PDA

View Full Version : Bush by numbers



Qtec
09-03-2004, 07:21 AM
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=557746

Bush by numbers: Four years of double standards
By Graydon Carter
03 September 2004



1 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security issued between 20 January 2001 and 10 September 2001 that mentioned al-Qa'ida.

104 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

101 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned missile defence.

65 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned weapons of mass destruction.

0 Number of times Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden in his three State of the Union addresses.

73 Number of times that Bush mentioned terrorism or terrorists in his three State of the Union addresses.

83 Number of times Bush mentioned Saddam, Iraq, or regime (as in change) in his three State of the Union addresses.



George Bush: Military man

1972 Year that Bush walked away from his pilot duties in the Texas National Guard, Nearly two years before his six-year obligation was up.

$3,500 Reward a group of veterans offered in 2000 for anyone who could confirm Bush's Alabama guard service.

600-700 Number of guardsmen who were in Bush's unit during that period.

0 Number of guardsmen from that period who came forward with information about Bush's guard service.

0 Number of minutes that President Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, the assistant Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, the former chairman of the Defence Policy Board, Richard Perle, and the White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove * the main proponents of the war in Iraq *served in combat (combined).

0 Number of principal civilian or Pentagon staff members who planned the war who have immediate family members serving in uniform in Iraq.

8 Number of members of the US Senate and House of Representatives who have a child serving in the military.

10 Number of days that the Pentagon spent investigating a soldier who had called the President "a joke" in a letter to the editor of a Newspaper.


$2bn Estimated monthly cost of US military presence in Iraq projected by the White House in April 2003.

$4bn Actual monthly cost of the US military presence in Iraq according to Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld in 2004.

$15m Amount of a contract awarded to an American firm to build a cement factory in Iraq.

$80,000 Amount an Iraqi firm spent (using Saddam's confiscated funds) to build the same factory, after delays prevented the American firm from starting it.

Making the country safer

$3.29 Average amount allocated per person Nationwide in the first round of homeland security grants.

$94.40 Amount allocated per person for homeland security in American Samoa.

$36 Amount allocated per person for homeland security in Wyoming, Vice-President Cheney's home state.

$17 Amount allocated per person in New York state.

$5.87 Amount allocated per person in New York City.

$77.92 Amount allocated per person in New Haven, Connecticut, home of Yale University, Bush's alma mater
76 Percentage of 215 cities surveyed by the US Conference of Mayors in early 2004 that had yet to receive a dime in federal homeland security assistance for their first-response units. .


5 Number of major US airports at the beginning of 2004 that the Transportation Security Administration admitted were Not fully screening baggage electronically.

22,600 Number of planes carrying unscreened cargo that fly into New York each month.

5 Estimated Percentage of US air cargo that is screened, including cargo transported on passenger planes.

95 Percentage of foreign goods that arrive in the United States by sea.

2 Percentage of those goods subjected to thorough inspection.

$5.5bnEstimated cost to secure fully US ports over the Next decade.

$0 Amount Bush allocated for port security in 2003.



Check out the whole article. Its long but revealing and shows the difference between the facts and the rehtoric.
Q

Wally_in_Cincy
09-03-2004, 08:11 AM
Q,

I read some interesting statistics yesterday.

The immigrant population of the US is 10%. They make up 11.4% of the work force.

The immigrant population of Holland is 10%. They make up 3.4% of the work force.

Don't you think you should concentrate on fixing your country instead of worrying so much about us?

Qtec
09-03-2004, 09:59 AM
Thats such a poor response Wally. Whether I like it or not,what the US President does has an effect on the rest of the world. ie the price of oil/gas. and so consequently on me! Therefor I think I have a right to my opinion and if you dont like it, too bad.
By all means counter anything I post with your own arguement, but please dont try and deny me my right to speak my 2ct.

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
09-03-2004, 10:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> ... please dont try and deny me my right to speak my 2ct.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

blather all you want. I don't care.

pooltchr
09-03-2004, 11:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> 0 Number of minutes that President Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, the assistant Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, the former chairman of the Defence Policy Board, Richard Perle, and the White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove * the main proponents of the war in Iraq *served in combat (combined). <hr /></blockquote>

O-K, history was not my strongest subject in school, but let's see...The Korean conflict ended in the early 50's, about 50 years ago...Viet Nam really started escelating in the mid 60's...40 years ago. I don't recall any other serious military situations during that period. Assuming 18 as the age most AMERICANS would be called up for military service, anyone born between 1934 and 1947 would have been 18 during a period of time in our history where the need for increased military numbers were not necessary. Therefore, it would not be unusual for anyone between the ages of about 58 to 71 years old to not have been in the military.

Statistics and pure numbers don't always tell the full story.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-03-2004, 11:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> 0 Number of minutes that... Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld,.... <hr /></blockquote>

Q,

Donald Rumsfeld was a fighter pilot in the Korean War.

Rod
09-03-2004, 11:40 AM
Wally, you know his agenda, why bother? It's always going to be something. Just think, when Bush is elected we get, Four More Years. LOL

highsea
09-03-2004, 12:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Making the country safer

$3.29 Average amount allocated per person Nationwide in the first round of homeland security grants.

$94.40 Amount allocated per person for homeland security in American Samoa.

$36 Amount allocated per person for homeland security in Wyoming, Vice-President Cheney's home state.

$17 Amount allocated per person in New York state.

$5.87 Amount allocated per person in New York City.

$77.92 Amount allocated per person in New Haven, Connecticut, home of Yale University, Bush's alma mater
76 Percentage of 215 cities surveyed by the US Conference of Mayors in early 2004 that had yet to receive a dime in federal homeland security assistance for their first-response units. .
Q <hr /></blockquote>Funny you place the blame for this on Bush. As if he was the one who determined how the expenditures would be distributed.

As a matter of fact, the administration is trying to change the sysyem to reflect a risk-based allocation, but is meeting some pretty stiff opposition.

Your statistics mention Wyoming and Cheney in the same breath, as if it was Cheney's influence that produced the results. Of course Cheney had absolutely nothing to do with the allocation methods.

You fail to mention Vermont, which gets $54.00 per capita, and is the home State of Dem. Senator Patrick Leahy, who was in charge of the committee that wrote the allocation portion of the bill.

[ QUOTE ]
With no clear direction from the feds, state officials have been engaged in a perverse competition for antiterrorism dollars. The Bush administration recently proposed a far more risk-based approach for 2005 funding, but rural-state senators are balking now that they have had three years to get accustomed to their cash.

In the confused days after 9/11, when Capitol Hill offices were closed after several were contaminated by letters containing anthrax, a small group of house and senate leaders got together with Bush administration staff members in a corner of the Capitol to write the homeland-security funding portion of the USA Patriot Act -- a massive and sweeping bill that was propelled into law just six weeks after September 11.

Under the direction of Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, they decided to adopt a formula that had been used in years past for distributing terrorism-preparedness funds, a formula that had never been written into law before and that was designed for a sum of money that was incomparably smaller.

This unusual formula mandated that each state receive a minimum of three-quarters of 1% of the total pot of money, with smaller shares going to territories like Puerto Rico. That meant that 40% of the funds had to be divided up equally among the states, regardless of size or population.

"Whether it's a state of half a million or 4 million, you've got to do certain basic things," Senator Leahy told Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge during a February hearing.

The House Homeland Security Committee last week approved a bill to make the funding formula smarter. The measure, sponsored by chairman Christopher Cox, a Republican from California, would eliminate the state minimum from most grants and distribute much of the money according to risk.

"It can't be true that fighting terror is entirely in the eye of the beholder. There has to be some discipline," he says. In its 2005 budget, the White House has also requested that more money be shifted over to the grants for "high risk" cities.

But the Senate is not going to make reform easy. On February 10, Leahy, a member of the powerful Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee and whose home state, Vermont, gets $54 per capita in federal funds, curtly reminded Ridge of the leverage that small states wield.

"I have to say, I was really disappointed that the president's proposed budget ... drops the all-state minimum formula," he said. "That would affect all but, I think, one or two in this subcommittee. So it may be of more than passing interest." He then added, "I believe ... the administration wants to shortchange rural states." <hr /></blockquote>

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/homesec.tm/

-CM

highsea
09-03-2004, 01:23 PM
Anyone can play this game Q,

Lets look at Kerry's voting record on Defense:

He voted to Kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
He voted to Kill the M-1 Abrams Tank.
He voted to Kill every Aircraft Carrier laid down from 1988.
He voted to Kill the Aegis anti-aircraft system.
He voted to Kill the F-15 Strike Eagle.
He voted to Kill the Block 60 F-16.
He voted to Kill the P-3 Orion upgrade.
He voted to Kill the B-1.
He voted to Kill the B-2.
He voted to Kill the Patriot anti-missile system.
He voted to Kill the FA-18.
He voted to Kill the F117.
He voted to Kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons system since 1988, including a bill for battle armor for our troops.

John Kerry voted to Kill all anti-terrorism activities of many key agencies of the U.S. Government:

He voted to Cut the funding of the FBI by 60%.
He voted to Cut the funding for the CIA by 80%.
He voted to Cut the funding for the NSA by 80%.

Oh, yeah, he voted to increase OUR funding for U.N operations by 800% !!

source (http://www.vnsfvetakerry.com/kerry's_voting_record.htm)

This is only a partial list. Now he says he is going to increase the active duty military by 40,000 troops and double the size of the Special Forces. He says he can do this without increasing the Defense Budget. Naturally he doesn't say how. Clearly he has more cuts in mind. Missile defense, the F-22,and the JSF programs are almost certain to be either killed outright or reduced to the point of insignifigance. The same fate would most likely befall the Seawolf class subs, Arleigh Burke class skimmers, the Stryker, UAV's and UCAV's, ASW, and who knows how many more programs that help to insure the US and her allies' military superiority.

Who would have ever thought that Teddy Kennedy would be known as the conservative Senator from Massachusetts?

-CM
edit: Add the Apache Helicopter and the Tomahawk CM to that list. He also opposed liberating Kuwait, BTW.

I can understand why you may want Kerry to win, but for the life of me, I can't understand why any American would.

landshark77
09-03-2004, 01:58 PM
And I thought this thread was going to have a picture of the Bush man himself that I could paint. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Oh, how disappointed I am.

Qtec
09-03-2004, 06:58 PM
Jeez...! I notice you dont have anything to say that the figures I quoted are wrong! Instead, you switch the subject and go off about someone else. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Did you read the article?

I didnt think so.

Q

Qtec
09-03-2004, 07:00 PM
Saviour of Iraq

1983 The year in which Donald Rumsfeld, Ronald Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East, gave Saddam Hussein a pair of golden spurs as a gift.

2.5 Number of hours after Rumsfeld learnt that Osama bin Laden was a suspect in the 11 September attacks that he brought up reasons to "hit" Iraq.

237 Minimum number of misleading statements on Iraq made by top Bush administration officials between 2002 and January 2004, according to the California Representative Henry Waxman


????

Q

Qtec
09-03-2004, 07:06 PM
62 Number of members of Cheney's 63-person Energy Task Force with ties to corporate energy interests.

0 Number of environmentalists asked to attend Cheney's Energy Task Force meetings.



So the next time any GOP starts talking about 'special interest'groups, feel free to smack him/her in the mouth.

Q

highsea
09-03-2004, 09:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Jeez...! I notice you dont have anything to say that the figures I quoted are wrong! Instead, you switch the subject and go off about someone else. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Did you read the article?

I didnt think so.

Q <hr /></blockquote>Did you read my first response? I didn't think so. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I believe I addressed your complaints about the homeland security disbursements quite clearly.

And really Q, You're going to complain to me about changing the subject? hahaha /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

-CM

highsea
09-03-2004, 09:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Whether I like it or not,what the US President does has an effect on the rest of the world. ie the price of oil/gas. and so consequently on me! Q <hr /></blockquote>I'm no expert on the Netherlands Oil Industry, but it seems like you guys have a pretty strange way of operating.

Netherlands Oil Statistics (2001)
Total Imports: 2.284 mil/bbl/day
Total Exports: 1.418 mil/bbl/day
Total Consumption: 895,300 bbl/day

I tend to think the high price you pay for gas is more closely linked to the high taxes you pay, and the business practices of Royal Dutch/Shell rather than what Bush does as president.

If you guys are importing that much oil, it's because it's coming in from overseas holdings by Royal Dutch/Shell. So much that you can export far more than you use. So how can you blame GW for your high gas prices?

-CM

highsea
09-03-2004, 10:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> 62 Number of members of Cheney's 63-person Energy Task Force with ties to corporate energy interests.

0 Number of environmentalists asked to attend Cheney's Energy Task Force meetings.
<hr /></blockquote>Really, Q, these are pretty pathetic. Are you suggesting that Cheney should've had a panel of environmentalists as his energy task force? That's pretty funny.

Maybe we should have psychics and faith healers advise us about health care, we wouldn't want to have any doctors involved there now, would we.

Hey, while we're at it, lets consult with the Taliban on education.
And when we are determining economic policies, lets be sure not to ignore the input of professional gamblers.
We can let France determine our Defense policies, that would save a lot of wear and tear on the Pentagon. (Oh wait, Kerry is already planning to do that. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

-CM

highsea
09-03-2004, 10:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Did you read the article?

I didnt think so.

Q <hr /></blockquote>Actually I did, I was looking for some kind of source for these numbers. Of course there was none, and there is no way to know where he comes up with this stuff. I guess you're supposed to buy his book.

The "About the Author" section was pretty interesting though, [ QUOTE ]
For a former college drop-out from Ontario and, briefly, a lineman stringing up telegraph wires on the railways of Canada, Graydon Carter, 55, has risen to impressive heights. The editor of Vanity Fair since 1992 * after succeeding Tina Brown * he is one of America's celebrity editors with clout, glamour and a nice line in suits.

<font color="blue"> Well, that certainly qualifies him to be a political analyst. </font color>

It is hard to imagine Carter doing physical work of any kind, beyond exercising his thumb on his silver Zippo lighter. His labour is restricted to rejigging headlines in his magazine * he is a self-confessed failure at delegation of duties * and swanning to Manhattan parties. Martini in hand, he cuts an almost princely and dandyish figure, with billowing shirts and similarly billowing silver hair.

<font color="blue"> Oh, that's just dandy! He'd fit right in at one of Kerry's fund raising dinners. </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

The spotlight on his activities has never burned brighter. In recent months he has transformed the regular editor's letter at the front of the magazine into less of a chat about its coming contents * the spreads of Annie Leibowitz and rants of Christopher Hitchens * and more a full-bore diatribe against the world of George Bush.<hr /></blockquote>Lol, Vanity Fair. I must confess it's not my first choice for world news.

No doubt the Libs just love this guy.

-CM

Qtec
09-04-2004, 04:54 AM
In normal circumstances, a Govt listens to arguments from all sides before deciciding on the best course of action. You cant say this has happened here.When big buisness is allowed to make policy, they will always have the same goals, ie make money for themselves and their shareholders.
I,m sure you would have something to say if 62 enviromentalists were to make energy policy behind closed doors.

Do you remember when the auto makers said it would be too expensive to put seat-belts in cars? They didnt change their minds until they had to.

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
09-04-2004, 08:02 AM
<hr /></blockquote>
he cuts an almost princely and dandyish figure, with billowing shirts and similarly billowing silver hair <hr /></blockquote>

LMAO

Is he prettier than Tina Brown? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Thanks,

Wally

highsea
09-04-2004, 11:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> In normal circumstances, a Govt listens to arguments from all sides before deciciding on the best course of action. You cant say this has happened here.When big buisness is allowed to make policy, they will always have the same goals, ie make money for themselves and their shareholders.
I,m sure you would have something to say if 62 enviromentalists were to make energy policy behind closed doors.

Do you remember when the auto makers said it would be too expensive to put seat-belts in cars? They didnt change their minds until they had to.

Q <hr /></blockquote>Q, I have said that Cheney should make public at least some of the task force documents. But I'm not going to start making assumptions based on ubsustantiated allegations. You and I do not know who made up the task force, what their "ties" to industry were, etc. This twink who wrote that article is not an authoratative source, he's just someone using his position to advance his personal agenda.

When an administration makes an energy policy, they have to talk to energy people, it's pretty simple. 62 environmentalists would be incapable of shaping a coherent energy policy for the US. Take ANWR. If I was GW, I would want to know how much oil and gas was recoverable, how long it would take, how much it would cost, etc. I'm not going to get that information from environmentalists.

Now, If I then decide it's worth tapping the resource, I can put the suggestion before Congress and then the environmentalists can have their say. That's how our system works.

You're seem to think that the Energy policy is just an oil policy. The fact is that it has to include all forms of energy, from oil and gas to coal, hydropower, nuclear, solar, hydrogen fuel cells, wind, tides, geothermal, etc. It has to account for the mix of types, judge where the demands will be, and devise a plan to meet those demands. It has to account for International supply and demand as well, and try to make some kind of reasonable projection for the future.

The task force would have included experts from all of these areas, as well as officials from major energy agencies like BPA, TVA, etc. It's not just Enron and Haliburton people. The left is just looking for an excuse to lay down more accusations of cronyism against Cheney and Bush.

Now, when it's time to set an environmental policy, I would talk to environmentalists. But the policy is not the law. Everyone has their chance to speak when the bills come up before Congress.

