Bush Lied - People Died

...is a favorite meme of the left.  Bush lied about the WMDs and thousand of people died because of it.

For the last 5 years or so I've asked the BLPD crowd a simple question and have never received an definitive response;  "When did Iraq cease to have WMDs"?

Bueller?  Bueller?  Bueller?

Republicans Playing Checkers...

Once again the Republicans find themselves being out maneuvered by the President and other Democrats...this time it's the much-ballyhooed "fiscal cliff" vs tax rates debacle.

The President would like the R's to simply give in and raise the tax rates for folks making over 250k.  The additional revenue won't make much of a difference on the budget nor deficit nor the GDP nor the unemployment rate nor the housing crisis nor just about anything that has to do with the economy, but it will further the D's "divide and conquer through class-warfare" strategy.  If the R's don't bow to the demands of the President, we go over the cliff.  Now, the CBO has a pretty good 5-year projection on what going over the cliff will cause...unemployment to fall to 5.5% and GDP to rise to near, or at, full output.  Sounds pretty good.  Of course if you listen to the MSM or the D's (not that there's much of a difference) going over the cliff will drive unemployment to +10% and actually put us into a recession.  Apparently the fact that that's exactly what happened after years of stimulus spending and tax cuts is lost on the D's.  Anyway, the Budget Control Act of 2012 ("fiscal cliff) scenario is actually pretty good compared to where we've been and what we're likely to get from a rushed, "negotiated" deal out of DC.  But, back to the here and now...if we go over the cliff everybody loses their Bush tax cuts Jan 1.  On Jan 2, BHO will blame the R's and then call for tax breaks for the middle class...and none for the 2%'ers.  The D's will gladly introduce the bill and force R's to either vote for a middle class tax break - and let the new higher taxes on the "rich" stand, or the R's will have to vote against a MC tax break - and the "rich", along with the rest of us, will get stuck with higher taxes.  Either way, the R's look like they're being unreasonable, stubborn and in bed with the "rich" folks.  So, what to do?

Offer a 2% tax increase on those earning over $1,000,000 (call it the Obama tax) right now.  BHO will either accept it, which allows the R's to be the "good guys" or he will reject it...the R's will still look good and folks will begin to wonder what the President's true motive are.

If rejected, the R's should offer a 2.5% tax increase on those earning over $1,000,000 but only if .5% goes to reducing the debt.  

If rejected, the R's should offer a 3.0% tax increase on those earning over $1,000,000 but only if 1% goes to reducing the debt.

At some point the President is going to begin to look foolish for not taking Yes for an answer.  The R's are offering higher taxes on millionaires while extending the Bush MC tax cuts....yet BHO won't accept it?  

At no time should the R's agree to open negotiations on budget cuts.  Those cuts were already negotiated by the President and he agreed to them.  They are key to reforming government.  Don't let him off the hook on what is the central issue of our fiscal problem...government spending.  Give him a tax increase on millionaires while protecting the Bush MC tax cuts...and in exchange the R's also get sweeping and significant cuts in spending.  According to the CBO, if we go off the "cliff", we'll see GDP shrink for two quarters (but not go negative) and then rebound smartly.  Unemployment will bump up to 9.1% by the end of 2013 but then rapidly decrease.  Mid-terms aren't until 2014 so whatever "blame" BHO tries to put on the Rs won't mean much...the economy will be in much better shape because of the spending cuts and increased revenue...and we got them because Republicans provided leadership, and compromise, in 2012.  A modest increase on taxes for those making over $1,000,000 while protecting the Bush MC tax cuts and demanding substantial spending cuts sounds like the perfect Christmas present for the nation.

