[…] Ned Williams takes issue with the assertion by some that the Iraq War has cost 3 Trillion Dollars and puts the cost in perspective with the costs of other wars. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]

putting Jihadists on the defensive and removing Jihadist sanctuaries one by one if necessary was a worthwhile objective

If so, do you think invading and occupying Iraq has achieved that objective?
.

NW:

“The Congressional Research Service (run by the Democratic-controlled Congress) determined in October of last year that the cost of Iraq War had been $455 billion. That’s not quite as staggering.”

Apparently Jim V. and the books authors are not the only ones who dispute the numbers you put up. This link is to a USA Today story: http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2007-10-23-wacosts_N.htm (it was too long to put the whole article in here). Also, The person from the CRS, who gave the report you cite, has apparently been there since at least 2003, when the office was controlled by the GOP led congress.

It appears that the cost of the current conflict (lets not call it a war, since it hasn’t been declared one by the congress) has exceeded both Vietnam and Korea in adjusted dollars.

So far as % of GDP is concerned: One of the major differences between the federal budgets of today and that of both the Vietnam and Korean Conflict eras is the cost of Medicare and Medicaid. Take those amounts out and re-jigger the numbers. Also WWII was a war that was fought over an enormous area with huge numbers of troops. In WWII the U.S. lost hundreds of thousands of troops, KIA and many thousands more wounded. Additionally, the cost of materiel was considerable. The numbers of ships sunk and aircraft shotdown were truly staggering.

I’m sure you can find other statistics to support your arguments and I have no doubt that there are plenty that will not support Jim’s. The bottom line is that we are spending a lot of blood and treasure in Iraq & Afghanistan without any end in sight.

It is worth noting that Mr. Bush estimated the cost of the war would be around $50B and that the sale of Iraqi oil would pay for that. Apparently, when he was speaking to God about this, he misunderheard the number.

Should read:

“I’m sure you can find other statistics to support your arguments and I have no doubt that there are plenty that WILL support Jim’s.”

I really don’t get what Gross Domestic Product has to do with the cost of a war. Wars are paid for by available funds raised by taxes. Since Bush emptied the U.S. coffers with tax rebates to the wealthy just before going to war, he has spend a great deal more money on the war than the U.S. government had available to conduct the war.

The Congressional Rseearch Service number includes the cost of fighting troops on the ground, replacing equipment that wears out, and putting armor on the Hummers. The $3T includes support troops, medical care for troops sent to Iraq that are injured in non-conflict-related accidents (greater than the dead and wounded), support troops, including Navy forces sent to the region flying air cover, contractors we’re paying for that do support work (such as Blackwater guards making $400,00 a year compared to our troops making 10% of that, if they’re luky), and medical care/burial services for the dead and wounded troops. Like it or not, believe it or not, those are all part of the cost over and above the cost of grunts on the ground.

The devil is in the details and the details talk about what’s covered by the numbers.

NW:

I could be mistaken, after all, I’m not a republican genius, but:

“For a majority of Americans at the start of this war, putting Jihadists on the defensive and removing Jihadist sanctuaries one by one if necessary was a worthwhile objective. And I still think that is a legitimate conclusion to draw.”

is not, precisely, what the pretendsident or his all seeing advisers posited as a rationale for invading Iraq. If memory serves the original justification for invading Iraq was to find and destroy Saddam Hussein’s WMD’s before we were presented with the smoking gun of a mushroom cloud (oh, that Condi Rice has a delicious sense of humor!!). perhaps the premise you cite was included in “Irag War Justification, V2.3″ or something like that.

Jim, thanks, for your comment. I knew you would do the real work while I was out here creating one of “liebral” socialist nutjob rants.

FTA:

noted that the official Congressional Budget Office estimate for the cost of the war so far was of the order of $500bn. The figure was so low, they didn’t believe it

Given that the article itself starts out looking at the CBO $500B figure, it is particularly bizarre to try and refute the further argument by saying “Nu-uh, the CBO says $500B!”

First went to get the WMD

Then we went to get Saddam.

Now we’re spending $330 million EVERY DAY with an occupying force chasing after a few thousand rag tag bombers in a conflict that has lasted longer than WWII that has nothing to do with defending the US.

The Conservative CATO Inst reports:
“foreign fighters make up a relatively small component of the Sunni insurgency against the U.S. and British occupation forces. It strains credulity to imagine 1,300 fighters (and foreigners at that) dominating a country of 26 million people.”

It’s right up the alley of Ned Williams, poster boy apologist - denialist of the Bush Administration’s Constitutional violations and war supporter.

Yea Ned, the war not so bad….

Such people are abour the biggest hypocrites in our midst … they go to great lengths to justify a war that has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands while esposing fundamentalist christian values out of the other side of their mouth.
In the mind of an authoritarian like Ned who associates George Bush with Christianity, any failings, any measure of abuse of power, any and all atrocities can be justified for ‘the greater good’.

And this is what we get for our efforts.

Worth it to ya Ned, so maybe GW can save face?

Boy, you Libs have been busy this morning. Good work. I guess it’s obvious that I didn’t read the entire article, but even the non-Conservative sources I found contradicted the $3T number. I’m curious, Jim, if every other war’s “costs” have been calculated the way these two authors have calculated the costs of the Iraq war.

(dc: is money spent the programs you’ve identified money that wasn’t being spent on similar services during every other war in nation’s history?)
War is bad. War is destructive. But some things are worth fighting for. Using force is sometimes warranted, and it is one of the few things that a gov’t should do to protect its citizens.

