Debate Politics Forums forum
Go Back   Debate Politics Forums > Debate Politics Forum > Archives



 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-05-08, 08:15 AM   #151
Adventurer/Bon Vivant


 
sazerac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Last Seen: Today 10:05 AM
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 2,036
Thanks: 1,574
Thanked 604 Times in 395 Posts
Lean: Moderate
Gender: Male
Re: Bush's Legacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iriemon View Post
You called Jessica a traitor based on this supposed senate investigation showing Bush did not lie.

Again, please provide the citation for this senate finding that Bush did not lie, and the basis upon which you are calling people traitors.

Thank you.
I already provided quotes yesterday from the Democrat's report from Washington Post. I love how the author makes an ass out of Rockefeller.


Quote:

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."


Fred Hiatt - 'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple. - washingtonpost.com
sazerac is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Reddit!Stumble this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!
Old 11-05-08, 08:34 AM   #152
Banned
 
Iriemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Last Seen: 12-21-09 09:18 AM
Location: Miami
Posts: 19,405
Thanks: 1,415
Thanked 2,223 Times in 1,524 Posts
Re: Bush's Legacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by sazerac View Post
I already provided quotes yesterday from the Democrat's report from Washington Post. I love how the author makes an ass out of Rockefeller.


[/B]

Fred Hiatt - 'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple. - washingtonpost.com
Let me see if I have this straight.

You post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sazerac View Post
You called your president a liar with no proof. Even after senate investigations showed he did not lie. This makes you traitors by simple definition.
Calling people traitors based on a senate investigation you claimed showed Bush did not lie.

And when called out on it, you cite an op-ed piece from a newspaper.

I think you've aptly demonstrated your character and the veracity of your posts. Thanks.
Iriemon is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Reddit!Stumble this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!
Old 11-05-08, 08:49 AM   #153
Adventurer/Bon Vivant


 
sazerac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Last Seen: Today 10:05 AM
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 2,036
Thanks: 1,574
Thanked 604 Times in 395 Posts
Lean: Moderate
Gender: Male
Re: Bush's Legacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iriemon View Post
Let me see if I have this straight.

You post:



Calling people traitors based on a senate investigation you claimed showed Bush did not lie.

And when called out on it, you cite an op-ed piece from a newspaper.

I think you've aptly demonstrated your character and the veracity of your posts. Thanks.
The 250 plus page report is right here on the internet. Google it for Christ's sake if you want! The republican report is right here too. Oh, that's right, it takes work to figure out that your president is not a liar. Googling is hard!

I provided quotes from the senate democrat report from the WaPo article that show Bush only told us what he was told by intelligence and nothing more.

Bill Clinton's man, George Tenet, told us Saddam had WMDs. That something people like to forget, too.

And you all were traitors the minute you called Bush a liar without proof. Long before these reports.

Last edited by sazerac; 11-05-08 at 08:52 AM.
sazerac is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Reddit!Stumble this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!
Old 11-05-08, 09:35 AM   #154
Banned
 
Iriemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Last Seen: 12-21-09 09:18 AM
Location: Miami
Posts: 19,405
Thanks: 1,415
Thanked 2,223 Times in 1,524 Posts
Re: Bush's Legacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by sazerac View Post
The 250 plus page report is right here on the internet. Google it for Christ's sake if you want! The republican report is right here too. Oh, that's right, it takes work to figure out that your president is not a liar. Googling is hard!

And you all were traitors the minute you called Bush a liar without proof. Long before these reports.[/
You can't back up your claim upon which you call others "traitors".

But if you follow your own advice and google for information about Senate investigations and Iraq, you'll find information about Senate investigations that sheds light on your claim:

Bush: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda ..."

Senate investigation reports on Bush's statement:

2004 9/11 Commission Report
The official report issued by the 9/11 Commission in July 2004 addressed the issue of a possible conspiracy between the government of Iraq and al-Qaeda in the September 11 attacks. The report addressed specific allegations of contacts between al-Qaeda and members of Saddam Hussein's government and concluded that there was no evidence that such contacts developed into a collaborative operational relationship, and that they did not cooperate to commit terrorist attacks against the United States. The report includes the following information:

“Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.
Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin. In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December. Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

2004 Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq
Looking at pre-war intelligence on Iraq, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence examined "the quality and quantity of U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, ties to terrorist groups, Saddam Hussein’s threat to stability and security in the region, and his repression of his own people;" and "the objectivity, reasonableness, independence, and accuracy of the judgments reached by the Intelligence Community".[88] In Section 12 of the report, titled Iraq's Links to Terrorism, the Senate committee examined the CIA's "five primary finished intelligence products on Iraq’s links to terrorism." The report focused specifically on the CIA's 2003 study. After examining all the intelligence, the Senate committee concluded that the CIA had accurately assessed that contacts between Saddam Hussein's regime and members of al-Qaeda "did not add up to an established formal relationship."