Romney - How to Dodge the Foreign Policy Bullet

Governor Romney should become an expert at delivering some version of the following comments whenever he's asked about President Obama's record on Foreign Policy, what he would have done differently or when asked about a specific, current, FP issue;

"Overall, I think President Obama has a done better on Foreign Policy than he has on the economy.  There are some aspects of his foreign policy that I agree with and then there are others that I think I would have handled differently.  But, it's important to remember that, even as a presidential candidate, I don't have access to all of the classified information nor do I receive the same quality of intel briefings that he does.  Finally, until President Bush's administration, we used to have a long standing practice of not attacking the President on foreign policy issues to ensure America spoke with one voice.  So, regardless of whether I agree with President Obama's foreign policies or not, I'm not going to second guess him for political expediency."


Why?
1.  President Obama is much more vulnerable on economic issues than on foreign policy.   Time and resources spent attacking him on FP are time and resources not available to remind everybody that "it's the economy, stupid"

2.  Let's be honest, Mitt doesn't have a FP record to brag about.  In fact, he doesn't have any FP experience at all, except for the Olympics.  That's kind of like bragging that your experience as a community organizer is proof you're ready to lead the free world.

3.  Speaking about a lack of FP experience...Paul Ryan is a little lite on that one, too.  At least BHO could point to Joe Biden in 2008.

4.  These responses leave very little room for counter-attack or even further digging because MR isn't really saying anything negative about BHO's record nor is he saying anything specific about his own FP plans or beliefs.   Mitt can control the conversation while appearing to stay above partisan politics.  He can play the  "I don't have enough information to really comment"- card, implying that his access to the intel is insufficient compared to what the President has and that commenting without knowing all the facts would be inappropriate.   If the facts are publicly known he can play the "I'm not going to second guess the President for political gain" - card.

5.  President Obama does have a pretty good record on FP.   Iraq wound down just like President Bush set it up to so it's hard for conservatives to blame President Obama for whatever happens.  He tried the "surge" strategy in Afghanistan and gave the commanders most of what they asked for.  It's pretty clear that we aren't going to accomplish much more in Afghanistan, regardless of who the CINC is, so setting a withdrawal date is fine with me....just wish it were sooner.  Additionally, whenever liberals start bragging about P. Obama's FP, conservative frequently respond that BHO is simply following in GWB's footsteps...doing the same thing GWB did.  If that's the case, then there really is very little for conservatives to complain about.  Yes, we don't know how the "Arab Spring" is going to play out and the evidence seems to be pointing more and more to a failure of leadership regarding the terrorist attack on our embassy in Libya.  And Iran is still trying to develop a nuclear weapon, but what, specifically, would MR do differently?

6.  MR needs some of the voters who supported BHO in 2008 to either stay home or come to the R side.  The best way to do that isn't to make them feel stupid for voting for BHO in the last election.  MR needs to tacitly imply that voting for BHO in 2008 wasn't completely stupid, and by giving him his props in FP, Mitt is giving the swing voters an out...they can feel good about BHO's FP performance, (especially compared to GWB's in their mind anyway) and that will legitimize their 2008 decision.  Now they can feel good about voting for MR in 2012...BHO was the right guy in 2008 and MR is the right guy in 2012.  "People hate to be sold, but they love to buy."  


MR is riding a wave right now because of his performance in the first debate.  Now is not the time to get cocky and to go on the FP attack.  FP isn't that important to voters right now and, in general, President Obama's record on FP isn't nearly as susceptible to attack as his economic record is.  Stay on message and don't give the press or BHO an opening on what is, right now anyway, a sideshow of the election.

Libs....his name is Corporal Taylor Baune

Corporal Taylor Baune's death was the 2,000th American casualty we've suffered in Afghanistan...though you'll have a hard time actually finding his name in media reports about this morbid body-count "milestone".  I read the reports filed by CNN and NPR on the most recent of negative events coming out of Afghanistan and was struck by one thing...they didn't even mention his name.  They didn't bother telling us about his background and why he joined the Marines.  They didn't bother to tell you about how he married his high school sweetheart 3 weeks before being deployed.  Heck, they didn't bother telling you how he died (IED).