The war against Jihadism is unlike any war we’ve fought before. Bush (and most Democrats) supported taking the fight to Jihadists and Jihadist harborers in the beginning. I’m not sure there is an easier way out of the current conflict . . . easier in the sense that the consequences beyond a victory in the next election are positive for our country.

The relative cost of a war is relevant–various of the Liberal commenters on this thread have appealed to alternative uses for the funds, or how long the war has lasted or cost in comparison to other wars. I’m not sure we’re comparing apples to apples, though, given how many lives were lost in all of America’s previous wars and given the way that this war started. Of course, when I say “this war,” I don’t mean the one that is easy for Democrats to distance themselves from (and do I need to point out how counter-productive the opportunistic monday morning quarterbacking is?).

William,
Yes, I fall way short of my ideals. But that doesn’t make the ideals any less good or right. It also doesn’t make you a better man to be able to point out flaws in someone else. And it’s hard not to seem like an apologist in the face of obsessive finger-pointing and demonization. What are we supposed to do about Iraq, William?

It’s not a mental disorder to disagree with a Liberal. It’s not an impeachable offense to disagree with a Liberal.

Dubya is a professing Christian, yes. That doesn’t make him perfect, and I certainly don’t think he is. But the fact that he is an Evangelical doesn’t make him evil or bigoted or stupid or foolish or “authoritarian cultist” or unenlightened or prejudiced or hypocritical, as you presume that it does.

What’s interesting about you, William, is how you–a utilitarian, a moral relativist, an atheist–can accuse me of those same (in my mind) flaws and not realize the irony. Since when was utilitarianism invalid? When did the end stop justifying the means? When did it become okay to condemn others for their faults?

dc,
As with most decisions, there were a variety of reasons behind the invasion of Iraq, and different rationales attracted different supporters . . . that’s called building a coalition . . . like the Left asserted was a priority before making the decision. My rationale for supporting it was taking the fight to the Jihadists. Staying on the offensive.

I’ll conclude by being very candid. One of the most despicable things I think one can do is to agree to taking an action or pursuing a course of action (for whatever reason apart from coercion or fraud) and then bail out when the going gets tough and take potshots at those who persevere. That doesn’t apply to everyone who has commented or who is a Democrat or who is a Liberal or who disagrees with me or whatever; if the shoe fits, wear it.

Yes, war is bad . . . but is it immoral? For those of you who think it is, then I’d hope that you are making some effort to act consistently with your purported pacifism. For those of you who think it is not immoral . . . show me a war where mistakes weren’t made and where resources weren’t squandered.

Actually, dc, I hesitate to respond to your questions or comments because the other day you engaged in the worst example of personal attacks since the re-vamping of MusicCityBloggers. That kind of stuff is hurtful.

a gov’t should do to protect its citizens

Do you think the invasion and occupation of Iraq has had that effect?
.

I think it is arguable that it has–right now our soldiers are the only citizens who are demonstrably at increased risk because of our invasion.

There have been a variety of examples of how the invasion has affected formerly rogue states.

It’s difficult to say, though. And I feel confident in saying that this “conflict” with Jihadism is not going to go away. As long as we’re not bowing the knee to Sharia law and defending other countries’ similar decision, Jihadists will be bringing the fight to us, don’t you agree?

Jihadists will be bringing the fight to us, don’t you agree?

Certainly. But their ability to wage the battle has been vastly overstated… and Iraq has given them a training ground they could never have built on their own.
.

Nw:

“dc,
As with most decisions, there were a variety of reasons behind the invasion of Iraq, and different rationales attracted different supporters . . . that’s called building a coalition . . . like the Left asserted was a priority before making the decision. My rationale for supporting it was taking the fight to the Jihadists. Staying on the offensive.”

A.) That is not what you said in your earlier comment. It’s not even within fudging distance.

Trust me on this, NW. That

“worst example of personal attacks since the re-vamping of MusicCityBloggers. That kind of stuff is hurtful.” wasn’t even close to what I felt like saying. You, with all of your christian lovingness, are one of the most judgmental people that posts or comments on this blog. You routinely insult people that disagree with you. Don’t go all weepy when somebody reacts to your insults in kind. Besides, aren’t you just supposed to turn the other cheek?

Your arguments when stripped of their pseudo christian overtones are exactly what William says they are. I just can’t tell whether you’re not bright enough to see the truth or if you’re being disingenuous for some reason. It matters not, to me. When you make statements that are, on their face untrue, as was the one I copied in to the top of this post–and when confronted, try to finesse it with some other bit of hokum–your credibility with me is gone.

I love when people complain that this war has lasted longer than WW2.
Discounting the well-known fact that guerrilla war by nature is a long, protracted war, let’s recall that WW2 was cut short when we nuked our enemies.

So sure, we could shorten this sucker up. We could turn Iraq into a glass parking lot.

Somehow I doubt the same complainers would be happy with that.

I love when people complain that this war has lasted longer than WW2.
Discounting the well-known fact that guerrilla war by nature is a long, protracted war

Which was also discounted by the folks who planned the war claiming that it would only last “six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

I’m curious, Jim, if every other war’s “costs” have been calculated the way these two authors have calculated the costs of the Iraq war.
Damned if I know, Ned (and I’m too lazy to go look - I stumbled on this article as it was), but I doubt it. Except for Nam, there’s probably not been another war with the level of discontent among the people.

The war against Jihadism is unlike any war we’ve fought before.

