Comments on: What’s up with that?

By: saus

saus — Wed, 17 May 2006 09:55:44 +0000

Hi Alexandra, I know that you support the President, all the blogs cited do and that’s specifically why I cited them as dissenting on the issue. There’s also been no shortage of riding the president hard recently on key issues like the port fiasco, immigration, spending etc. on conservative blogs of late.

On immigration after last night strategy wise, I’m not sure what more can be done and asking for more seems non realistic to me. I don’t see how any demands on Dubya regarding this issue makes anything better or leads to a solution, I’m eager to hear the solution if one is found.

I’m also seeing frankly many conservative bloggers who are not towing the harder line being presented on some key blogs, that means to me there are dissenting opinions on the right that I may share and it weakens heavily some of the criticism of the President imho.

I’d say build a fence like in Israel, a security fence but the cost would be difficult there’s 3000+ km to seal, it doesn’t seem realistic when one considers the need for a buffer zone, the high tech additions to the barrier, and the needed human enforcement. The President is already being mulched by much of his base for spending, any way he turns other than what was presented which seems quite reasonable he’s kinda screwed. It’s catch-22. While you for instance advocate whatever the cost, many conservatives can grill him for adding more cost..

What else can be done? Shoot on sight to scare the living daylights out of illegals thinking of crossing. Between you and I, I don’t have moral problems with shooting infiltrators or terrorists for that matter, but I think on the planet or in the USA I’d be in a heck of a minority with that view. Also, I’m not an expert in legalities but I don’t think by law he can deploy the guard in the manner many people want in the US unless he declares a state of emergency, I may be mistaken.

You are of course entitled to consider it window dressing, but other than blowing out the windows I honestly don’t know what he can do. He came the conservative way from my perspective. Anything else would certainly please the most extreme right wing bloggers, but be untenable to everyone else, and that isn’t broad leadership either. I’m sure I’d feel different if I saw a solution.

There was a misfire in my opinion on many conservative blogs re the ports, I think there was misfire on the immigration speech last night. In both cases before the facts were on the ground there was uproar on conservative blogs, I think you’ll see the same pullback on harder positions re immigration as on the ports in the next few days. The President appealed for people to tone down the issue, that was a request I think many bloggers will absorb.

Thanks for your view, great blog.

By: Alexandra

Alexandra — Wed, 17 May 2006 07:24:57 +0000

Saus, First of all I want you to know, and if you have read my blog long enough you would have ascertained, that I am a relentless supporter of the President. His decisions have been brave, more often than not at the cost of his own popularity, and I love the fact that he is not afraid to make them. He has all the qualities that you and I as politically incorrect bloggers admire, and I shall always defend him no matter what. However, the issue of illegal immigration is clearly not one which he truly takes seriously. Perhaps that is actually the wrong word, what may be more accurate is that he deep down believes that we should open our doors. This shows in every action and inaction he has taken since he took on the Presidency. He is letting his personal emotions get in the way of policy. Now whilst you and I know it is that very quality which brought Blair and him together in Iraq, and that very quality which will make him stand up for Israel, in this instance that quality is impairing his judgment. Unfortunately one cannot have it both ways, and if we appreciate him for what he is we have to take the good with the bad, but it is difficult to stay silent on an issue which needs to be dealt with in tandem with all other issues of security which we know he stands for. That will have to mean taking a firm stand on immigration, and not simply giving lip service whilst his foot soldiers like Julie Myers are saying the opposite. Saus, we need a wall like any other sovereign nation has, and we need armed guards with the command from the Government to guard that border. No matter how much it costs. We do not need to deploy the National Guard who will btw be unarmed, to be there to look important and be helpless whilst helping logistics in paper pushing and moving cars. That is not a security plan. If he secures the border, really secures the border, I feel sure that everything else he would say thereafter would have a different reception. As it is, his proposition is receiving the cold shoulder because we know his heart is not in this, and therefore any plans are merely a safe middle ground to try and keep some of us happy whilst the problem dies away, and is melted into a guest worker program which in effect gives the illegals amnesty albeit in a few years time. Sorry Saus, everything else is window dressing.

