Bush Flunks Math - Logic

| | Comments (4)

President Bush this holiday weekend is speaking before groups around the country flaunting his lack of capacity for math and logic. In Charleston, W. Va. President Bush is reported by the Toronto Star to have said that America is safer because Saddam Hussein is in a prison cell.

This is either completely false or illogical. The State Dep't. and the Dep't. of Homeland Defense have indicated in recent weeks that more attacks upon the U.S. are likely and experts are saying that it is not a matter of if they will occur, only a matter of when. Now presuming the President has been advised by the Homeland Defense and State Departments, the only logical conclusion to draw from the President's statements is that he is lying to the American people about the being safer with Hussein in jail.

Had we continued the containment of Iraq, we may have lost as many as 6 American troops involved in that containment policy, enforcing no-fly zones, and constraining Iraqi troop movements to central Iraq. The Presidents invasion has now cost nearly 900 troops lives and there is no end in sight to American troop losses in Iraq. The President appears to flaunt his inability to do this simple arithmetic like a badge of honor! Apparently, he believes American voters will be as ignorant as he when it comes to adding up America's cost of waging war in Iraq. Somehow, I doubt that will be the case.

Also, this weekend, AP writer Charles Sheehan reports that V.P. Dick Cheney was on the campaign trail and said "On issue after issue, the choice on November 2 is very important. It's a choice between President Bush's hope and optimism and Senator Kerry's pessimism." It would appear that since logic and arithmetic fail the President, optimism is all that the President has left to run on. But this administration's optimism stands in stark contrast to the abysmal news coming from the administration's efforts. Iraqi's lifeline to money, its oil export, was interrupted again this last week with half of its oil flow cut off by insurgents. The transfer of Iraqi government to the Iraqi's held out hope for the President to protect our troops in Iraq by reducing their profile and letting Iraqi's take up high profile front line positions.

Such optimism however proved hopeless as AP diplomatic writer, Barry Schweid reports, "The Bush administration is not melting into the background in Iraq as once promised. Instead, it is keeping its profile high in Baghdad, driven by a wobbly transition to Iraqi self-rule and a growing disillusionment among American voters in a presidential election year."

Schweid goes on to write

Seasoned Iraq analysts were not surprised that the administration was raising its profile and its involvement in the affairs of the now-sovereign Iraq.

Geoffrey Kemp, senior White House adviser on the Persian Gulf in the Nixon administration, said, "My sense is that the administration is primarily motivated by the domestic situation in the United States."

It would appear that the administration's optimism is not over prospects in Iraq, but, stems more from its efforts to campaign successfully here at home toward a victory at the polls on November 2. Because the news out of Iraq is not promising of reduced American troop fatalities or injuries as evidenced by the following stories: Allawi: No Need for Troops from Iraq's Neighbors which reports that neighboring Arab troops in Iraq would only destabilize the security situation, and this story which reports

Moqtada Sadr, the rebellious Shiite Muslim cleric, insisted Friday that the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq had not ended with the recent handover of limited political powers to an interim government, and called on his followers to continue resisting the large presence of foreign troops in the country.

Job growth slowed significantly last month from economist's and the administration's expectations, senior citizens are in uproar over the Medicare Rx drug card deal which the Administration touted as a hallmark of its compassionate conservativism and cost the taxpayers almost 1/3 more than the Administration said it would cost, and there is no relief in sight for the more than 40 million Americans without health insurance who will be bankrupted by a medical emergency. The administration's optimism may make for rounds of applause from party loyalists, but, among swing and undecided voters in key states, Kerry's "pessimism" about the state of the union under George W. Bush, appears primed by facts and news to gain traction with voters in November. It appears to this writer that logic and math based on facts support Kerry's pessimism and appear to be absent from the President's educational experience.


Your analysis is flawed. When the President says that we are safer because Saddam Hussein is in jail, he is not saying that we face no danger at all. Obviously, the recent warnings prove that we still face danger. He is, however, saying that we are safer than if Saddam hussein were still running Iraq. It is an obvious conclusion. The President's statement is certainly not an instance of failed logic; yours is.

Troy, thank you for your comments. I must point out though that if Saddam Hussein were still in power, more than 850 of our troops would still be alive, and many thousands would not have been maimed and injured, and tax payers would not be facing tax increases due to 150 Billion dollars in expenditures in Iraq (and counting), and that money could have been used to better secure our borders which in fact, would have made us safer.

Even the State Dept. agrees there have been more terrorist deaths since invading Iraq than before, and there are more terrorists today than there were before our invading Iraq. Invading Iraq helped recruitments and growth of terrorism. I simply fail to see your point.

David - While I agree with the points you raised in your response, they have nothing to do with the arguments in your original article which dealt with us being safer. Individuals in the military or civilians working in Iraq may be facing greater dangers, but the country is probably safer without Saddam, so long as we can get things stabilized in Iraq. Nazi Germany was decimated by WWII, but it still took us a few years to get it under control. Our troops there faced attacks up until, I believe, 1949. Also, our losses in Iraq pale in comparison to our losses in Vietnam or Korea, due, at least in part, to our concern for civilian losses. We were greatly concerned with collateral losses; had we not been so respectful, both of the Iraqi civilians and propoerty, perhaps things would now be different nad the numbers you cited would be much less.

I am not arguing that maybe we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. In fact, I question why we needed to go after Iraq at all. Yes, the world is a better place without Saddam, but, of the three axis of evil countries, Iraq was, I feel, the lowest priority. What do we now do about Iran and North Korea?

Troy, we are very much on the same page. Intel is now coming out demonstrating that Iraq posed a far greater threat to our security than Iraq.

What to do now? Not much with our forces stretched thin and committed to maintaining what stability there is in Iraq. And that isn't much in key areas of Iraq.

I am reminded of Viet Nam, where the enemy was virtually undetectable and untraceable. The Tet offensive came as a complete surprise to the U.S. Terrorists consititute a similarly undetectable and untraceable enemy outside our borders. Yes, we will find some, kill some, arrest some. But, by and large, their presence and activities will only become known after an attack upon us.

That is why I propose that many of our resources to our borders, where we have a far, far better opportunity to detect and detain potential terrorists intent on our destruction.

Thank you for your reply and intelligent insights and feedback.


Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.


Monthly Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.25

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by David R. Remer published on July 5, 2004 11:38 AM.

Kerry-Dem.Party: Undemocratic was the previous entry in this blog.

Edwards: Pluses & Minuses is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Offsite Links