Yes, it is and an army is a damn poor way to fight guerillas. Conventional military tactics do not work in anything other than a temporary nature if they work at all (see history of Viet Nam and Afghanistan under the Russians).

Instead of invading Iraq, getting rid of Osama (remember him?) and his followers would have been easier to do and a lot cheaper if we’d hired every mercenary we could find and dropped them in the mountains of Afghanistan. Armies suck at guerilla war. Guerillas excel at guerilla war.

Jim,
I seem to remember that liberals weren’t too keen on the Sandinistas back in the 80’s. Glad to see y’all coming around.

I tend to agree; armies don’t fight guerilla wars well. It was a miscalculation on the Bush Administration’s part to think that there would be some kind of armistice and the war would just ‘end’.

Now, we seem to have two good choices. Your way, or Exador’s way. I really think Exador’s way is the only REAL solution, but I’m not willing to go there.

exador,
Well said, and I wonder sometimes if that is the only “message” these enemies can understand.

Jim,
Good points; I think SBF is right that “covert” wars seem to have other ramifications, though they’re certainly less expensive.

dc,
Taking the time to answer your inane comment after your wussy personal attacks is turning the other cheek. But how about if you worry about your own flaws . . . YOU are the one that asserted that the rationales offered by Bush for invading Iraq were varied. Sure they were. I asserted in response that you proved nothing (much less scored any pith points) by asserting as much. I also said what my basis for supporting the war was . . . and my basis was the same as the one I originally said.

Look, I know I aggravate you by making you look intellectually lazy and it doesn’t help that you’d like me to get into pissing contests with you. Sorry.

Any other facially unfactual statements you noticed?

Now, we seem to have two good choices.

Not sure I’d call either of those choices “good.”

Slarti, it’s a bitch to pump oil through a radioactively hot glass field.

True, and that’s probably the only reason Bush’s BigOil Puppetmasters have directed him not to go nuclear.

that and the fact that he’s a lame duck

Bush’s war profiteers are about the only ones not hurting in our economy. The first oil company to cut a deal with the Kurds just happens to be Hunt Oil Company of Dallas. Who’s running this company? The company’s chief executive and president, Ray L. Hunt, is a close political ally of President Bush and serves on the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

Our foreign policy is all about insider politics, cronyism and war profiteering.

See? I told you Jim.

NW:

“dc,
Taking the time to answer your inane comment after your wussy personal attacks is turning the other cheek. But how about if you worry about your own flaws . . . YOU are the one that asserted that the rationales offered by Bush for invading Iraq were varied. Sure they were. I asserted in response that you proved nothing (much less scored any pith points) by asserting as much. I also said what my basis for supporting the war was . . . and my basis was the same as the one I originally said.

Look, I know I aggravate you by making you look intellectually lazy and it doesn’t help that you’d like me to get into pissing contests with you. Sorry.

Any other facially unfactual statements you noticed?”

Actually, that’s not turning the other cheek. Your answer is also a lie. I never said Bush had varying rationales. He had serial rationales, as one after another proved to be wrong he and his handlers simply cobbled another one together.

You said:

“For a majority of Americans at the start of this war, putting Jihadists on the defensive and removing Jihadist sanctuaries one by one if necessary was a worthwhile objective. And I still think that is a legitimate conclusion to draw.”

What you choose to believe is certainly your business, but you said “a majority of Americans” believed that. Prove it, Ned. Cite a poll that says what you said was the thinking of the majority of Americans at the beginning of the King George’s Iraq Gambit.

Actually you don’t aggravate me by making me look intellectually lazy. I don’t think “aggravate” is properly used in that sentence. What you do is annoy me by constantly refusing to answer any questions and lying about what you have said in the past. I don’t give a damn what you think but it’s not likely I’m going to let you simply claim victory by sleazing. Are you too old to enlist? They could use a few good men over there in the mid-east.

CBS News Poll 11/2/02 -

63% - think the U.S. needs to give U.N. inspectors more time before taking military action.

63% - of Americans say the U.S. should wait for international backing instead of acting alone now even if Iraq presents a clear danger

59% - say military action would increase the threat of terrorism

68% - said the U.S. should take into account the views of its allies before doing what it thinks is right, rather than the U.S. doing what it thinks is right no matter what the views of its allies

In increasing numbers, more Americans believe war would make the economy worse than believe war will improve it or have no impact. Forty-five percent think war will worsen the economy, up from 37 percent a month ago, while only 21 percent think war will make the economy better. Twenty-eight percent think a war would have no impact.

Did you google “ad hominem” yet, dc?

So “serial” reasons don’t vary?

I know a majority of Americans thought that because most Dems would never have voted for it if they hadn’t. Not based on any sacred principle, mind you.

But at the risk of being accused of faking that I’m reasonable or bonhom-ish or lovey-dovey, Here is an article from after the invasion discussing polls that reflected the public’s support of the war. But looking at the polling data available with limited research, I would probably have to say that fighting Jihadists on their soil may not have been the primary reason for a majority of Americans to support the war–it seems to depend on the questions asked and is usually “dealing at last with Sadaam and his WMDs.” But that article reflects that whether he had WMDs or not wasn’t essential for their support. I also doubt there is any poll out there which says “we need their oil” was a motivation for Americans’ support and I doubt “upholding the honor of the UN” was a motivation.

So, I kind of have to back off of my assertion, sort of. I think “staying on the offensive” is implied in all of the reasons Americans gave for supporting the invasion.

Okay, any other questions I’m not answering. (note: you didn’t answer a DIRECT, EXPLICIT question challenging a CORE assertion that you made–something regarding how gov’t spending on healthcare and senior entitlements somehow skewed the data).

Here’s a good compilation of polling data prior to the invasion (March of 2003).

And here’s another good compilation of pre-war polling data. None of it’s directly on point, and I’m not sure that this worth arguing over . . . the fact that a majority (?) of people in the opposition party voted in support of it can probably tell us what the polls reflected, right? Especially when the opposition party in question is less war-mongering and blood-thirsty as a rule.

One of the 4 pillars of Bushie wingnutdom is the “they did it too”

They love to justify the Bush Iraq failures by dragging the Dems down with them by cherry picking quotes where Dems says Saddam is bad man. They don’t tell us the rest of the quotes though, like the famous Hillary quote where she says Saddam is bad and must be disarmed, she also said in the same speech:

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose — all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

But of course you won’t here Ned quote that part.

The polls you quoted Ned bear this out. The support for the Iraq was was conditional. Conditional on:

1)International cooperation

2)Weapons inspectors are given enough time to prove there are WMD

Scroll to the bottom of the first page you linked, support for war, no matter what the circumstances falls to half those that support it.

Again, your assertion is proven wrong by your own citation.

As a christian, I know it must be conflicting to justify supporting war crimes and mass murder, try as you might, you’ll never be able to do it, and we akll know Jesus wouldn’t have. That’s why your authoritarianism even trumps your faith and ethics.

Correction:
Scroll to the bottom of the page you linked, support for war, “no matter what the circumstances” falls to -
roughly 30% support ; 61% oppose

OK, Dolphin. How about we look at the ‘Victory’ speech that the left loves to demagogue:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We’re bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We’re pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We’ve begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We’re helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people.

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq.

Don’t really get your point, Exador.

A “6 day” war has now lasted nearly 6 years and because the architects of it realized it would take longer after they’d already passed their own deadline, it makes it ok?

For what it’s worth, I opposed the war before it had even started, and unlike the leader of the free world, I realized THEN that it was going to be alot longer than he was saying it would (go figure). So if you think quoting Bush at me is gonna suddenly make me think that further destabilizing an already unstable region of the world, providing new training grounds for al Qaeda, spitting on our allies, and costing thousands of American lives and trillions of American dollars, just to satisfy the president’s personal grudge was good idea, then save your breath. It ain’t gonna happen.

NW:

Well, goodness yes, I certainly know what an “ad hominem” attack is. I’ve seen many, many examples of you engaging in exactly that. You’re surprised and hurt that other folks not only recognize your tendency for that but actually, GOD forbid, reply in kind?
When the man doesn’t have an argument, but merely an opinion that he spouts as incontrovertible truth, what is one to do?

Your comment:

“But looking at the polling data available with limited research, I would probably have to say that fighting Jihadists on their soil may not have been the primary reason for a majority of Americans to support the war–it seems to depend on the questions asked and is usually “dealing at last with Sadaam and his WMDs.”

So, I kind of have to back off of my assertion, sort of. I think “staying on the offensive” is implied in all of the reasons Americans gave for supporting the invasion.”

You kinda have to back off your assertion? That’s almost like saying you were wrong. Not quite, saying you were wrong would be admission of making the colossal blunder of not having checked a little data, prior to writing a post that characterized Jim Voorhies as having been, mmmm, “intellectually lazy”? in his post about the cost of the Iraq War. I haven’t read the book, but I did mention it to an ecomonist from the local SUNY Oswego campus who said, “Oh, the book by the NOBEL PRIZE WINNING (my emphasis, not his) economist”.

Your comment:

“Okay, any other questions I’m not answering. (note: you didn’t answer a DIRECT, EXPLICIT question challenging a CORE assertion that you made–something regarding how gov’t spending on healthcare and senior entitlements somehow skewed the data).”

Is the following question the one you refer to?

“(dc: is money spent the programs you’ve identified money that wasn’t being spent on similar services during every other war in nation’s history?)”

If the answer is yes, then my answer is Medicare and Medicaid did not start until long after WWII. Without doing a little research I can’t quote any % of GNP/GDP from 1940-1945 but, I think SS was a much smaller percentage of the annual federal budget AND the GNP/GDP of that period. Did the U.S. government spend money on healthcare for the aged prior to the legislation enacting Medicare and Medicaid? certainly not by design, and by no means to the extent that they have since the early 1960’s. The Vietnam Conflict, btw, does, afaik, factor those numbers in.

Like I tell you and your Bushcoapologist pals, show your work and we’ll see if your “hypotheses” stand up. Or not.

Yes, you sure caught that gnat, dc. Good work.

What was my hypothesis again? Oh, that the cost of the Iraq phase of the Global war vs. Jihadism may be relatively reasonable.

You’re thinking too hard on my question . . . it wasn’t a trick question. You seemed to be asserting medicare and medicaid spending somehow skewed the comparison of GDP during WWII to now. In order for that to be valid (it may very well be) such spending (a) needs to be considered part of GDP and (b) needs to have been spending that increased (as opposed to merely being shuffled or moved to a different accounting column) for your point to be valid, right?

Re. “ad hominem” . . . asserting that someone’s a chickenhawk in a debate about Iraq fits the bill. Or asserting that Reagan lied about flying in a bomber in a discussion about welfare policy.

NW:

I get it, I get it. You’re doing self parody, right?

