« Fed up with Congress | Main | Downside of Reaganomics »

February 12, 2009

War hasn’t kept us safe

“Post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” means, “following this, therefore, because of this;” i.e., because one event follows another, the former must have caused the latter. Example: “My taking heavy doses of vitamin C is how I escaped colds this year.”

Many persons unknowingly invoke the above Latin phrase to explain ex-President Bush’s invasion of Iraq and his use of numerous questionable practices and policies as the reason for our avoiding another major attack. I am reminded of the rooster who thought his crowing caused the sun to rise until he overslept one morning.

Ford Thompson
Independence

Comments

Engineer

Pub 17
As to my own mortgage applications, I didn't make any of them until I knew I could carry them. That is a decision that any competent adult should be able to make. If they can't, we are in deep trouble and nothing can get us out. Of course there are unforeseen and unpredictable things that may happen in one's life, but these could not be predicted by any other despite there financial expertise. There are things that a competent individual must be responsible for, and how they expend their funds is one of them. There are things that the competent adult cannot be expected to be responsible for, and those things include deciding on the proper treatment for an illness. Adults are responsible for the decisions made and actions taken in heir daily lives and no successful nation has ever been a Nanny State where the government guided all actions. What a sorry place the Country would be if it were peopled by the kind of nincompoops you seem to picture us. But you may have part of a point, a majority did vote for the present incumbent.

Pub 17

Adults are fully responsible for their own actions? REALLY? You take full responsbility for everything your doctor tells you, prescribes for you, advises you on, and hold them responsible for absolutely nothing? You do your own drug testing, own diagnosis, and own therapy? Like hell you do. You have a lawyer? Why, since you don't feel they're responsible for any advice they give you? Knock it off. Did you approve your own mortgage loan application?

Engineer

Pub 17
Have you never heard "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"? Adults are fully responsible for their actions. If, on an average, the populace is really so unthinking and unaware that it cannot make its own financial decisions and understand what it can and can not afford we awe already well on our to failure and dissolution. If what you say is correct, then our education system, which is supposed to show people how to think, has been a colossal failure.

Engineer

Pub 17
The Chinese are very unlikely to "collapse our economy" as that would, in turn, collapse theirs. In my opinion, we would not be in financial trouble except for the increditable machinations of the finance industry. I know that you, in essence, believe that taking money away from those who work for and earn it and giving it to those who do neither is the way to prosperity. However I know neither of any country that achieved prosperity in that manner nor of any that sustained prosperity when they devolved to that manner.



Pub 17

Oh, bottom line: bankers are supposed to lend money on a professional, carefully considered basis. They are not supposed to loan money to drifters, indigents, or people who're spending more than 30-35% of their gross income on housing. NOT ONE OF THOSE MORTGAGES WAS TAKEN OUT AT GUNPOINT--every one was approved by a banker, and the BANKER is responsible for vetting the app, not the borrower. Barring outright fraud by the borrower on the app, the borrower is no more responsible for getting a mortgage loan they "can't afford" than the mother of a thalidomide baby was responsible because she failed to run her own pharmaceutical vetting of the drug.

Engineer

Casady
Of course there are problems and concerns. But the blind hate that will not permit the anti-Bush people to give any credit whatsoever to him is stomach turning. It does provoke reactions. In the case of some, such as Pub 17, I am never sure if the comments are sincere or just made to provoke. As some of them are so outré it would seem that at least a portion of his remarks must be.

Pub 17

In primary colors:
bin Laden, as he said he would and as he had previously done to the Russians, caused enormous expense to the United States by waving a flag that said, al Qaeda over here and over there. As he said they would, the United States chased him here and there over nothing but the waving of a flag. He would thus bankrupt the infidel by bleeding it white, as he had previously done to the Russians (at least to the point of their pulling out of Afghanistan).
Incredibly, George Bush went FURTHER than bin Laden could have hoped. First he went, not after al Qaeda, but Saddam and Iraq, where al Qaeda WASN'T. If Osama opened one vein, George Bush voluntarily opened another.
Then George Bush decided to finance the ridiculous war in Iraq and the limp effort in Afghanistan, not by raising taxes, but by selling American paper to the Red Chinese, one trillion dollars' worth.
That poured a trillion dollars' worth of unfunded spending--"printing money"--into the economy, which shattered the price of the dollar in world money markets, gave the Chinese the ability to collapse our economy any time they care to, and put a trillion dollars of funny money into the banking system.
In combination with the Republican/monetarist mantra that all regulation is evil, we ended up with an out-of-control financial system with more unfunded spending than even Reagan could have dreamed of, put into the sytem by the trillion dollars we've spent chasing al Qaeda, not even where they were waving their flag, but where they WEREN"T, AND WE KNEW IT.

Engineer

Casady
Of course there are problems and concerns. But the blind hate that will not permit the anti-Bush people to give any credit whatsoever to him is stomach turning. It does provoke reactions. In the case of some, such as Pub 17, I am never sure if the comments are sincere or just made to provoke. As some of them are so outré it would seem that at least a portion of his remarks must be.

Engineer

Pub 17
Please explain just how the unbelievable banking fiasco has anything to do with Bin Linden. Just how did Bin Linden arrange for people to take out loans they could never carry after they ballooned? Of course, the present occupant and minions are doing their best to further Bin Linden's aims if they are as you say.