2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence
In September 2006, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released two reports constituting Phase II of its study of pre-war intelligence claims regarding Iraq's pursuit of WMD and alleged links to al-Qaeda. These bipartisan reports included "Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments"[97] and "The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress".[98] The reports concluded that, according to David Stout of the New York Times, "there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had prewar ties to Al Qaeda and one of the terror organization’s most notorious members, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."[99] The "Postwar Findings" volume of the study concluded that there was no evidence of any Iraqi support of al-Qaeda, al-Zarqawi, or Ansar al-Islam. The "Iraqi National Congress" volume concluded that "false information" from INC-affiliated sources was used to justify key claims in the prewar intelligence debate and that this information was "widely distributed in intelligence products" prior to the war. It also concluded that the INC "attempted to influence US policy on Iraq by providing false information through defectors directed at convincing the United States that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links to terrorists." The Senate report noted that in October 2002, "the DIA cautioned that the INC was penetrated by hostile intelligence services and would use the relationship to promote its own agenda."

The "Postwar Findings" report had the following conclusions about Saddam's alleged links to al-Qaeda:

Conclusion 1: The CIA's assessment that Iraq and al-Qaeda were "two independent actors trying to exploit each other" was accurate only about al-Qaeda. "Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support."

Conclusion 2: Postwar findings have indicated that there was only one meeting between representatives of Saddam Hussein and representatives of al-Qaeda. These findings also identified two occasions "not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa'ida operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al-Qa'ida and Iraq."

Conclusion 3: "Prewar Intelligence Community assessments were inconsistent regarding the likelihood that Saddam Hussein provided chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training to al-Qa'ida. Postwar findings support the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) February 2002 assessment that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was likely intentionally misleading his debriefers when he said that Iraq provided two al-Qa'ida associates with chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training in 2000.... No postwar information has been found that indicates CBW training occurred and the detainee who provided the key prewar reporting about this training recanted his claims after the war."

Conclusion 4: "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations."

Conclusion 5: Postwar findings support the assessment that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and associates were present in Baghdad from May-November 2002. "Prewar assessments expressed uncertainty about Iraq's complicity in their presence, but overestimated the Iraqi regime's capabilities to locate them. Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

Conclusion 6: Prewar interactions between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda affiliate group Ansar al-Islam were attempts by Saddam to spy on the group rather than to support or work with them. "Postwar information reveals that Baghdad viewed Ansar al-Islam as a threat to the regime and that the IIS attempted to collect intelligence on the group."

Conclusion 7: "Postwar information supports prewar Intelligence Community assessments that there was no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al-Qa'ida strike.....


Sure doesn't look like these senate investigations showed Bush did not lie to me. Quite the contrary.

Last edited by Iriemon; 11-05-08 at 09:49 AM.
Iriemon is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Reddit!Stumble this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!
Old 11-05-08, 09:42 AM   #155
Banned
 
Iriemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Last Seen: 12-21-09 09:18 AM
Location: Miami
Posts: 19,405
Thanks: 1,415
Thanked 2,223 Times in 1,524 Posts
Re: Bush's Legacy

And some other intellegence reports on whether Iraq was an ally of Al Queda as Bush stated:

2001 Presidential Daily Briefing
Ten days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, President Bush receives a classified Presidential Daily Briefing (that had been prepared at his request) indicating that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was "scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda." The PDB writes off the few contacts that existed between Saddam's government and al-Qaeda as attempts to monitor the group rather than attempts to work with them.

2002 DIA reports
The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: "Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control."[78] In April 2002, the DIA assessed that "there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq

2002 British intelligence report
In October 2002, a British Intelligence investigation of possible links between Iraq and al-Qaeda and the possibility of Iraqi WMD attacks issued a report concluding: "al Qaeda has shown interest in gaining chemical and biological expertise from Iraq, but we do not know whether any such training was provided. We have no intelligence of current cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda and do not believe that al Qaeda plans to conduct terrorist attacks under Iraqi direction

2003 CIA report
In January 2003, the CIA released a special Report to Congress entitled Iraqi Support for Terrorism. The report concludes that "In contrast to the patron-client pattern between Iraq and its Palestinian surrogates, the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida appears to more closely resemble that of two independent actors trying to exploit each other — their mutual suspicion suborned by al-Qaida's interest in Iraqi assistance, and Baghdad's interest in al-Qaida's anti-U.S. attacks…. The Intelligence Community has no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaida strike." (See below).[81] Michael Scheuer, the main researcher assigned to review the research into the project, described the review and his conclusions: "For about four weeks in late 2002 and early 2003, I and several others were engaged full time in searching CIA files -- seven days a week, often far more than eight hours a day. At the end of the effort, we had gone back ten years in the files and had reviewed nearly twenty thousand documents that amounted to well over fifty thousand pages of materials.... There was no information that remotely supported the analysis that claimed there was a strong working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. I was embarrassed because this reality invalidated the analysis I had presented on the subject in my book.[82]
2003 British intelligence report

In January 2003, British intelligence completed a classified report on Iraq that concluded that "there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network." The report was leaked to the BBC, who published information about it on February 5, the same day Colin Powell addressed the United Nations. According to BBC, the report "says al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden views Iraq's ruling Ba'ath party as running contrary to his religion, calling it an 'apostate regime'. 'His aims are in ideological conflict with present day Iraq,' it says."

