Deficit
 

Back to the topic:

Here's a quote from Greenspan, just in case the Cons still think the 'budget fairy' is going to save them:

"Our fiscal prospects are, in my judgment, a significant obstacle to long-term stability because the budget deficit is not readily subject to correction by market forces that stabilize other imbalances."

IOW, nothing is going to turn us around while GW and his boys are growing the deficit at this rate.

I updated this chart a bit form last year:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1083858592.jpg

If you can show that this happened post Gulf War, then yes please post.

"Saddam had no capabilities for WMDs by 1992"

Wow man that's amazing! Who is your source? I think we(the entire world) need your info. Considering every country in the world disagreed including the UN, this is stunning. Please do not be selfish, the world needs this intelligence source! Truely awesome, well done:)

"Wow man that's amazing! Who is your source?"

The U.S military. (Oh, and Dr. Hans Blix.)

...Dick Clarke, Joe Wilson... You know, people who would actually be in the know. .(Bureaucrats, not politicians btw)

Some read, and some just listen I guess.

They said in '92 that he had no WMD's? I humbly request a quote.

"They said in '92 that he had no WMD's? I humbly request a quote."

Hmmm, well, its inferred. The logic is fairly basic:

1. They didn't use them

2. They don't have them

The only out for the 'WMD' fans is an argument worthy of Johnny Cochran: 'well, they did have them, but they were misplaced.'

Your all talking about yesterdays game and second guessing what the Quarterback shoulda done...should woulda coulda....talk about the direction we are going in, talk about alternate courses of action and the ramifications there of.

Initial plans for the Marines were to establish themselves as a force toward repair, not offenses. They were a learned force who knew more about the Iraqi culture than the Army. We need them back in place and that original position and not preoccupied with street thugs like al Sadr.

If Bush wins the election, he has to stop messing around and come up with a tangible point-by-point schedule to a true rebuild of Iraq toward his democratic visions. I'd forget June 30th if I were him. At best the handover is half-cooked and with all the wrong people in place. By June 30th, it will indeed look like we're cutting and running.

Bush needs to get rid of Rumsfeld. Cheney will not be playing - he's old, fat, in ill-health and has made big bucks off this war. The next we'll be hearing about him is his inevitable heart attack in Cheynne, Wyo.

But Rumsfeld is a classic case of American ignorance and arrogance. He should not be speaking publicly because he only fuels fires with his self-serving language about how great we are. Who cares how great we are? We need to start providing plans to Iraq, not self-analysis utilized to doctor everyone else's head. :rolleyes:

Know who I'd put in Rumsfeld's place? Richardson from New Mexico.

Rumsfeld has been ineffective from the start. But the Bush administration is too stuffed with pride to concede they have poor choices for their tasks at hand.

Ok, which moderator deleted Techweenies qoute I requested:) The one where Hans Blix said in '92 that Iraq was clean? Or maybe it was someone else? Either way, please repost as I missed it.

This would be an different thread if the followers of the
NY Times, LA Times, and Washington Post ~!@#$%^&*(

Hey Lendady, I'm not as up on history as some here, so tell me, what was Reagan or Bush1's response to the gassing of the Kurds when it happened? I don't even remember this event being reported or discussed during the gulf war in '91, (only a couple of years after it happened), it's as though these dead Kurds just emerged out of nowhere as a cause celebre' for conservatives when we needed an alternative reason after the fact for invading Iraq. And BTW, are we still searching for a WMDs in Iraq? Or is it one of those "OJ looking for the real killers" kind of searches at this point? ;)

Our credibility in the world is somewhere below Baghdad Bob's about now. Thanks a lot for keeping us safe, President Fockwad. :cool:

Dennis, this discussion was not on the moral directives our leadership has displyed in the past. You make a valid point, though not on topic. Techweenie claimed the WMD's never existed and then claimed experts knew and said this. He was wrong. Thats all. I agree, our government has selectively harnessed moral outrage and that is not right. I am torn as to when we should involve ourselves in these things. There are some terrible things going on in the world which we ignore. Fodder for another thread.

lendaddy:"Techweenie claimed the WMD's never existed and then claimed experts knew and said this. He was wrong. Thats all."

Plenty of experts said it. If I give you quotes, you'll say they weren't experts. It's a stupid game.

Where are the WMDs?

Try me, as long as it's not your neighbor I'll give it a look:)

For those whom are a bit absent on logic, let me point out; absence of proof is not proof of absence.

.. though I suppose some are just trying their best to be a Weennie.

"For those whom are a bit absent on logic, let me point out; absence of proof is not proof of absence."

I get that argument every time I talk with somebody who believes the Trilateral Commission runs the world.

For most Conservatives, faith overrules logic.

That must be what is refered to as "faith-based intelligence" that was used to justify invading Iraq. Who are we invading next who can't proove that they don't have WMD? Can you see the "logic" problem w/ this? :rolleyes:

And BTW, Island, I keep forgetting to ask: When did you stop beating your wife/kicking your dog/diddling yourself near the schoolyard? ;)

Techweenie, did you read that? It makes my point. No where does it say they no Iraq has no WMD's. Infact the whole report alludes to the fact that he likely does.