By: saus

saus — Wed, 17 May 2006 02:21:06 +0000

As a info adder to this topic, casualty rates for US service forces /members in previous US Wars

American Revolution (1775-1783)
Total servicemembers	217,000
Battle deaths	4,435
Nonmortal woundings	6,188
War of 1812 (1812-1815)
Total servicemembers	286,730
Battle deaths	2,260
Nonmortal woundings	4,505
Indian Wars (approx. 1817-1898)
Total servicemembers	106,000¹
Battle deaths	1,000¹
Mexican War (1846-1848)
Total servicemembers	78,718
Battle deaths	1,733
Other deaths in service (nontheater)	11,550
Nonmortal woundings	4,152
Civil War (1861-1865)
Total servicemembers (Union)	2,213,363
Battle deaths (Union)	140,414
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Union)	224,097
Nonmortal woundings (Union)	281,881
Total servicemembers (Conf.)	1,050,000
Battle deaths (Conf.)	74,524
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Conf.)	59,297²
Nonmortal woundings (Conf.)	unknown
Spanish-American War (1898-1902)
Total servicemembers	306,760
Battle deaths	385
Other deaths in service (nontheater)	2,061
Nonmortal woundings	1,662
World War I (1917-1918)³
Total servicemembers	4,734,991
Battle deaths	53,402
Other deaths in service (nontheater)	63,114
Nonmortal woundings	204,002
Living veterans	fewer than 500
World War II (1940-1945)³
Total servicemembers	16,112,566
Battle deaths	291,557
Other deaths in service (nontheater)	113,842
Nonmortal woundings	671,846
Living veterans	4,762,000¹
Korean War (1950-1953)
Total servicemembers	5,720,000
Serving in-theater	1,789,000
Battle deaths	33,741
Other deaths in service (theater)	2,827
Other deaths in service (nontheater)	17,730
Nonmortal woundings	103,284
Living veterans	3,734,000¹
Vietnam War (1964-1975)
Total servicemembers	8,744,000
Serving in-theater	3,403,000
Battle deaths	47,410
Other deaths in service (theater)	10,789
Other deaths in service (nontheater)	32,000
Nonmortal woundings	153,303
Living veterans	8,295,000¹
Gulf War (1990-1991)
Total servicemembers	2,225,000
Serving in-theater	665,476
Battle deaths	147
Other deaths in service (theater)	382
Other deaths in service (nontheater)	1,565
Nonmortal woundings	467
Living veterans	1,852,000¹
America's Wars Total
Military service during war	42,348,460
Battle deaths	651,008
Other deaths in service (theater)	13,998
Other deaths in service (nontheater)	525,256
Nonmortal woundings	1,431,290
Living war veterans	17,578,500⁴
Living veterans	25,038,459

1. Veterans Administration estimate as of Sept. 30, 2002. 2. Estimated figure. Does not include 26,000-31,000 who died in Union prisons. 3. Years of U.S. involvement in war. 4. Approximately 1,065,000 veterans had service in multiple conflicts. They are counted under each conflict, but only once in the total. Source: Department of Defense and Veterans Administration.

By: saus

saus — Wed, 17 May 2006 02:05:50 +0000

Neil you have baited me heavy lol : ))

I will respond at length to this challenging of Bush, I feel the need to defend his honor to your scathing attacks..

Economy, under clinton the dow dropped 2000 points, the nasdaq 50% just before Bush came into power, just after his win the 9/11 attacks happened, estimated at a cost of over 100 billion dollars themselves.

The American public demanded overhauls, security, and action. They got it and deficits in such overhauls, wars, and an ongoing war on terror are natural, normal occurrences. The US economy is roaring, despite tax cuts the us tax haul is at record levels from BUSH growth!!

I disagree entirely with your read on the economics, if a conservative is beefing about THIS kind of spending on security defense, the homeland as opposed to social wastage, well its naiveté imho. War and terror and fighting it cost billions upon billions, not fighting and losing? Simply not quantifiable in capital terms.

On Iraq - Us losses in comparison to previous conflicts without minimising loss of life for US Troopers in ANY way is comparatively negligible (in comparison, not in media propaganda effect)

Iraqi losses are much higher, killed by Terrorists, under saddam hundreds of thousands lost their lives, much more than today and they were killed by state terrorism, little difference as I see it. Only now, Iraq is a nascent democracy, and as is the case of historical record, in all switches from tyranny to freedom the going is tough, the loss of life astounding, your double standard in this case totally unfair. You know your history well, I don't need to explain it to you, you aren't a johnny come lately with knowledge of only the 90's as reference.