2003 Israeli intelligence
In February 2003, Israeli intelligence sources told the Associated Press that no link has been conclusively established between Saddam and Al Qaeda.


Bush called Iraq an ally of Al-Queda despite overwhelming information to the contrary.

That's a lie in my book.

Last edited by Iriemon; 11-05-08 at 09:46 AM.
Iriemon is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Reddit!Stumble this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!
Old 11-05-08, 12:39 PM   #156
Banned

 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Last Seen: 11-03-09 11:18 AM
Location: Ventura California
Posts: 8,706
Thanks: 3,030
Thanked 1,410 Times in 1,091 Posts
Lean: Conservative
Gender: Male
Re: Bush's Legacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by sazerac View Post
Your list reminds me how deceitful the Bush haters have to be to try to convince us that he is evil.

They can't just stick to facts. The must resort to fantasy.
Never confuse rabid Liberals with the facts; their eyes will just glaze over and they will engage you into a circle of stupidity.

It's like the sage old saying; never argue with idiots, they will just drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

Just saying.....
Truth Detector is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Reddit!Stumble this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!
Old 11-05-08, 12:43 PM   #157
Banned

 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Last Seen: 11-03-09 11:18 AM
Location: Ventura California
Posts: 8,706
Thanks: 3,030
Thanked 1,410 Times in 1,091 Posts
Lean: Conservative
Gender: Male
Re: Bush's Legacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
Are you even capable of understanding that Bush and Company may not care about the Republican Party?

If I may ask... what is your IQ?

Certainly one with a higher IQ could understand that you are not be logical at all...
The above ad hominem is a prime example of profound irony.

Truth Detector is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Reddit!Stumble this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!
Old 11-05-08, 12:48 PM   #158
Banned

 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Last Seen: 11-03-09 11:18 AM
Location: Ventura California
Posts: 8,706
Thanks: 3,030
Thanked 1,410 Times in 1,091 Posts
Lean: Conservative
Gender: Male
Re: Bush's Legacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
Notice the diff btwn Clinton's term and Bush's.

United Stated National Debt

And Repubs have the noive to call Dems Tax and Spenders!

Clinton's spending was actually LESS than Bush's revenue!
Once again, Presidents cannot tax, and they cannot spend. That is the responsibility of Congress and Clinton's congress was Republican; a congress that was the FIRST in five decades to ever balance a budget.

I am always amused by the desperate efforts to re-write the historic record and give all that credit to Clinton who attempted to tax us at ever greater rates and shove Universal Healthcare, his biggest failure, down the American public’s throats.

Denial leads to ignorance; please do not do denial.

Truth Detector is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Reddit!Stumble this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!
Old 11-05-08, 12:53 PM   #159
Banned

 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Last Seen: 11-03-09 11:18 AM
Location: Ventura California
Posts: 8,706
Thanks: 3,030
Thanked 1,410 Times in 1,091 Posts
Lean: Conservative
Gender: Male
Re: Bush's Legacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Family Guy View Post
So you're an apologist for a President who purposely manipulated intelligence in order to start a war that was unnecessary and unwarranted? That's quite generous of you.

"Islamofascists" is one of those made up scary words that Bush and his "apologists" like to toss our to justify their mistakes, kind of like a "get out of jail free" card.
I am always amused by this desperate Liberal attempt to re-write the record.

Tell me something Family Guy, did Bush manipulate the intelligence for these Democrats as well?

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"[W]e 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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

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

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

The ONLY way anyone can keep spewing the lie that Bush fooled everyone is to willingly suspend your brains.

Carry on; denial leads to ignorance, please don't do denial.

Truth Detector is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Reddit!Stumble this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!
Old 11-05-08, 01:00 PM   #160
Banned
 
Iriemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Last Seen: 12-21-09 09:18 AM
Location: Miami
Posts: 19,405
Thanks: 1,415
Thanked 2,223 Times in 1,524 Posts
Re: Bush's Legacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
Once again, Presidents cannot tax, and they cannot spend. That is the responsibility of Congress and Clinton's congress was Republican; a congress that was the FIRST in five decades to ever balance a budget.

I am always amused by the desperate efforts to re-write the historic record and give all that credit to Clinton who attempted to tax us at ever greater rates and shove Universal Healthcare, his biggest failure, down the American public’s throats.
Clinton had a Dem congress in the first two years which is when the deficit busting tax increase was passed.

Presidents cannot tax (who can remember the 1981 Democratic tax cut) but they can veto, which is why the Republicans were unable to pass their budget busting tax cuts until Bush took over the WH, wiping out the surplus in a couple years and reinstituting record deficits.

Quote:
Denial leads to ignorance; please do not do denial.

Just so.
Iriemon is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Reddit!Stumble this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO
Debate Politics.com Copyright ©2004-2009
no new posts