But what CNN, NPR and many other left-leaning public relations firms were quick to claim was that when President Bush decide to go to war with Iraq over alleged WMDs, we 'took our eyes off Afghanistan'.  Resources were foolishly diverted from the 'right' conflict with Afghanistan and towards an "unnecessary, unprovoked, illegal" war with Iraq.  And that, as usual, President Obama had to come in an clean up another mess he was forced to inherit from "W".   (that's explains, at least to libs, why more troops dying under Obama than under Bush is acceptable and barely newsworthy)

But like so many liberal memes, it just ain't so....

So, *exactly* where is alleged diversion of troops from Afghanistan to Iraq?  In each and every year during President Bush's administration, the number of US troops in Afghanistan went up, not down.  Troops weren't pulled from Afghanistan to support Iraq, and the facts prove it.  But expecting a liberal press to actually report on facts is just plain wishful thinking.  It's gotten so bad that a whole industry has sprung up to do what journalists used to do....fact-check claims.  What passes for journalism is such a farce that we now have watchers watching the watchers.  And the watchers, at every level, have their own agenda that they will all too willingly substitute for facts.

Corporal Baune died in what the left and President Obama refuse to acknowledge...we are in the midst of a clash of civilizations and religions.  Yet instead of honoring his sacrifice with a honesty, integrity and determination, liberals want to perpetuate lies about, and shirk responsibility to, the previous administration....and the mainstream media seems more than happy to help them out.

RIP Corporal Baune.

"Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"

So asked then-candidate Ronald Reagan during the 1980 Presidential Debate with Jimmy Carter. Today's Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, is trying to use the same tactic. I think it's the right idea, but the wrong time-frame.
Let's ask a different question, are you and America better off today than you were on Jan 3, 2007?

Unemployment was holding steady at 4.6%, following 52 consecutive months of job growth.
The Dow Jones Industrial closed 2006 12,621.77...up 19%
The S&P 500 was up 15.70% for the year
The 2006 GDP was +4.92%
The deficit was about $400 billion
The debt limit (ceiling) was $9T
Our S&P credit rating was AAA

Jan 3, 2007 was the day Democrats took control of both houses of congress. That's the day America was introduced to the "leadership" of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Democrat control of all the committees. Things have been horrific since then, and that's not just a inconvenient coincidence, it's a very convenient (for Romney anyway) truth.

President Obama enjoys wide personal popularity among the electorate, and going directly after him isn't going to win many votes for Mr. Romney. Besides, the fact is the economy was in terrible shape...and heading south quickly...when BHO took over. A more effective approach is to associate President Obama's policies (and by extension, him) with the widely unpopular Reid-Pelosi tandem of failure. By using Jan 3, 2007 as the reference date for "are you better off?" Romney can point to a time when our economy was in great shape and ask Americans to compare their lot today with how it was before Reid-Pelosi-Obama gained control. Remind people, subtly, that Senator Obama was part of the cabal of ineptness that wrought economic ruin to America, and as President these same policies have simply failed to fix the problems they created. Whenever the defense of "he inherited" pops up, the Republican response should be "he inherited it from Pelosi, Reid and himself. Until the Democrats took control of Congress, everything was fine. It's been a disaster since then."

Much like candidate Obama successfully associated John McCain with the 'failures' of GWB, Mitt Romney needs to associate President Obama's failed economic policies with his Reid-Pelosi association...which ushered in economic calamity in the first place.

And for the record...no I'm not better off today than I was 4 years ago.

Iraq and WWII

WWII is frequently looked upon as a just war with a clear and definitive victor - the Allied Forces led by the US.  Nazism was defeated and the world (well the Western part anyway) was saved from tyranny. Since WWII the US has been engaged in a number of conflicts, none of which were "wars" as expressed by the US Constitution, though to those fighting they probably felt pretty war-like. Out of the two dozen or so "conflicts" we've been engaged in since WWII, Vietnam alone holds infamous verb of "lost" as part of its pop history. But to hear pundits talk of Iraq one would think we "lost" that one as well.

