Hey brother, can you spare $490,000,000,000?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

That'll pay for the deficit.

On the 2009 federal budget alone.

Without interest.

Way to go Bush.

(insert Bush Apologist rah-rahs, flag waving, chest-beating and chants of "USA, USA, USA" here)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/28/2009.deficit/index.html

[Christien]

Wow, talk about living beyond your means!

It does make me wonder how we're supposed to raise our kids to be fiscally responsible and live within their means, when the gov't does the exact opposite.

[HardDrive]

Jeff, don't forget the extra $80 billion in war cost that the ****** weasel did not include, even though it violates congressional mandates to exclude them.

Hope you Bush voters are in for a strong does of liberal mayhem in Washington, because every crack pot is going to be coming out of the woodwork, and given the swings in congress, they will have their ear. Were going to look like Sweden in 8 years, with massive government entitlements, and Chinese and Arabs owning everything in sight.

[BeyGon]

Did Nancy and Harry pass all of this or did GW sneak it buy them on his own. Hard to believe he can get away with it as dumb as some people say he is.
Are Nancy and Harry even more dumb? I think so.

[island911]

We need Obama to help Pelosi and Reed. Obama is ready to SPEND!!!

[john70t]

Well how is the public going to pay for Bush's war?
A)Raise taxes, or
B)Print ourselves into a depression, or
C)Declare the nulification of the Chinese trade deficit as equal trade for UN non-compliance(or summtin' like dat)...

Give this url to your kids: http://costofwar.com/costofwar_home

[BeyGon]

Originally Posted by john70t

Well how is the public going to pay for Bush's war?
A)Raise taxes, or
B)Print ourselves into a depression, or
C)Declare the nulification of the Chinese trade deficit as equal trade for UN non-compliance(or summtin' like dat)...

Give this url to your kids: http://costofwar.com/costofwar_home

How was the public going to pay for more terrorist attacks? The ones that haven't happened?
Liberals should pay more taxes. It seems like the right thing.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Way to go Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/28/2009.deficit/index.html

We all share the blame as well. We should have known better than to design a government with no checks and balances. One with only an executive branch and no legislative branch. Hind-sight is 20/20, but how could we have been so dumb? Giving a president a blank check to spend how he wishes, without a congress or senate to tell him how much he can spend or on what. Pure stupidity.
You'd think we would have been smart enough to design a governmental system where congress develops the budget and decides what gets spent on what. But nooooooo ....... we had to eliminate congress and let the president operate in a total vacuum.
We should be ashamed of ourselves, only a real imbicile would dream up that kind of a government.

[jmshepard]

I thought the Dems rode into DC on the "we are not going to fund the war" pony. What happened to that?

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by john70t

Well how is the public going to pay for Bush's war?

Oh, so NOW it's BUSH's war. It used to be clinton's war. It used to be gore's war. It used to be Pelosi's war. It used to be albright's war. it used to be Rockefeller's war. It used to be kerry's war. It used to be Kenedy's war.
The democrats were calling for this war long before Bush even ran for president, but now the democrats say 'it wasn't our idea, he did it, It was all him. We told him not to but he did it anyway". Reminds me of a kindergarten snitch who did something wrong and blames it on everyone else.
Bottom line is that it is a lie. We all know it, stop saying it, everyone knows it isn't true. Everyone except maybe for the people with a 10 minute political attention span. Like the democrats.

Just in case you selectively forgot, Here's what they said. Yes, I checked snopes, it listed as TRUE. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 (before Bush was in office IIRC)

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998 (before Bush was even running for office)

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

So it's Bush's war? sure it is. Sure it is. Only because the democrat COWARDS who called for the war ran with their tails between their legs after they pushed so hard for it. Just like a kid in kindergarten.

[sammyg2]

Or you can go here http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?p=4070766&highlight=gore+clinton+iraq+war#post4070766 and check out post #46. it's video tape of them saying it, just in case you didn't believe what I wrote.

[Normy]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Oh, so NOW it's BUSH's war. It used to be clinton's war. It used to be gore's war. It used to be Pelosi's war. It used to be albright's war. it used to be Rockefeller's war. It used to be kerry's war. It used to be Kenedy's war.
The democrats were calling for this war long before Bush even ran for president, but now the democrats say 'it wasn't our idea, he did it, It was all him. We told him not to but he did it anyway". Reminds me of a kindergarten snitch who did something wrong and blames it on everyone else.
Bottom line is that it is a lie. We all know it, stop saying it, everyone knows it isn't true. Everyone except maybe for the people with a 10 minute political attention span. Like the democrats.