“Re. “ad hominem” . . . asserting that someone’s a chickenhawk in a debate about Iraq fits the bill. Or asserting that Reagan lied about flying in a bomber in a discussion about welfare policy”

I never asserted that Reagan lied about flying in a bomber in a discussion about welfare policy.

However, in fairness, I have to admit to admit that despite my best efforts I have not, as yet, been able to find the specific citation supporting my comment about him. So, until I find that citation I’ll retract the comment and apologize to the memory of the patron satan of conservatism, may his bloated corpse rot.

This comment of yours:

“You’re thinking too hard on my question . . . it wasn’t a trick question. You seemed to be asserting medicare and medicaid spending somehow skewed the comparison of GDP during WWII to now. In order for that to be valid (it may very well be) such spending (a) needs to be considered part of GDP and (b) needs to have been spending that increased (as opposed to merely being shuffled or moved to a different accounting column) for your point to be valid, right?”

does not respond to my original comment:

“So far as % of GDP is concerned: One of the major differences between the federal budgets of today and that of both the Vietnam and Korean Conflict eras is the cost of Medicare and Medicaid. Take those amounts out and re-jigger the numbers.”

Your statistics are based on GDP’s and Federal Budgets from two different periods. The period prior to enactment of legislation establishing Medicare and Medicaid and post establishment of those programs. You, either through a lack of understanding or by willfully ignoring the distinction, say that there is no difference in those eras re: budgetary and GDP numbers. Simply untrue.

Now, then, I did pick up a few things about your precious Mr. Reagan in my readings.

Enjoy:

From Ronald Reagan’s obituary in the NYT , June 6, 2004.
He made 50 movies, a number of them about World War II. “The Hasty Heart,” in 1950, took him overseas for the first and only time until he went into politics. In the war, poor eyesight had kept him from the front, and he spent his years in the Army making training films. But in his autobiography he wrote of wanting nothing more after the war than a good rest and time with his wife, the actress Jane Wyman; in fact, they had both been in Hollywood throughout the war.

His flights of imagination remained equally vivid when he went to the White House. In 1983 he told Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir of Israel that as part of his war duties he had been assigned to film the Nazi death camps. One of his favorite stories, one that he told over and over again to different audiences, concerned a pilot in World War II who told his crew to bail out of their crippled B-17 bomber. When the tail gunner said he could not move because he was badly wounded, the pilot replied, “Never mind son, we’ll ride it down together.” When he told the story to a meeting of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society he added that the pilot was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously. In fact, no medal was ever awarded for such an incident and the story came, almost word for word, from the script of a movie starring Dana Andrews called “Wing and a Prayer.”

“For Ronald Reagan, the world of legend and myth is a real world,” said Patrick J. Buchanan, a longtime political ally who was Mr. Reagan’s director of White House communications. “He visits it regularly, and he’s a happy man there.”

GREAT THOUGHTS OF RONALD REAGAN

“A tree’s a tree.  How many more do you need to look at?” — Ronald Reagan (Governor of California), quoted in the Sacramento Bee, opposing expansion of Redwood National Park, March 3, 1966
 
“All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk.” –Ronald Reagan (Republican candidate for president), quoted in the Burlington (Vermont) Free Press, February 15, 1980
 
“It’s silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country and put parking stripes on it and still be home by Christmas.” –Ronald Reagan (candidate for Governor of California), interviewed in the Fresno Bee, October 10, 1965
 
“…the moral equal of our Founding Fathers.” –President Reagan, describing the Nicaraguan contras, March 1, 1985
 
“Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal.” –Ronald Reagan, quoted in Time, May 17, 1976
 
“…a faceless mass, waiting for handouts.” –Ronald Reagan, 1965.  (Description of Medicaid recipients.)
 
“Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders.” –California Governor Ronald Reagan, in the Sacramento Bee, April 28, 1966
 
“We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry every night.  Well, that was probably true.  They were all on a diet.” –Ronald Reagan, TV speech, October 27, 1964

As president of the Screen Actors Guild, Ronald Reagan informed on fellow actors to the FBI.

The Reagan admininstration was one of the most corrupt in American history, including by one estimate 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. By comparison 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned.
Using a looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in “Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: “By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations.”
Four members of the Reagan cabinet came under criminal investiation, as compared with five in the Clinton cabinet. Three top officials of the Harding administration were in indicted in the Teapot Dome scandal.

The Reagan administration had secret plans for an unconstitutional takeover of the federal government under an ill-defined national emergency. Members of the government created by the coup had been selected and included Richard Cheney.

Reagan’s decision to send troops to Lebanon cost 241 lives. As the NY Times noted recently, “Mr. Reagan’s decision to send marines to Lebanon was disastrous and his invasion of Grenada pure melodrama.”

During the Reagan administration the number of families living below the poverty line increased by one-third.

Reagan’s policies led to the greatest financial scandal in American history: the Savings & Loan debacle which cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

Julian Bond, president of the NAACP:

“He was a polarizing figure in black America. He was hostile to the generally accepted remedies for discrimination. His appointments were of people as equally hostile. I can’t think of any Reagan policy that African Americans would embrace.”

Oh, btw, I didn’t assert anyone was a chickenhawk. I did ask YOU a question:

“Are you too old to enlist? They could use a few good men over there in the mid-east.”

If you take that as an ad hominem attack, tough. I’m still waiting for an answer, though.

I’m 43, “democommie”; yes, I’m too old to enlist. And how is that relevant?