If you look back to WWII, what were the objectives of the Allies? How did we measure success and why, looking through the forgiving lens of history, do we consider this conflict, above all others, to be the epitome of a "good and just" cause?


Regime Change
Well, one could hardly argue that getting rid of Hitler wasn't a huge, positive achievement. Removing him from power and holding him accountable for his actions was one of our primary goals of WWII. Yet the same could be said of our goals in Iraq with regards to Saddam Hussein. According to the New York Times, “he (Saddam) murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the physiological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants – friends on friends, circles within circles – making an entire population complicit in his rule.”  To be clear, Hitler's actions resulted in more people dying than did Saddam's, and if a large body count is the prime metric of evilness, Hitler should be ranked higher than Saddam. But Stalin and Mao's actions resulted in more people dying than did Hitler’s, so trying to parse degrees of evil seems a bit untenable since the world allowed those two to operate unabated. Suffice it to say that getting rid of Hitler and Saddam were equally compelling goals and metrics of success for their associated conflicts. If that is the case then, our performance in Iraq was equal to that of our performance in WWII. Hitler was removed from power and committed suicide before being held accountable for his actions. Saddam was captured and, in some bizarre manner, held accountable for his actions. Both ended up in the grave as a result of US-led actions.


Post-War Governance
Besides toppling these dictators, another goal of these conflicts was to ensure that a stable democracy flourished in the post-war years. On this metric the Iraq conflict is already ahead of WWII. Nation-wide elections in Germany weren't held until 5 years after the war concluded. Iraq held nation-wide elections before the war was even over, and has consistently held them ever since. Additionally, it's important to remember that well over half of Europe fell under communism post-WWII.  For 60+ years eastern European countries that had suffered under Hitler lived under the suffocating and deadly tyranny of communism. There simply is no good, reliable account of how many millions died under Soviet rule, but it is undeniable that had the western forces prevailed and democracy was instituted instead of the Iron Curtain, millions more would have lived. Now compare post-WWII communist Europe to Iraq. Except for Joe Biden, nobody is seriously considering breaking Iraq up into separate countries. And even if that is what eventually happens, it is highly unlikely that any of those new countries would fall under the control of a modern day Joseph Stalin. By this metric, ensuring a post-war stable democracy, we've done far better with the Iraq war than we did in western Europe, and infinitely better than eastern Europe, following WWII.


By the Numbers
While there is some subjectivity to how successful the Iraq war was in regards to the above metrics, there is no subjectivity if we look at some often talked about figures;
Number of people liberated
Civilian casualties
US casualties
Cost
Length of conflict

Here are the figures for WWII. Cost is adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2010 dollars
Number of people liberated - 120,000,000
Civilian casualties - 40,000,000
US casualties - 416,800
Cost - $5,000,000,000,000.00
Length of conflict (days) - 2,189

Here are the figures for Iraq. Cost is adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2010 dollars
Number of people liberated - 30,000,000
Civilian casualties - 108,904
US casualties - 4,475
Cost - $800,000,000,000
Length of conflict (days) - 3,185

In tabular format;
     Metric                                         WWII                               Iraq
# liberated                                   120,000,000                      30,000,000
US cost                                 $5,000,000,000,000          $800,000,000,000
cost per\lib                                     $41,667                           $26,667
US deaths                                     415,000                               4,475
civilians liberated per US death         289                                 6,704
duration in days                              2,190                                3,185
us deaths per day                             189                                   1.4
civilians liberated per killed                3                                     275

Putting aside the domestic politics of how we got into the Iraq war, by what yardstick did we lose the conflict? The fact that WMDs weren't found? While there is very legitimate concern over the rationale for the invasion of Iraq, that concern has no bearing on the results of the conflict. Compared to WWII...and every other American conflict save the Revolution and Civil War, our conflict with Iraq was a stunningly subdued victory.