Are you watching this Bush press conference?
The whole Iraq issue seems to be getting worse. I am basing this on the questions he is being asked and the way he is answering the questions.
I certainly do not have the answers, but I do have questions. A lot of people have questions and I guess he is not answering them very well because he keeps getting asked the same ones over and over.
Did he want to go to war? It seems crazy that he would want to but one could reasonably wonder if he did in fact want to, based on how some things have shaken out.
I can easily buy into the idea that the world is better off without Saddam running the show, but is it worth the life of someone you love?
This is a real dilemma and I do not have the answer.
Has the war hurt the market? Has the war helped the market. Either case could be made. The president says they have a plan for victory. If so, he is doing a poor job of communicating what that plan is. Obviously he can't make military strategy public, but there has to be someone at his disposal smart enough to figure out how to PR this better than is being done now.
Wikinvest Wire
17 comments:
Actually he has communicated it often--his speech last night in Cleveland is a good example. For grins if you have time, read the text of the speech then read about it in the newspaper. You'd have a hard time recognizing the speech from the coverage it is given. The press however has done a poor job of covering it.
Of course, for press stupidity, you can't beat the press conference the other day with an Army general. The press pool keeps asking if reparations will be made for Operation Swarmer. I don't know how many times the general kept saying the operation took place in a 100 square mile uninhabited desert area. Next question: so will we help rebuild the devestated economy? Next question: Will reconstruction money be given to the area? It didn't matter what the answer was, they kept hammering home that they wanted that desert rebuilt somehow.
Roger,
I have come to believe, unfortunately, that we are slouching toward a major world war between the West and the world of Islam. I hope I am wrong, but these Muslim extremists will not be easily dissuaded and our divided, somewhat limited responses to their attacks on us certainly don't discourage them.
What might discourage them? 1.If our press and 80%+ of our citizens were united in standing fast in Iraq and Afghanistan. 2. If we had no qualms about taking on Iran. 3. If more democratic nations stood in solidarity with us.
4. If we had a firm policy of not tolerating illegal combatants. That means that after capture we give them a speedy military trial and quickly execute those found guilty (and most would be guilty). 5. That the country was mobilized much as Israel is with a draft, an energy policy aimed at less dependence on Muslim oil, war bond sales, and periodic rallies to welcome troops home or see them off.
I'm not holding my breath until any of the above occur. When the West is finally backed into a corner and realizes that we must go all out or else, I believe we will prevail, but it will be at the cost of too many lives lost. Lives that need not have been lost had we recognized the seriousness of the threat and responded in a serious way. (I believe Bush recognizes most of this and has tried to be serious, but he has been hampered by all the nattering nabobs of negativity, proponents of political correctness, and advocates of anti-Americanism right here in the U.S.)
Anyway, that's the way I see it and I pray that I am wrong.
Roger,
I am really surprised you picked this to write about. Are controversial topics appealling to you?
I strongly feel that.....
thanks for the comments but I don't follow that last one.
No worries if that is a heckle but I don't understand the heckle.
I never realized how much I care for W until I started doing what Anon said. W is so misquoted and maligned that I can't help but go to his defence just in deference to the concept of fair play (unless, of course, you hate him). God Bless him for having the courage to make decisions for the whole Country. His shoulders are wide enough to take the insults and lies reported about him and still do the right thing. The best one liner I heard out that press conference was when he was asked about the censure/impeachment movement. I took his response to be "if what I am doing is so illegal, why don't they (the Democrats) introduce legislation to drop the program of monitering foreign combatants". I'll bet you a dime that won't make the evening news. Tom in Indiana
very insightful Tom, thank you
Jimmy J, your solutions would probably work if it was WWII and the enemy was Japan and Germany. The "shock and awe" approach we took in Iraq was certainly successful in defeating the regime, but it has been a total failure in defeating the terrorists (I hope this is who you mean when you refer to "muslim extremists"). I don't really see how taking down Iran will have a better outcome.
:"Has the war hurt the market? Has the war helped the market."
Burning money at 8 Billion a month just adds more national debt and further debases the currency.
So even if the value of the Dow stays at 13000, the dollar continues it losses at several percent a year, and the average investor is worse off. Generally if the price of gold is rising, we are worse off holding US stocks.
DaveB,
don't disagree with your comment. Take my question as a how much has wartime spending lifted the industrial sector which in turn helped the overall market.
Meaning that would the market be 5% lower? Or 10% lower, making us even worse off than what you allude to in your comment??
This year it will take $6 - $8 of debt to yield $1 of GDP growth, due to the money being spent on foreign goods and not recycled in the US economy. More debt is not the answer.
:"how much has wartime spending lifted the industrial sector which in turn helped the overall market"
Subjectively, not as much as the higher oil prices due to the war and terrorism premium have kept a lid on growth.
But considering the market is exhausting the latest bull run, and we are about to go blow up Iran, you may be onto something. Maybe we can preserve the trading range a few more years if we drag the battle out and keep spending on defense.
Anonymous spoke of reparations... That should be easy to handle since it's not readily apparrent what has been blown up over there and what hasn't.
He keeps getting the same questions because the news media of the USA is very liberal, and they will destroy him in everyway they can. He's answers were fine, they just won't let up. Look at the "kooky" Helen Thomas, she only wantedd to embarrass Bush. Thank God he was prepared for her.