On Freedom - Comparatively to many struggles for freedom, Iraq is a walk in the park. We are just today a fickle, spoiled weak series of nanny generation populace that are selfish to the core, immature and despite world advancements in education horribly ignorant fed by media that is atrocious and merely salacious.

Compared to the generation of our grandfathers we ought to collectively be ashamed of ourselves, and I know these concepts will have meaning for you and strike a chord. We live ONLY for ourselves today, we are not willing to pay any price for our freedoms, we take them for granted as givens when just 60 years ago an evil the likes of which we had never seen , but are seeing now again threatened them to the core.

Oil - Bush does not control the price of oil, this is the key argument for detractors, that he went to war for oil. The claim is absurd, if that was the case why is gas and oil so high, the US trying to lower it including committing the breadth and power of the United States of America, the most powerful nation in Earths history, in the State of the Union to finding alternative energy and ridding the US of foreign oil dependency.

Iran - There is no shortage of assets for strikes in Iran, a ground invasion was never and will not ever be in the cards, this is a country under theocracy that sent millions of people to their deaths needlessly against Iraq, an invasion of a mad mad place like Iran is suicidal, literally.

Sympathy - Bush never had anyone's sympathy, he is reviled, was reviled by the World much as America was reviled is reviled by the World, very simple, the US values, free market and prosperity make socialism values and European efforts look like dismal child's play failures. That is why the World hates America, plain old fashioned envy. It is rampant here as well, we both know it, Canada has such a small penis inferiority complex to the USA and covers it up with open scorn it is embarrassing.

Europe is openly trying and failing I might add to challenge the US for supremacy, they are not allies assisting in sympathy, more like sore losers who will put obstacles in the US path at any price.

The BUSH Plan - Is wide ranging and time tabled in decades, not months or a few years. A move to bring Democracy to nations and peoples and a region who have in 6000 years now known none. The plan is to combat a religious and political ideology which threatens our way of life, not by slaughtering millions and millions, but by freeing them from the yolk of ignorance and intolerance. To judge it after 3 or 4 years in a conflict that will span this entire century is absurd to me. Last year his numbers smoked Clinton in approvals, they are low now and it's normal in a drawn long war on terror.

Let's please see how history judges bush, not the partisan politics of CNN. In 35 years, I wager as one of the greats of this century. Reagan another conservative was equally reviled by the left and the World, today history has vindicated his policies, he's considered one of the greats.

Your characterization of bush as a failure is preposterous to me : ))
Conservatives are angry he's not conservative enough, it does not jive with your characterization.

and cheers, as always! Heat score for you, I was fuming when I read your post

By: Neil

Neil — Tue, 16 May 2006 23:52:36 +0000

It is true that the Bush administration has proven itself to be one of the friendliest, perhaps the warmest ever.

But that in and of itself does not amount to a successful presidency.

Instead of democratizing Iraq, Bush has only succeeded in extending the influence of Iran through the establishment of a Shia-controlled proxy state. To do so Bush initiated a military conflict wherein thousands of people died needlessly and more are dying every day- wonderful.

Add to this the fact that the US military is now arguably spread too thin to deal with the emerging threat in Iran- where the development of real WMD is being flaunted on a daily basis. The world no longer has the stomach to help Bush- whose predicament more and more resembles that of the boy who cried wolf.

If we turn to economics the failures are equally staggering. A zero deficit under Clinton ballooned to a massive deficit under Bush. The American dollar under Clinton had almost twice the buying power as the dollar does now under Bush. Coincidence? Not likely.

The Chinese dragon is looming in the background with economic growth rivalling that of the US in its heyday. And what is to ensure the US’ continued prosperity? Nothing really, but in my view, the recipe for its decline has already been set out by its commander in chief. And everyone knows it is only a matter of time. Capitalists on Wall Street are trading whole percentage points back and forth at the slightest increase in the price of oil- volatile indeed.

For all these reasons, it doesn’t surprise me that the conservative establishment has gotten a little testy. I would be too if my poster-child was an abject failure.