Pub 17

They can hit us any time they want because anybody can bring anything they want across our wide-open Mexican border. Obviously the Bush Administration is protecting us by making us take off our shoes in airports, not by some silly business about sealing off hundreds of miles of open desert. Much easier to get bombs into this country in Florsheims than in Chevy Suburbans, isn't it?

The fact remains that Bush said we were protecting America against terror, when Osama was saying he was going to destroy us financially. He was playing checkers when Osama was beating us at chess.

Kate

Cassady, I don’t agree with your statement that "they can hit us any time they want". They can try, but they’ll only succeed if we let our guard down.

But how about a compromise. Instead of saying, “Bush kept us safe”, suppose we say, “We haven’t been attacked on our own soil since 2001 because the British, Italians, Norwegians, Australians, and the rest of the MNF, along with our own Federal, state and local government agencies kept us safe. However, the British and Spanish were attacked because America, Great Britain, Italy, Norway, Australia, and the rest of the MNF, along with their own internal government agencies failed to keep them safe.”

Casady

I think I made it a point to say that Bush Administration has made progress in shoring up the intel community, Eng. And yes, since the Bush Adminstration took the role of lobbying other nations into the WOT and the COTW, they should assume at least some responsibility in helping those nations protect themselves from any repercussions that may result from their participation. I think we did just that with our successful coordination of the international intel community. All I am saying is that while we are entitled to share in the successes that resulted from these actions, we must be willing to assume some of the blame in their failures. In my opinion, ignoring the attacks in London and Madrid is as bad as saying, oh 9/11 was just NY and DC and since I live in KC, I really don't care.

Pub 17

Apparently Engineer thinks that kind of talk is "squirm, squeal, whine and wiggle". I'd call it grabbing the bull by the tail and facing the situation squarely.

Pub 17

Gee, this is fun. I don't actually have to think, since the right-wing goof troop keeps going to the same well over and over and over. So all I have to do is repeat over and over and over...

Osama never claimed he was going to bomb us into submission. He said explictly and clearly that his intention, having gotten credibility with the WTC attack, was to bankrupt us. Less than four years after he said that our economy began its big collapse. George Bush went one step further: he not only pursued the wrong war at incredible expense, but financed it by selling a trillion dollars of our paper to the Red Chinese, who can now crash our economy any. Time. They. Want. To.

So who saved whom from what?

Engineer

At least I have been proved a prophet in one sense "Squirm, squeal, whine and wiggle as you will" and, boy, did many of you on the blog do just that. From mistaken assertions that we had not been attacked before, to allusions to entirely domestic incidents, to assertions we were responsible for protecting the world, the denial chorus has swelled and rolled. The carrying out of President Bush's policies has resulted in a very large dent in al Qaeda’s leadership and ability to carry out effective operations. Now we will see if they, and other terrorist organizations, can recover and once again strike on US soil. The weakened policies President Obama has endorsed, if carried out, will give them a chance to recover and once again seize the initiative. Perhaps they have been too damaged to do so, but time will tell.

Casady

With all due respect Kate, I don't totally agree with that. The gathering of intelligence that has thwarted numerous attacks has in many cases been the result of efforts on behalf of the international intel community and credit should be given to all countries and agencies involved in those efforts, including the US. With that said, the failure to prevent attacks can be viewed as a failure of international intelligence community, which would also include the US.

I guess I just look at this as a global thing with the attacks being directed at Western Culture in general. After all, Al Queda is an equal opportunity terrorist ring. We should not be so self centered to believe they set their aims soley at the US. As long as these attacks persist against Western target, I do not consider us safe. With that said, I do think there has been progress under the Bush Administration but saying he has made us safe because we have not been attacked since 9/11 is a bit myopic. In my opinion, there have been numerous high profile attacks since 9/11 and we are far from safe. They can hit us any time they want.

Kate

Cassady, we are in this together, but in the end, each country is responsible for its own security. I think that a terrorists attack on our soil would mean a failure at many levels of our government. I don’t think we could hold the British or the Spanish governments responsible for such a failure. Nor do I think the Bush administration should be held responsible for failures of the British or Spanish governments to prevent the attacks that happened there.

Casady

should be "incapable of answering" not "incapable of asking" although I am sure the later is applicable as well.

Casady

Might as well save it Pub. Looks like our favorite chickenhawk ran away as usual when caught avoiding a question he was incapable of asking.

As far as the unrelenting crowing of no attacks since 9/11, I've always thought it was a bit provincial of us to restrict this metric to US soil. Is this not a global war? Weren't Spain and the UK key allies in the WOT and willing pariticipants in the Coalition of the willing? How can we so callously discount the events in Madrid and London and say, "well they didn't happen on US soil so they don't count" when we are all supposed to be in this together. I've presented this argument to many a neocon and I have yet to receive a response. I once again ask our rational right leaning friends here (Eng, Sammy, Kate) for their thoughts on this.

Pub 17

Rouge, you've convinced you and the other four occupants of the Original Maverick that we can drill, baby, drill and have oil come online in 2010. And that that will provide all the oil we need to tell OPEC to go scroo. And you have some need to repeat this over and over and over, despite the fact that gas is down under two bucks a gallon and, oh, BTW, the economy still sucks.

Refresh my mammary: WHY was anybody supposed to listen to this?

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright