The Great Bush Economy is Falling Apart

Even his Wealthy Base may not be happy!

Published on June 6, 2006 By COL Gene In Politics

For some time I have pointed out that the economic growth that Bush has been claiming credit for is a mirage to the vast majority of Americans. Bush points to higher GDP, the stock market and healthy corporate profits. To the average American they see a DROP in Average weekly wage during the past two years and NO growth in the past five years. They now are faced with skyrocketing energy costs that are now showing up is sluggish sales at lower end stores. However the high end stores are doing a booming business because the wealthy are the only group that is not impacted by the higher energy prices.

Now the stock market is down over 600 points, and inflation is beginning to be a problem. There is an indication that the Fed will counter the inflation with even higher interest rates and the real estate market is cooling. Mortgage brokers have been lying off staff and the few bright lights that Bush has been pointing to are dimming. Projections for GDP growth for the balance of the year is much lower and consumer confidence has taken a nose dive.

All this with a Federal Budget Deficit in the $600 Billion per year range and the prospects for the future that is troubling at best. Airlines are in trouble, independent truckers are having real problems because of the higher fuel costs and the U S Auto makers continue to slide. The trade deficit is over $800 Billion with no prospect for a solution. Hanging over all the Bush policies is the disaster called Iraq.

Like so many issues with this administration, the consequences of the policies we have been following are coming to light. In time both the wealthy and not so wealthy Americans will understand what mistakes were made in the elections starting with 2000!

Comments (Page 7)

Island Dog

on Jun 09, 2006

When Secretary of State Colin Powell stepped down earlier this month, the flood of political obituaries were packed with praise, but almost all contained obligatory paragraphs highlighting the top diplomat’s “low point”: his February 2003 speech on Iraq to the United Nations.

But no matter how much conventional media wisdom says otherwise, Powell’s presentation on the eve of the Iraq War remains as true today as it was then, which is to say almost entirely so.

To claim, as the New York Times editorialized recently, that “Mr. Powell in fact offered half-truths, poorly analyzed intelligence and outright fantasies” is pure fiction retrofitted to match anti-war rhetoric. Most of the case the four-star general presented was based not on shaky human sources, but telephone intercepts, satellite imagery, and not unimportantly, Saddam’s own admissions and track record.

Perhaps the most flagrant revisionism, though, occurred not in the opinion pages, but in news stories from the country’s most respected source for objective news: the Associated Press.

Near the end of its original story reporting Mr. Powell’s departure, AP scribes George Gedda and Deb Riechmann wrote: “Powell will perhaps be best remembered for that U.N. Security Council appearance on Feb. 5, 2003, during which he argued that Saddam must be removed because of its possession of weapons of mass destruction. There is no evidence that those claims had any foundation.”

The AP report is, in turn, both misleading and simply untrue.

General Powell did not rest his entire case on Saddam’s possession of WMD. Nor was his primary argument founded on Saddam’s extensive ties to terrorism or his clear, savage history of human rights abuses, though both were included near the conclusion.

No, Mr. Powell tailored his message for his audience. His first and foremost argument was that Saddam was in violation of UN Resolution 1441, which warned Baghdad of “serious consequences as a result of its continued violations.” Saddam was, in fact, in violation of Resolution 1441—and Mr. Powell proved it.

One of the first pieces of evidence offered by Mr. Powell was a telephone intercept of a conversation between two senior officers from the Republican guard on November 26, 2002—the day before UN weapons teams started up inspections. The most damning line: “We evacuated everything. We don’t have anything left.”

As he did throughout the speech, Mr. Powell detailed the only plausible interpretation. He said: “Note what he says: ‘We evacuated everything.’ We didn't destroy it. We didn’t line it up for inspection. We didn’t turn it into the inspectors. We evacuated it to make sure it was not around when the inspectors showed up. ‘I will come to you tomorrow.’”

Moments later—after pointing out that “the inspectors found 12 empty chemical warheads on January 16”—Mr. Powell played another intercept, one of a Republican Guard officer issuing an order to a subordinate in the field.

In the recorded conversation, the superior reiterated a previous instruction: “And we sent you a message yesterday to clean out all the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there. Remember the first message: evacuate it.” Lest anyone had any doubt how to interpret this clandestine conversation, the senior officer said, “After you have carried out what is contained in this message, destroy the message because I don’t want anyone to see this message.”

Buttressing the intercepts, Mr. Powell also provided satellite photos, including shots of bunkers at a facility called Taji. The side-by-side photos—one from before the arrival of weapons inspectors, one taken afterward—with tents and decontamination vehicles nowhere to be found in the later image.