Just in case you selectively forgot, Here's what they said. Yes, I checked snopes, it listed as TRUE. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 (before Bush was in office IIRC)

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998 (before Bush was even running for office)

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

So it's Bush's war? sure it is. Sure it is. Only because the democrat COWARDS who called for the war ran with their tails between their legs after they pushed so hard for it. Just like a kid in kindergarten.

Oh you can quote as much as you want, all out of context...but it is CLEAR that dubya and the republicans were ALL about the war in Iraq. During the first week of the administration, it is said that discussions were held in the oval office regarding an invasion of Iraq.

Plain and simple, dubya used the Presidency to persue a family vendetta against Sadam Hussein because the later threatened to kill Bush 41 back in the 1990's.

Republican foreign policy! "If you're not with us...then you are against us!"

In any case, you conservatives are SO good at saving money! When the current Republican administration came to power in 2001, it inherited a $128 billion budget surplus. Today, that conservative administration is forcasting a $490 billion deficit.

Republican financial management!

-And you REALLY want us to vote for another Republican?



N-

[Superman]

Yup, this is Dubya's war. No doubt about that. He began planning in his first week in office. He lobbied HARD for it when the opportunity arose. He mischaracterized intelligence reports in order to justify it. This war is HIS war. And, by association, the Republicans' war. Right now, a Republican presidential candidate has approximately zero chance of victory. so.....you guys are going to pay a price for Dubya's decisions, and for his ineptitude in running a large organization. The most pathetic excuse for a "president" I could even imagine.

[jmshepard]

All of those quotes are out of context? Incredible.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Superman

Yup, this is Dubya's war. No doubt about that. He began planning in his first week in office. He lobbied HARD for it when the opportunity arose. He mischaracterized intelligence reports in order to justify it. This war is HIS war. And, by association, the Republicans' war. Right now, a Republican presidential candidate has approximately zero chance of victory. so.....you guys are going to pay a price for Dubya's decisions, and for his ineptitude in running a large organization. The most pathetic excuse for a "president" I could even imagine.

You know, i am declaring this IGNORE THE TROLLS day.

On my list you go. I've read your utterly ignorant fantastical delusions that you call posts for far too long now. You honestly don't have one damn clue what you're talking about. It terrifies me that anyone as ignorant as you or shaun gets to vote, but alas....

[john70t]

Sammy, I guess even politicians can be duped by third-party, non-biased, non-partisan intelligence which originates from foreign intelligence services completely removed from the politics of the situation.

That was the case, right, the CIA purposfully lying to the president? Go ahead and blame the CIA.
Or, who do you blame? Hamburgler or "The Decider"TM.

[MRM]

In all fairness, it is Bush's war. You can argue that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it was Bush who brought the US into the war. Did Clinton lay the footing for it? Yes. Did McCain advocate for taking out Saddam even before Bush? Yes. But Clinton wasn't in office when we invaded, and it wasn't McCain who asked Congress for a use of force resolution. Bush's administration pushed public opinion to support the invasion, planned the invasion and the occupation (well, planned might be too strong of a word) and has prosecuted the ongoing hostilities with varying degrees of succes. He has been the Comander in Chief throughout the war.

The Iraq war, for good or bad, is on the head of G. W. Bush.

[m21sniper]

The war we've almost got won, right?

[Jim Richards]

let's have a bake sale for America.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by john70t

Sammy, I guess even politicians can be duped by third-party, non-biased, non-partisan intelligence which originates from foreign intelligence services completely removed from the politics of the situation.

That was the case, right, the CIA purposfully lying to the president? Go ahead and blame the CIA.
Or, who do you blame? Hamburgler or "The Decider"TM.

Considering that Bill clinton, Al Gore, Clinton's secretary of state, and Clinton's national security advisor all said that Saddam was an immediate threat and that he had WMD and would use them against the US BEFORE BUSH EVEN RAN FOR OFFICE I'd have to say you can't say that bush had anything to do with influencing the intelligence that came out of the CIA or wherever.

Lots of democrats like to say that Bush manipulated the intelligence reports, lots of democrats like to say that Bush talked them into voting for the war, lots of democrats like to put it all on Bush. Only problem is, the democrats were calling for military action against saddam when Bush was just a Governor.
Amazing how much influence a governor of texas can have with democrats and with world policy.