusly:

The Law Requires Data on “Acts of International Terrorism”: The principal difference between the definition of terrorism used in 2004 and the definition used in 2005 is that the 2004 definition applied to acts of “international terrorism” whereas the 2005 definition eliminates the “international” requirement. According to the State Department, the new definition was applied “in order to meet new Congressional requirements.”

In fact, the statutory definition of international terrorism has remained in place since well before 2003. Section 2656f(a) of title 22 of the U.S. Code requires the Secretary of State to transmit to Congress by April 30 of each year a “full and complete report” that includes “acts of international terrorism.” The definition of “international terrorism” is set forth explicitly in
section (d) of the statute. In preparing the report on the 2005 data, the Bush Administration has disregarded this express statutory definition.

Terrorism has increased every year for every administration, so this is a pointless conversation.

[SimonDavid]

Terrorism has increased every year for every administration, so this is a pointless conversation.
No, it is not "pointless" since the Bush Cabal is being celebrated as having some kind of diminishing effect on terrorism. They had none. That is the reality.

[doctordog]

No, it is not "pointless" since the Bush Cabal is being celebrated as having some kind of diminishing effect on terrorism. They had none. That is the reality.

It has decreased against our citizens, enough said, had the other countries supported our efforts they would have realized a decrease as well.

[MintJulep]

No, it is not "pointless" since the Bush Cabal is being celebrated as having some kind of diminishing effect on terrorism. They had none. That is the reality.Certainly it has. The reality is we've had zero attacks in the U.S. post 9/11 under Bush/Cheney. Terrorists setting off IEDs in Iraq, Afghanistan is a far cry from terrorist attacks on civilians and furthermore, if terrorists decide to blow-up a nightclub in Bali or slaughter a schoolhouse full of children in Beslan, it is not Booooossssshhh's fault. It only demonstrates they did not attack us because they were too afraid to so they went to locations they perceived as "weak". You know, kind of like how the US is perceived now........

[GetAClue]

Certainly it has. The reality is we've had zero attacks in the U.S. post 9/11 under Bush/Cheney. Terrorists setting off IEDs in Iraq, Afghanistan is a far cry from terrorist attacks on civilians and furthermore, if terrorists decide to blow-up a nightclub in Bali or slaughter a schoolhouse full of children in Beslan, it is not Booooossssshhh's fault. It only demonstrates they did not attack us because they were too afraid to so they went to locations they perceived as "weak". You know, kind of like how the US is perceived now........
Exactly! Not that I wish for terrorist attacks anywhere. My point was that of course there would be an increase in attacks. They had our military in country pursuing them.

I stand by my original claim. That response you sent did not prove your point. The attempt to cite a report claiming the number of attacks has gone up dramatically is a disingenuous attempt to use attacks on the battlefield to support a claim that there are more terrorist attacks on “soft targets” as a result of the Iraq war.

[Binky]

Yes, that is the height of witticism.



:lmao2: And he's soooooo good at it. :D

[Binky]

Makes me all warm and fuzzy inside to think OB told the world that we had no money. Our frienemies (a cross between friends and enemies) are prob'ly jumpin' around like jumpin' beans exstatic over that tidbit of news. :banghead:

[SimonDavid]

Exactly! Not that I wish for terrorist attacks anywhere. My point was that of course there would be an increase in attacks. They had our military in country pursuing them.

I stand by my original claim. That response you sent did not prove your point. The attempt to cite a report claiming the number of attacks has gone up dramatically is a disingenuous attempt to use attacks on the battlefield to support a claim that there are more terrorist attacks on “soft targets” as a result of the Iraq war.
This is the last of three posts in succession which basically states that American lives have more value than those outside our boundaries, and that an increase in terrorist attacks (from a report that does not mention the circumstances, negating the stillborn conclusion drawn that "they don't count") equals Bush winning the "war on terror". His efforts have not slowed terrorism, attacks have increased.

[Smurf-Herder]

And Saddam is no longer a threat, waiting for sanctions to be lifted.

My whole argument on Iraq is, we should have gone in when they violated the ceasefire agreement back in the early 90s - long before Al-Qaeda ever became a serious problem. On the merits of Saddam's ceasefire violations and buildups along the Kuwaiti border alone.

[SimonDavid]

And Saddam is no longer a threat, waiting for sanctions to be lifted.

My whole argument on Iraq is, we should have gone in when they violated the ceasefire agreement back in the early 90s - long before Al-Qaeda ever became a serious problem. On the merits of Saddam's ceasefire violations and buildups along the Kuwaiti border alone.
Perhaps, I shed no tears for Saddam, although another coalition of unified nations, ala the first Gulf War, should have been the ones "going in", not just "us". However the first Bush, who saw the wisdom of putting together a true coalition as well as not going into Baghdad (as did Cheney at the time) as a conquering force (leaving some to speculate if his interest was not so much in ridding the world of evil and "naked aggression" so much as protecting his oil sheik friends), had no plan to develop a stable government there and knew it, as opposed to his son.

[Smurf-Herder]

Perhaps, I shed no tears for Saddam, although another coalition of unified nations, ala the first Gulf War, should have been the ones "going in", not just "us". However the first Bush, who saw the wisdom of putting together a true coalition as well as not going into Baghdad (as did Cheney at the time) as a conquering force (leaving some to speculate if his interest was not so much in ridding the world of evil and "naked aggression" so much as protecting his oil sheik friends), had no plan to develop a stable government there and knew it, as opposed to his son.

I'm so sick of arguing this for the past five years, between this and another (defunct) board.

But we were not alone. A lot of countries were "on the take" from Oil For Food scam kickbacks. And Rumsfeld used the "not looking like a conquering force" argument for going in with too few troops - the biggest mistake, IMO. The second biggest mistake was not having an extensive aftermath plan.

[SimonDavid]

I'm so sick of arguing this for the past five years, between this and another (defunct) board.

But we were not alone. A lot of countries were "on the take" from Oil For Food scam kickbacks. And Rumsfeld used the "not looking like a conquering force" argument for going in with too few troops - the biggest mistake, IMO. The second biggest mistake was not having an extensive aftermath plan.
I agree on all of those points. It is a done argument, especially since any wrongdoing is going to be swept aside.
Rumsfeld and the entirety of the Bush/Cheney administration, including its PNAC puppetmasters, were incompetent in the planning and execution of this, the defining element of the Bush tenure.