Its irrelevance is what makes it an ad hominem fallacy. Personal insults don’t equal argumentation. Just like claiming that Ronald Reagan lied about his war service somehow is relevant to a discussion of welfare policy. So is calling someone in a debate a “KKKChristian.”

And thanks for the factoids on Reagan, you didn’t need to waste time trying to prove that he lied because it wasn’t the lying I was challenging . . . it was the ad hominem aspect. The quote about fascism and the New Deal is intriguing in light of Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism.

Regrettably, you’ll take this as fake “bonhomie,” but I wasn’t trying to snare you with the GDP question. I didn’t see how it related to the assertion that the GDP numbers weren’t fair to compare. (I do see that comparing the federal budget from the two periods is flawed; I’m not sure that I did that, though).

Funny, Jonah Goldberg was thoroughly and intelligently disembowled by David Neiwert in his review - point by point - to which Goldberg could not render even a satistfactorily whimpering rebuttal.

Check it out Ned, you might learn something. It’s a fast read.
It’s not surprising that a political hack is embarassed again trying to be a historical revisionist. Even though the book doesn’t pass must with intellectuals or historians, it is good enough for those it was intended for… the wingnuts, most of who ‘ain’t too swift.’

The review starts with a little about the author:

“Most revisionists are actually historians with some credentials, and their theses often hinge on nuances and the interpretation of details.

Goldberg, who has no credentials beyond the right-wing nepotism that has enabled his career as a pundit, has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It’s a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history.

and

Liberal Fascism is like a number of other recent attempts at historical revisionism by popular right-wing pundits — including, notably, Michelle Malkin’s attempt to justify the Japanese-American internment in her book In Defense of Internment, and Ann Coulter’s attempt to rehabilitate McCarthy’s reputation in her book Treason — in that it employs the same historical methodology used by Holocaust deniers and other right-wing revanchists: namely, it selects a narrow band of often unrepresentative facts, distorts their meaning, and simultaneously elides and ignores whole mountains of contravening evidence and broader context. These are simply theses in search of support, not anything like serious history.

Great reading for the weakminded looking to reinforce an agenda.

Well, I haven’t read it, nor have I read what socialist reviewers say about it. That’s a neat trick by Neiwert to link up Goldberg and “holocaust deniers,” then “holocaust deniers” and “right-wing revanchists.”

But I guess not every book written about history is gospel, huh? I’ll remember that next time you cite the number of books written about how yucky Dubya as evidence of something.

Perfect authoritarian response Ned!!
Attack the messenger the “socialist reviewer” - he certainly must be an enemy of the state! (Just like all those constitutional scholars that find Bush has abused power, never mind that many of them are Republican, or all those Attorney Generals that petitioned Congress to investigate Siegalman case, never mind that many of them are Republican - they are clearly enemies of the state).

You’re awesome. You level of authoritarianism would make you a perfect fascist.

NW:

You’ve accused me, on another thread, of “skimming” your comments. While that is untrue, I don’t always rebut them point by point.

In some cases that is because of issues with time management. Even though you don’t seem to think I have a “day job”, I still have responsibilities.

In other cases, your comments are simply nonsenseical.

I was trying to find the thread about welfare policy (I just can’t seem to locate it) where you said something about the “welfare queen” that Ronald Reagan loved to mention (since you upbraided me for an “ad hominem” attack on Reagan, over that statement, in a comment on this thread). While looking for it I came across this gem, higher up the page on this thread.

“I think it is arguable that it has–right now our soldiers are the only citizens who are demonstrably at increased risk because of our invasion.

There have been a variety of examples of how the invasion has affected formerly rogue states.”

If we are not demonstraby more at risk what is with the DHS’s color coded days of the week?

As for how “rogue states” have been affected; would you please cite a few examples? Which rogue states are you referring to? Iran, Syria, North Korea? And in what ways have they been affected?

Not nonsense. Not ad hominem. You complained in a thread about the Tim Tebow legislation that I was unwilling to call my local school board to confirm or deny YOUR point . . . I declined noting that I (me, myself, not you) had a day job.

The Reagan fallacy was in a thread about Obama and your allegation that Reagan spoke in “code” and ref’d “welfare queens.”

The comment about the Iraq War and anyd increased danger was in relation to, uh, the Iraq War and our purported increased danger–are you saying that we wouldn’t have ANY Jihadist threats or any threat warning system if it wasn’t for Bush’s decision to invade Iraq? (Sorry if I perceive you skim things).

Is my question about GDP and healthcare spending still unclear?

Libya, for one. It’s amazing the impact you can have on others when you follow through on promises/threats you make.

William,
Yep; I plead guilty to not going to American Prospect Mag for truth. And I guess you missed how Neiwert heralded a book by a non-historian in his Goldberg-denigrating review?

I plead guilty to not going to American Prospect Mag for truth.

But if it comes from CNS, Wolrdnet daily, or NRO, it’s gotta be true!!

At least I read what they have to say before making a judgements.

I know there are no shades of gray with you religious authoritarians.

You’ve done well on the checklist of authoritarian behavior.

# Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.

* Uncritically accept that many problems are `our most serious problem.’
(Iraq Jihadists, Libya!!??)

* Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs.
(Jonah Goldberg, need I say more?)

*Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear.
(ditto)

NW:

“Not nonsense. Not ad hominem. You complained in a thread about the Tim Tebow legislation that I was unwilling to call my local school board to confirm or deny YOUR point . . . I declined noting that I (me, myself, not you) had a day job.”

You need to work on one thread at a time, or tell me which ones you’re referring to. Oh, I see you only meant that YOU were too busy, because you have a day job. You made a statement that the cost of insuring non-student athletes (such as your son) would not be aprreciably different than if all athletes were students. I said I thought that was incorrect (I still do) but suggested that rather than take my word for it, you just call your local school board’s office and ask them. But, I think what you would like to do is be lazy and not pick up the phone. I don’t have any kids so it makes no difference to me, whatsoever if yours or anyone else’s play sports or not. If I found out that my school district was letting uninsured youngsters play on the team I would want to remedy that. If I found out that it was going to cost a lot of money I would want the school board to explain why they were doing it. You apparently don’t have to worry about that becasue you know you’re right. Or do you not really care if your son is injured before you find out that the school’s insurance coverage will not include him? Really, I don’t care if you call them or not. But I think your insinuation in your comment was that unlike me, you have more important things to do, because you have a “day job”. So be it.

“The Reagan fallacy was in a thread about Obama and your allegation that Reagan spoke in “code” and ref’d “welfare queens.””

It’s not a fallacy, he said it many times, to many groups. I don’t care if you believe it or not, it’s a matter of record.

“The comment about the Iraq War and anyd increased danger was in relation to, uh, the Iraq War and our purported increased danger–are you saying that we wouldn’t have ANY Jihadist threats or any threat warning system if it wasn’t for Bush’s decision to invade Iraq? (Sorry if I perceive you skim things).”

No, it wasn’t. This was what you said:

““I think it is arguable that it has–right now our soldiers are the only citizens who are demonstrably at increased risk because of our invasion.”

Your statement was that ONLY U.S. Military personnel are at increased risk. I don’t know if that’s true and, unless you’re getting briefed by the same people that Bush doesn’t listen to, you don’t either. But, why is DHS telling us that we are at risk (although less so, curiously, since Lame George can’t run again) with their stoplight alerts? If we are at risk (which these alerts would seem to indicate) than your statement is incorrect. If we are not at risk than DHS is blowing things out of proportion. Our military personnel are certainly in danger in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they were not theere, I suspect our ability to stop Al Queda in Iraq or Afghanistan from boarding airliners in those countries in order to fly here and blow things up would not be sufficiently degraded. NONE of the people who flew on the planes that took off on September 11, 2001 left from Iraq or Afghanistan, sfaia. Fifteen of them were from Saudi Arabia, a wahabi fundamentalist country which we are, strangely, not at war with.

Is my question about GDP and healthcare spending still unclear.”

I assume you mean this one:

““(dc: is money spent the programs you’ve identified money that wasn’t being spent on similar services during every other war in nation’s history?)””

Medicaid was created on July 30, 1965 through Title XIX of the Social Security Act. So, prior to that date, no, those monies were not being spent as part of the federal budget. If those dollar figures are subtracted from the Federal Budgt than the numbers for military spending will, of course, rise as a percentage of the total. How much, I don’t know, but they will definitely trend upward. Those numbers were not a factor until 1965. Social Security which is a huge entitlement program as of today, was much less so in WWII and Korea. I can’t find budgetary data (after looking for 20 minutes) that I don’t have to pay for, but I’m guessing that the numbers for SS had a fairly slow rise until the late 50’s or early 60’s when millions of Americans who had become part of the system in 1935 and after, began to retire. But that is purely guesswork on my part. I think I’ve answered your original question and it’s followups three times now.

“Libya, for one. It’s amazing the impact you can have on others when you follow through on promises/threats you make.”

Please name the others and, please, tell me how our invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan brought Libya to heel. I think Libya’s current rapprochement has more to do with wanting to be out from under trade sanctions that date back to the 1980’s and to be treated like less of a pariah by many other nations besides us. I don’t discount the effect of sanctions on Libya, but it’s taken about 23 for it have the desired effect. I don’t really want to wait that long for North Korea to give up its nuclear program (those folks do scare me when it comes to nukes, their ruler is a megalomaiacal idiot). But, Libya is not one of the major players these days, how about Iran? We’re doing very well with them, yes?

Actually, I’m not picking on you when I ask you your age and suggest that you might enlist. You seem to feel that the U.S. being in Iraq is quite important, but apparently not important enough for you to enlist. Unfortunately the maximum age for enlistment IS 42, unless of course you have prior service than it goes up to 59 (so long as you can get in your “20″ before age 60. Just so you know.

Tellya what. This is (and really has been) a pointless exercise. You are convinced of your moral rectitude and of being correct–despite a lot of pesky facts that are in opposition to your viewpoints. Please, feel free to declare yourself the winner in this one as well, I have to go watch some concrete cure.

Well, crap. I guess I can’t re-enlist. Just as well. I’m even less amenable to being in the service than I was in the 70s.

Disagreeing with a Liberal is not a psychological disorder . . . it’s not per se a fallacy . . . it’s not an impeachable offense.

Disagreeing with a Liberal is not a psychological disorder -

When the disagreement is not based on facts or logic, it can be contrued that it IS a psychological disorder. Stay the course, Ned.

Jim:

Yeah, neither can I, I am so bummed out, because there are lots and lots of empty slots. Even Tom Delay, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Karl Rove, Douglas Feith, Ari Fleischer, Scott McClellan, Mitt Romney, Richard Perle and, well, just about all of the pretendsident’s men could go if it wasn’t for that pesky age cut-off. Dang!! I mean this would be their chance to revel in the glory of war, mano a mano; their chance to be a band of brothers; their opportunity to show the whole world that they AREN’T nothing more than cowards who send others off to die or lie for their boss when he screws the pooch because he’s too stupid to take the advice of the only genuine soldiers in his circle of advisers, before invading a country that constituted no clear and present danger to our national security.