Would we have gone to Iraq, if we had known the wmd's were non existent or moved to Syria? Possibly not, but Sadamm did not give us the luxury of knowing for sure. If Sadamm was bluffing, and I am not sure at this time, then he played a very bad hand didn't he?
It is my believe, we are in WW3, and we have to "win it" or our way of life will be forever changed. We will lose more good people and lots of money in the process. If we do not win it, then your question: Is the war good for the market? Very easy to answer...there will be no stock market. What the radical muslims want, is not for us to become one of them...they want us dead period.
Wars have been a part of all cultures since Cain and Able. No one wants them, but everyone gets them. War brought us our independence...ended slavery and kept our union together. Good thing Washington and Lincoln did not give much credit to the likes of Helen Thomas. Same with FDR and WW2.
I think we are in a struggle with the most vile and fanatical enemy of all. WE MUST PERSEVERE!
Actually I find the coverage of Bush to be too kind. I watch the actual thing as much as I can, and he avoids answering the questions.
As for Helen, good for her for asking the tough question. By the way, it was Afganistan that harbored Osama, not Iraq. It took him almost a minute to correct his answer.
interesting on Helen Thomas. I saw someone on CNBC later, maybe John Harwood?, say that her question was a gift to him to show how passionate he is about this.
Jimmy J.,
"an energy policy aimed at less dependence on Muslim oil" is something to be devoutly wished. But until our Congress stops hobbling our domestic oil companies, I can't imagine that's going to happen.
Here's a few thoughts to ponder. 9/11 was a terrorist attack not unlike the Timothy McVeigh bombing of the Federal building in OK. In the latter case, we all know the outcome. 9/11 was a similar kind of attack by a Saudi citizen and most of the actual attackers were Saudis.(None were Iraqi)
This band of murderers were operating out of Afghanastan. Bush had the world behind him to proceed to Afghanastan and root out this band of thugs and even topple the regime that gave them refuge.
It was the right thing to do and he had the world opinion behind him.
Suddenly without warning, he decided the real culprit was Iraq. This is most peculiar and causes one to believe the whole Iraqi thing was a Bush War I, Bush War II kind of thing ( a grudge match with The Hussein family) or was a diversion to keep our nation from wanting to execute the real war with the Bush's close family ties, the Saudis.
Regardless, here we are, three years later. Thousands dead and terrorist being born faster than we can neutralize them.
Several things to keep in mind. This has no comparison to WW II where we had a regime that wanted to rule the world. The Moslems do not want to take over America or rule the world. I've never had a Moslem knock on my door asking me to convert to their relgion contrary to Christian groups who do it repeatedly and unahameably. Similary, they don't want our culture and values instilled into their society. By the way, there are over a billion Moslems and at least 30 sovereign countries with Moslem leadership.
Bush failed to get a consensus from the member states of the United Nations to attack Iraq largely because of his insistant use of flawed intelligence and a fatally flawed understanding of International diplomacy.
As it stands now, the coalition consists of the U.S., England, and the occasional "drum and bugle" corp contributor.
The enemy is young girls with exploding vests and car bombs. We have nuclear powered aircraft carriers, and supersonic bombers and fighters. We are screwed in this kind of war.
The least we can hope for is a Viet Nam style ending. That will take some skill on the part of the adminstration where none has been on display to date.
Roger, and others, have touched on Helen Thomas and her loaded questioning of W. One thing I noticed was her listing the "reasons" W went to war and they included one of the favorite scapegoats of the left: Oil.
Somehow, the left believes, the war was going to make George Bush and his family (and Dick Cheney, etc.) rich and they will keep repeating it until they find some proof, regardless of the facts.
I believe we're seeing this still playing out as some senators are calling for massive taxes on the profits of oil companies. This effort on their part isn't about looking out for the consumer but rather about triangulating blame on George Bush. Conspiracy theory? No, not really. If the opposition on Capitol Hill can turn public perception in their favor by linking "evil" oil to George Bush then they think they can win more seats in the next election. (This strategy also serves for other classic talking points, as illustrated by Anonymous above, such as "no WMDs, the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, another Vietnam, Bush was avenging his Daddy", etc.)
The problem is that this strategy, when applied to Oil, has a real impact on all of us should a law be passed taxing oil company profits. Domestic exploration will go down, prices will go up, and our reliance on foreign oil, i.e. companies that are not taxed on their profits, will go up. Thus furthering our dependence on Muslim nations. This is a dangerous and very real possibility.
If you think my logic is a stretch, just look back in the recent past to the 1980's and the effects of taxes on the oil industry in response to the crisis of the '70s.
So, while Helen Thomas may seem harmless in many ways, her thinking shows just how far the opposition may go in reaching for issues to harm the President and his party. Some of the issues are purely political. Others, like oil, have very real and harmful economic and political blowback.
Idle political talk, a la Helen, can lead to very bad things. We can't just ignore it.
"The problem is that this strategy, when applied to Oil, has a real impact on all of us should a law be passed taxing oil company profits. Domestic exploration will go down, prices will go up, and our reliance on foreign oil, i.e. companies that are not taxed on their profits, will go up."
Don't forget also that the companies use their profits to invest in new technologies. If they have less at their disposal to reinvest, progress towards cleaner energy use and less emissions will be stalled.
Post a Comment