• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

Conservative said:
Look, nothing is going to change your mind about the reasons for going to war and you will continue to ignore all the quotes of Democrats during the Clinton years, the Iraq Liberation Act, as well as those during the early part of the Bush Administration. Doesn't matter to you nor does it matter now other than to divert from the reality we faced at the time.

So let me get this straight, you believe that there was blind support for Bush during his term but no blind support now for the Obama agenda? You are allowing this President to spend U.S. Treasure on a failed ideology that does nothing to solve the problems with healthcare other than increasing access to an infrastructure that not capable of handling that increase nor does it do anything to lower costs. There is no justification for this but that doesn't stop you and others from promoting it.

GW Bush did what he thought was right and history will be the judge. History has already judged what Obama is doing as we have results of Federal social engineering, high debt, ineffeciency, and massive growth of the federal bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

History can't change the facts. Saddam did not attack us, wasn't working with Al Qaeda, did not have wmds. Nor was there any real reason to believe he was a threat that required invasion. History can't change that.

And Obama has only been president for a little while. Even I gave Bush longer than this.
 
Boo Radley said:
History can't change the facts. Saddam did not attack us, wasn't working with Al Qaeda, did not have wmds. Nor was there any real reason to believe he was a threat that required invasion. History can't change that.

And Obama has only been president for a little while. Even I gave Bush longer than this.
Click to expand...

Nor can history change these facts:

"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

"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

"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

"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

As for giving Obama a chance, his agenda does not warrant that support as his spending has made the problems in this country worse not better as it promotes govt. and special interest groups not the private sector.
 
Look that up on Snopes and you find that those comments were taken out of context and at a time before it was determined otherwise. Being dishonest is not being factual.
 
Conservative said:
Nor can history change these facts:

"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

"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

"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

"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.
Click to expand...

So? They were wrong too.
 
Boo Radley said:
Look that up on Snopes and you find that those comments were taken out of context and at a time before it was determined otherwise. Being dishonest is not being factual.
Click to expand...

Taken out of context is the argument that liberals use all the time. Had they been really taken out of context the Democrats would have impeached Bush for lying. They didn't and that says it all.
 
Conservative said:
Taken out of context is the argument that liberals use all the time. Had they been really taken out of context the Democrats would have impeached Bush for lying. They didn't and that says it all.
Click to expand...

Taking out of context is lying. No way around it. It's a dishonest effort to make something seem like something it isn't. That's dishonest.
 
Boo Radley said:
However, some of these quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them - several of these quotes were offered in course of statements that clearly indicate the speaker was decidedly against unilateral intervention in Iraq.


snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised in the least - I was just noting that even if they were accurate, they're completely irrelevant to this debate anyway. Like about 75% of what Conservative posts.
 
Conservative said:
Unfortunately you have so much faith in the Federal Govt. solving an individual responsibility item. What exactly do you believe the role of the Federal Govt. is and what is it exactly in this bill that improves the quality of healthcare and the quantity of doctors to meet the increased demand?
Click to expand...
The health of our people is no lesser a federal responsibility than is their safety. The Constitution says to promote the general welfare. This bill makes provides more accessibility to health care for our people, and focuses on preventative measures to improve health and lower future medical costs.

This is the first step towards what you really want, a single payer system, which for some reason you believe will create the utopia that liberals are advertising. In spite of the single payer SS and Medicare system being broke this time it will be different, right?

This massive increase in the size of govt. is unsustainable and for some reason doesn't resonate with you. Why? Who pays for this debt being generated? Name for me one social program run well by the Federal Govt?
Click to expand...

No utopia, just a single payer health care system like the rest of the developed world. I'm convinced that American's have the capacity to manage a health care system as well as the rest of the developed world

Yes, we may need to scale back on unnecessary wars and tax cuts for the wealthy.
 
Boo Radley said:
Taking out of context is lying. No way around it. It's a dishonest effort to make something seem like something it isn't. That's dishonest.
Click to expand...

What I see are politicians that aren't addressing those statements nor am I seeing politicians taking action over those so called lies that you blame Bush for. Where were the impeachment charges? Not surprised that you ignore that reality.
 
Catawba;1058665210]The health of our people is no lesser a federal responsibility than is their safety. The Constitution says to promote the general welfare. This bill makes provides more accessibility to health care for our people, and focuses on preventative measures to improve health and lower future medical costs.
Click to expand...

Promoting the General welfare means just that, provide an environment that improves individual lives. This legislation or any govt. social engineering program doesn't improve individual lives but it does create dependence. You cannot add another 30 million patients without increasing the infrastructure to handle those patients. Like all you apparently are incapable of looking at the big picture nor have you addressed the true costs of healthcare. It is much easier blaming private business instead of the true entity that causes most of the problems.


No utopia, just a single payer health care system like the rest of the developed world. I'm convinced that American's have the capacity to manage a health care system as well as the rest of the developed world
Click to expand...

Do you want the same wages, quality of life, R&D as the rest of the world? You buy the numbers posted without getting into the numbers. We have a private sector economy that is the envy of the world yet it never satisfies liberals, why?

I don't understand people like you who buy what you are told and ignore history. This nation is made up of 50 individual states that you want to regulate and manage from a national level. You believe it can be done, show me where it has ever been done with regard to individual responsibility issues and done at a lower cost than private industry can generate.

Yes, we may need to scale back on unnecessary wars and tax cuts for the wealthy.
Click to expand...

The cost of the war in Iraq is 100 billion dollar per year out of a 3 plus trillion dollar budget. 9/11 cost this country over a trillion dollars. Would you spend 100 billion to save a trillion? Doubt I will get an answer from you or anyone else who believes the role of the govt. is different than the original intent.
 
Conservative said:
Promoting the General welfare means just that, provide an environment that improves individual lives.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Do you want the same wages, quality of life, R&D as the rest of the world?
Click to expand...

No, I want a health care system that is run more efficiently for more people, and still provides for an equal or greater level of health care, just like in the rest of the developed world.

You buy the numbers posted without getting into the numbers. We have a private sector economy that is the envy of the world yet it never satisfies liberals, why?
Click to expand...

It seems liberals are more interested in social justice than personal greed. Go figure!

You believe it can be done, show me where it has ever been done with regard to individual responsibility issues and done at a lower cost than private industry can generate.
Click to expand...

Just look at all of the rest of the developed world!


The cost of the war in Iraq is 100 billion dollar per year out of a 3 plus trillion dollar budget. 9/11 cost this country over a trillion dollars. Would you spend 100 billion to save a trillion? Doubt I will get an answer from you or anyone else who believes the role of the govt. is different than the original intent.
Click to expand...

In 2008, our price tag for our wars on terror had already reached $3 trillion dollars.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece

9/11 did not happen because they outspent us. Hell, we let them use our own planes!
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Exactly!



No, I want a health care system that is run more efficiently for more people, and still provides for an equal or greater level of health care, just like in the rest of the developed world.
Click to expand...

Then why would you expect that from the govt? Since you seem to want what the rest of the world has does that include wages and quality of life? Do you want their tax structure? Also please tell me why if their healthcare is so good that people from around the world come here for healthcare treatments?


It seems liberals are more interested in social justice than personal greed. Go figure!
Click to expand...

:rofl What liberals want to do is define social justice, define what is fair, define what people should make, and how they should act, all with their own power in mind. Have you ever heard or seen a liberal touting the greatness of this country and its people? Without victims no one needs a liberal.


Just look at all of the rest of the developed world!
Click to expand...

Yet leaders of those developed countries come here for treatment, why?



In 2008, our price tag for our wars on terror had already reached $3 trillion dollars.
The three trillion dollar war | Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes - Times Online
Click to expand...

Better tell that to the U.S. Treasury Dept. How would the UK know what the cost of the wars are? By the way, Obama has increased the defense budget over what Bush spent.

9/11 did not happen because they outspent us. Hell, we let them use our own planes!
Click to expand...

9/11 happened because of political correctness and was building throughout the 90's when we didn't finish the job in the Gulf War. In December 1998 Clinton was warned about a potential terrorist attack using our own planes. How quickly people forget

PDB 12/4/1998, Subject: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks The 9/11 Commission Report | 7/22/04 | CIA

The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President William J. Clinton on December 4, 1998. Redacted material is indicated in brackets.

SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks

1.Reporting suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq ‘Awda. One source quoted a senior member of the Gama’at al-Islamiyya (IG) saying that, as of late October, the IG had completed planning for an operation in the US on behalf of Bin Ladin, but that the operation was on hold. A senior Bin Ladin operative from Saudi Arabia was to visit IG counterparts in the US soon thereafter to discuss options—perhaps including an aircraft hijacking. • IG leader Islambuli in late September was planning to hijack a US airliner during the “next couple of weeks” to free ‘Abd al- Rahman and the other prisoners, according to what may be a different source.
Click to expand...
 
Bush got the same memo and did the same thing. However, you would be interested to no neither Bush, his people or Clinton and his people believe killing OBL would have prevented 9/11. Nor do any of them argue invading any country would have prevented it. In fact, the only argument concerning preventing it was that the CIA and the FBI had to talk to each other. A simple solution. And a much less deadly and costly one. Bush really, really over reacted and caused more harm than good.
 