Mr. Powell also showed photos of three sites—out of roughly 30 total—where large cargo trucks arrived at known weapons facilities just before the UN inspectors did.

If anything, subsequent discoveries have bolstered Mr. Powell’s primary argument that Saddam was in violation of Resolution 1441. There were large, unknown shipments crossing into Syria on the eve of war—entirely consistent with evidence of transfer from facilities shortly before UN inspectors appeared.

And David Kay—the man whose credibility is considered near-perfect by the media because he believes Saddam did not possess WMD—found that Saddam had, in fact, duped the weapons inspectors.

As for the remainder of Mr. Powell’s address to the UN, most of the other evidence he cited to support claims that Saddam possessed WMD still stands—particularly Saddam’s own admissions, his bloody track record, and his inability to produce any legitimate proof that he had actually destroyed his stockpiles.

Finally, the 9/11 Commission supported Mr. Powell’s contention that Iraq had ongoing contacts with al Qaeda, and regular news reports of beheadings and terrorist strikes remind Americans that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is as dangerous as originally claimed.

Perhaps it is too much to ask of journalists to go back and actually re-read Mr. Powell’s speech to the UN. If they don’t, though, the media-created myth that the four-star general’s presentation has been debunked will soon become accepted as true.

Island Dog

on Jun 09, 2006

There is absolutely no evidence of Bush omitting, or deliberatley using false information. Col, you are a pathetic person.

WASHINGTON - A Senate committee has determined that CIA analysts were primarily to blame for flawed U.S. intelligence assessments of Iraq's banned weapons programs, a Republican member of the panel said Wednesday.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia told Knight Ridder that a Senate Intelligence Committee's review found that CIA analysts had committed "wholesale mistakes" by improperly analyzing data or relying on faulty information.

Their defective judgments were passed to CIA Director George Tenet and fed into the key prewar intelligence assessment of Iraq's weapons program that was given to President Bush and Congress in October 2002, he said.

singrdave

on Jun 09, 2006

What is a disgrace is sending our military into a war against a country that was NO DANGER to our Country.

Like Bosnia?

COL Gene

on Jun 09, 2006

IslandDog

I have answered your question. If you want to know the exact rates look them up!

Island Dog

on Jun 09, 2006

I have answered your question. If you want to know the exact rates look them up!

You are full of it col. All I asked is for a simple perentage. What Mr. Author doesn't know them. What a hack.

COL Gene

on Jun 09, 2006

"Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

This statement is not correct.

First, to be a danger the Rogue State would need the means to employ any WMD they have in their possession. They also must have the weapons. However a fact that this statement ignores is that NEVER has a major power been attacked by a Rogue State. WHY? The answer is simple. For a Rogue state to attack a major power, assuming they had the capability, would bring an END to that Dictator’s reign. There is a fundamental difference between the al Qaeda type terrorist and a Rogue State Dictator. The Rogue state Dictator has the most important thing to them at risk-- Their power and country. THE AL QUEDA TYPE GROUPS OPERATE WITHIN an establish country they do not control and do not have the loss of that country facing them. If they are pushed out of one country they are operating in many other countries.

Saddam in 2003 did not have:

The WMD

The means to deliver ANY weapons against the U.S.

He had no prospect of acquiring those capabilities. If we had allowed the U N Inspectors to complete their work in Iraq in 2003, we would have learned what we now know, Saddam did not even have WMD nor the military required to employ any such weapons.

My Book sites a very well written article published by the Army War College by Professor Record about this issue. I suggest before you flap your gums anymore you read that article!

bakerstreet

on Jun 09, 2006

It doesn't matter whether he attacks us or not. If he attacked Israel or Kuwait or any of his neighbors, we'd have been directly involved. He had fired on our aircraft for years, and with the help of China was improving his surface to air capabilities, by way of fiber optic technology that Clinton approved to be sold to China.

We didn't go to Iraq, Col. We were already there flying missions every day. He was constantly threatening our servicemen, don't you care about them at all? He had to be removed before the UN decided to remove the sanctions, period. The minute the sanctions were lifted France, China, and Russia would have poured armament into Iraq as fast as he could sign the checks.

WMDs weren't necesssary, nor was a direct, mainland US threat necessary. How many wars in the last 100 years were due to a mainland US threat? 1? How many of them were because of WMDs? 0? So I don't know where you get the idea that we can only go to war if we are directly threatened or WMDs are involved.

COL Gene

on Jun 09, 2006

The reason Bush gave was the threat to the United States. The mushroom clouds over U S Cities-- Remember. That was WHY Congress passed the War Resolution.

In addition with the pressure on Iraq from the No Fly Zones Saddam was not even able to operate in the northern and southern sections of Iraq much less against any other country. The Military Assessment that Zinni refers to clearly said, Saddam DID NOT have offensive military capability. That information was available to Bush who ignored it. Saddam had NO capacity or weapons to threaten anyone in 2003 and all the BS about we could not risk direct action against Iraq in the spring of 2003 was a LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

singrdave

on Jun 09, 2006

THE AL QUEDA TYPE GROUPS OPERATE WITHIN an establish country they do not control and do not have the loss of that country facing them.

You're saying that the Taliban wasn't part of Al Qaeda? And that they weren't offering them safe haven?

And incidentally, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the initial talking point, about the economy. Remember the economy?

COL Gene, you are so adamant about the Bush Administration's ineptitude and you claim to have great cure-alls. Please run for office so people at large can decide whether you are right for America. This way you can be publically humiliated rather than being taken to task in this much smaller, blogospheric venue like JU. Because "the Bushies" here at JU have already made up their minds and take you to task every day, multiple times.

100

singrdave

on Jun 09, 2006

By the way, I resent the fact that because I take up a contrary position to you, I am therefore dismissed as a "Bushie". This is just a pale attempt to classify and thereby demean your opposition. It's a weak tactic, and shows that you cannot engage debate at its face value.

101

Island Dog

on Jun 09, 2006

This statement is not correct.

Was that person misled by Bush? Yes or no.

My Book sites a very well written article published by the Army War College by Professor Record about this issue. I suggest before you flap your gums anymore you read that article!

Goodness col. It's CITES, not sites. And you want people to read your book. Why? It's full of the same bs you post here. That's all you have to say about everything. "Well I have an article that must be correct, so all of you are wrong". I can post articles from "experts" also of how Saddam had WMD's and was never accounted for. I can show "experts" that showed Saddam was constantly deceiving the inspectors. Get over it.

The reason Bush gave was the threat to the United States. The mushroom clouds over U S Cities-- Remember. That was WHY Congress passed the War Resolution.

Of course we remember, democrats were saying it also. So if Bush was lying, so were they.

102

singrdave

on Jun 09, 2006

Of course we remember, democrats were saying it also. So if Bush was lying, so were they.

His contention is that the Dems who voted for the invasion were misled by Bush, Rumsfeld, and Powell.
But COL Gene fails to mention that the Clinton administration was just as convinced of the same point. They just lacked the cojones to do anything about it.

103

Island Dog

on Jun 09, 2006

That is why col is a joke. He gives democrats a pass at everyting, while constanlty telling us he's a republican. What a joke.

He will never directly acknowledge the quotes I post from democrats who say Iraq was a threat and had WMD's. Col is to be trusted just as much as Baghdad Bob.

104

COL Gene

on Jun 09, 2006

The Taliban allowed and supported the operation of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. However, Al Qaeda operates all over the world and goes far beyond Afghanistan. AFTER we deposed Saddam Al Qaeda begin operating in Iraq. Where the Taliban screwed up is when we identified the faction that planned the 9/11 attack was located in Afghanistan we ended their rule. That is just why a Rogue State Dictator will not attack any major power and will be careful to allow terrorist factions like Al Qaeda from launching or planning operations in their Rogue State for fear of what happened to the Taliban.

Clinton DID not Invade Iraq! Bush 41 Did not invade Iraq. Powell told Bush if you break it is yours! He also told him that there were not enough troops and warned of the sectarian violence we see today. Bush, Cheney and Rummy ignored the General. It is very different for the President, VP and Sec Def to be shouting the LIE of Mushroom clouds then some legislators. It was also Bush that controlled the Classified Intel that showed Saddam had NO NUCLEAR program or means to deliver any such weapons!

Our attack of Iraq will increase the desire for small Rogue states to obtain nuclear weapons not so they can attack us but to prevent us from attacking them. They see that if a country has such weapons like North Korea we bellow but do not act. For and Rogue State Dictator with access to money, they would do well to try and purchase a few of the thousands of small nuclear weapons the already exist such as those from the old Soviet Union! That will prevent the U S from doing to them what we did in Iraq!

105

Island Dog

on Jun 09, 2006

t is very different for the President, VP and Sec Def to be shouting the LIE of Mushroom clouds then some legislators. It was also Bush that controlled the Classified Intel that showed Saddam had NO NUCLEAR program or means to deliver any such weapons!

Democrats said the same thing about Iraq col. Clinton attacked Iraq because of WMD's, and Saddams failure to cooperate. Was he wrong? This is the issue you are avoiding.

Provide some proof that Bush "controlled" the intelligence. You are just making up stories now.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!