As if it even matters. The Bush Energy Plan has been stalled by the Dems in Congress for over 3 years. They have not even offered up a alternate plan. This has harmed our economy, imo, and the Dems tacitly approve of this. It's the same tactic they used against Bush 41. Hurt the economy, you hurt the incumbent.

Two months ago the left was accusing Bush of using his influence with the Saudis to manipulate the oil supply for political purposes. Today they are accusing him of not doing enough to lean on them, and allowing them to control US oil prices. This just shows how little they know about where the US sources it's imports.

-CM

highsea
09-05-2004, 03:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>Did you read the article?

I didnt think so.

Q <hr /></blockquote>Here's one you didn't include, but I will throw it in:
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vanity Fair's "Dandy" Editor:</font><hr>5 Number of states that do not use the word "evolution" in public school science courses.<hr /></blockquote> This is blatant B.S. I did a little googling on this, and this is what I found.

1. In 1968 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional any State bans on teaching evolution science. That ruling is still in effect (See US Constitution, 1st. Amendment, Separation of Church and State).

2. In 1999, The Kansas Board of Education voted 6-4 to ban Evolution Science in public schools K-12. The voters in Kansas quickly replaced the Board of Education. This is the closest any State has come to banning Evolution Science in the classroom, and we're talking about K-12, not State Universities.

3. There are 4 other States that have talked about either banning Evolution Science, or teaching "Creation Science" side by side with Evolution. These States are Ohio, Arkansas, Georgia, and Surprisingly, New York.

None of these States has made any progress towards banning Evolution Science in public schools, or even placing "Creation Science" on an equal footing. Once again, that pesky First Amendment keeps getting in the way.

Do a little research. BTW, this stuff all predates GW's administration. The Twink is using his position to deceive his audience (who welcomes this deception gleefully, without question), and advance his personal agenda.

It's the same technique as I used in my post on Kerry's defense votes. You can make any point you want, if you are willing to sacrifice context and accuracy. We call it politics. You guys probably have some neato sounding European word for it, that I couldn't pronounce. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I'm sure I could go through the Twink's list, point by point, and place them all into context, but I'm gonna go shoot some pool now. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

TTYL, buddy, keep'em coming. And don't forget to vote! (No cheating, now!)

-CM

eg8r
09-06-2004, 08:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
1. In 1968 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional any State bans on teaching evolution science. That ruling is still in effect (See US Constitution, 1st. Amendment, Separation of Church and State).
<hr /></blockquote> Boy this is sure hypocritical. They can ban religion in all other aspects of school, yet the religion of evolution (there is nothing proven and should be taught as theory instead of fact) is perfectly fine. Choose yes/no for religion but don't take one and not the other.

[ QUOTE ]
None of these States has made any progress towards banning Evolution Science in public schools, or even placing "Creation Science" on an equal footing. Once again, that pesky First Amendment keeps getting in the way.
<hr /></blockquote> You are correct, the pesky first ammendment is being abused by not allowing Creation science admitted as an alternative to the religion of evolution.

eg8r

highsea
09-06-2004, 09:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>Boy this is sure hypocritical. They can ban religion in all other aspects of school, yet the religion of evolution (there is nothing proven and should be taught as theory instead of fact) is perfectly fine. <hr /></blockquote>Well Ed, it is taught as a theory. That's why it's called the Theory of Evolution. It's considered a branch of science, because it follows the scientific method, i.e. hypothesis, testing, revision. Facts are introduced in support of the theory. When the facts contradict the theory, it is the theory which must be revised, the facts are not discarded.

No responsible science teacher would teach evolution as unassailable fact.

I do not see how you can consider evolution theory a religion, as there is no deity in charge.

You wouldn't call atheism a religion, would you? It's very definition means " the positive belief that there is no deity, or the absence of a belief that there is a deity". I would call it a belief, but not a religion, as it lacks a God or Gods which, in my mind anyway, is a fundamental requirement of a religion.

Since evolution can be taught without introducing a God, it is kind of hard to define it as a religion. Creationism, on the other hand, cannot be taught without introducing a God. Therefore it is religious in nature, and belongs in Church, not the public schools.

-CM

crawdaddio
09-06-2004, 09:42 PM
Good post highsea. I'm glad to see we can agree on something.

&gt;&gt;DC's one liner for today /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Ross
09-06-2004, 10:22 PM
Highsea, I second Crawdaddio. Your logic is spot on.