Excuse me, I just get carried away sometimes. I think I need a little water and a fan.

Yep, could be.

The citation you’re looking for about Reagan confusing his fly-boy character in the movies *International Squadron* and “Desperate Journey” with his real-life work during the war (he actually disliked flying and was turned down for active service due to poor eyesight) would be in Stephen Vaughan’s Ronald Reagan in Hollywood. All the major Reagan bios also cover this — Diggins, Pemberton, etc. It’s true — he repeatedly told the American public that he was a tailgunner on a bomber flying combat missions in Germany. In truth, he rode a desk and made films.

Gary Wills has also contended that Reagan’s unworkable fantasy about SDI was from the 1940 film “Murder in the Air” — the super-weapon dreamed up by Hollywood made the US invincible and catapulted it into the position to be a leader in world peace.

Finally, when he toured the White House in January 1981, he asked to be taken to the War Room. He was crushed to find out that this nerve center existed only in Stanley Kubrick’s imagination.

So, Hollywood played a huge part in shaping his ideas about the Presidency, which he referred to as “the greatest role he ever played.” Something to think about when conservatives go on and on about how evil Hollywood’s political influence is, maybe.

Bridgett:

Thank you for the information. I found all sorts of other stuff but that was the one that got away.

It is interesting to note that while the GOP kvetches about Hollywood “liberals” tearing down the moral foundations of this country that the two most obvious examples of high office being won by actual Hollywoodians are Ronald Reagan, presidunce and divorcee (thank you, Nelson Rockefeller for taking that bullet) and Gropenfeuhrer Schwarzenegger. Fred Thompson could have been the third leg in the trifecta.

Even Tom Delay, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Karl Rove, Douglas Feith, Ari Fleischer, Scott McClellan, Mitt Romney, Richard Perle and, well, just about all of the pretendsident’s men could go if it wasn’t for that pesky age cut-off.

Given that Cheney went to hide in “an undisclosed location” for much of the first term, it ain’t likely he’d sign up even if he could.

Given that Cheney went to hide in “an undisclosed location” for much of the first term, it ain’t likely he’d sign up even if he could.

I dunno, his tendency to shoot others in the face might balance that out

To be fair, shooting someone in the face once doesn’t make it a “tendency.” Lying about WMD or telling his political opponents to f’ off…that’s a tendency. The shooting thing was just an alcohol- and prescription-med interaction gunplay incident which could have happened to anybody.

Personally, I like a little cursing in congress. I wish they still got into knife fights. That would make CSPAN more watchable.

Bridgett:

It is true that,

“shooting someone in the face once doesn’t make it a “tendency.” But not having to at least surrender one’s hunting license, never mind being heavily fined or having your pants sued off is certainly out of the ordinary. Oh, goodness me, what am I talking about? It was Dick Cheney that did the shooting, not Joe Q. Publi–that changes everything.

I guess some Liberals think there was a conspiracy surrounding Cheney’s hunting accident? Frankly, it’s difficult to keep up.

Not suing a friend over an accident is suspicious? Come on, dc.

The whole chickenhawk attack is interesting though . . . why is it that Americans don’t trust (or haven’t in the past trusted) Liberals on issues of national security?

NW:

No, I’m pretty sure that they don’t think the shooting involved a conspiracy, but the aftermath might have. Nobody from the Texas State Police or whatever they call Fish & Game was sent to the ranch until the next day. Now, generally, when someone is shot–accidentally or otherwise, the police agencies like to find out what happened and how. Perhaps they were unaware of the event? Not likely. In Texas I suspect that any hospital admission involving GSW requires that some significant paperwork be done. Oh, sure, the Secret Service was there, but they are not, sfaia, a police agency that would automatically supersede the State of Texas’ authority in such a matter. It’s still unclear if the SS ever filed an “after action” report (or whatever name it would go by) that explains what they were doing before and after the shooting (they must have been shitting themselves when it happened).

Not suing a friend over an accident involving a gun IS suspicous. Who paid Mr. Whittington’s medical bills? If I am injured through someone else’s carelessness, my health insurer or auto insurer would pay my expenses (if I had the correct coverage) and then go after the person whose carelessness caused my injury. Family members sue each other, as do friends, for much less egregious “accidents” than being shot by some yahoo who didn’t clear his field of fire before pulling the trigger.

As far as being a chickenhaw, well, what can one say about a guy who personally used five deferments to avoid military service during the Vietnam Conflict and yet is very gung-ho about prosecuting wars in which he does not have to put his own ass on the firing line? If it walks like a chickenhawk and clucks like a chickenhawk.

I don’t know why American’s don’t trust capital “L” liberals on issues of national security is because they’re all cowards who don’t know how to fight and are unwilling to do so–like former Senator, George McGovern.

I loved this piece (from www.quailhunting.com):

“Unlike several more famous and popular game bird type of hunting, going for quails will not necessitate the use of calls, which are known to keep young hunters away from such sports. In fact, quail hunting is perfect for the hunters that lack patience and are always trying to find a new and adventurous activity to feed their appetite for thrill and excitement. Chasing a scared bird around the field, either with dogs or not, can be very engaging and enough of a reason to consider giving it another try providing that you fail to bring home a bird. However, many hunters say that their first attempts were disappointing as they expected great results right from the start and the reality proved them wrong in a harsh way.”