Boo Radley said:
Bush got the same memo and did the same thing. However, you would be interested to no neither Bush, his people or Clinton and his people believe killing OBL would have prevented 9/11. Nor do any of them argue invading any country would have prevented it. In fact, the only argument concerning preventing it was that the CIA and the FBI had to talk to each other. A simple solution. And a much less deadly and costly one. Bush really, really over reacted and caused more harm than good.
Click to expand...

Aw, give me a break, Bush was in office 8 months when 9/11 happened and Clinton had been in office 6 years when he got the memo. Stop showing your true liberal ignorance. Within the law what could Bush have done in those 8 months? Your total ignorance of the law is quite telling.

Only a liberal believes Saddam Hussein and his evil sons in charge would have created less harm than removing him.
 
Yeah, stop showing your "liberal ignorance." :roll:
 
Conservative said:
Then why would you expect that from the govt? Since you seem to want what the rest of the world has does that include wages and quality of life?
Click to expand...

Because you are comparing oranges an apples. We spend more on Health care than the rest of the world. We will save money by UHC. That has been the documented experience in the rest of the developed world.
 
Catawba said:
Because you are comparing oranges an apples. We spend more on Health care than the rest of the world. We will save money by UHC. That has been the documented experience in the rest of the developed world.
Click to expand...

Who are we? What do you spend on healthcare and why do you generalize or broadbrush this.

You claim that we will save money by UHC, how do you know? When has that ever happened that you save money and get better care?

Stop buying what you are hearing or reading and actually do some research. Too many people buy the general rhetoric and ignore their own personal situation. You aren't that different from others so why do you think the govt. can do better than you can do yourself?

WE are a country of 50 independent states so how does the govt. implement UHC in those 50 states?
 
Conservative said:
Who are we? What do you spend on healthcare and why do you generalize or broadbrush this.

You claim that we will save money by UHC, how do you know? When has that ever happened that you save money and get better care?

Stop buying what you are hearing or reading and actually do some research. Too many people buy the general rhetoric and ignore their own personal situation. You aren't that different from others so why do you think the govt. can do better than you can do yourself?

WE are a country of 50 independent states so how does the govt. implement UHC in those 50 states?
Click to expand...

"At least 15% of the population is completely uninsured,[1][2][3] and a substantial additional portion of the population (21%) is "underinsured", or not able to cover the costs of their medical needs.[4][5] More money per person is spent on health care in the United States than in any other nation in the world,[6][7] and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the U.S. than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor.[7] Despite the fact that not all citizens are covered, the United States has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita.[8][9] A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 62% of all personal bankruptcies."
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States]Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Catawba said:
"At least 15% of the population is completely uninsured,[1][2][3] and a substantial additional portion of the population (21%) is "underinsured", or not able to cover the costs of their medical needs.[4][5] More money per person is spent on health care in the United States than in any other nation in the world,[6][7] and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the U.S. than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor.[7] Despite the fact that not all citizens are covered, the United States has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita.[8][9] A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 62% of all personal bankruptcies."
Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Stop buying the numbers without getting the numbers. Who defines under insured, would you call Rush Limbaugh uninsured or underinsured? He has no insurance as do many wealthy individuals who choose to pay for their services.

I asked you a question that you ignored. How much do you pay for health insurance? What makes you different from everyone else? Are you smarter than most? You have no problem using statistics without knowing what goes into creating those statistics. How do you know these stats compare apples to apples?

The fact that you wont tell what you pay for health insurance again shows an arrogance that says this really isn't about you but instead is about others that you do not know.

Why do you think that I should pay for your insurance. I don't expect you to pay for mine. This bill does nothing to improve the quality of healthcare and if you have paid any attention to the posts I have posted facts that there is a doctor shortage now and what happens when you add 30 million more to the roles. I also posted facts that the insured are using the ER's because they cannot get into seeing a doctor. This bill does nothing to improve the quality of healthcare or lower costs.
 
Conservative said:
Stop buying the numbers without getting the numbers.
Click to expand...

I'll go with the numbers by the experts rather than your opinion. But thanks just the same.
 
Catawba said:
I'll go with the numbers by the experts rather than your opinion. But thanks just the same.
Click to expand...

Too bad you don't spend more time focusing on what you can control instead of trying to micromanage what others do.

Keep ignoring the facts that go into those numbers. What determines whether or not someone is under insured? How many of those not insured CHOOSE not to purchase insurance? How many of those uninsured are uninsured short term?

You want so badly to believe what you are told and that makes you a liberal, hardly a small "c" Conservative. All I hear from liberals is whining and complaining. You all must live a miserable life as all you ever want to do is create victims. Stop buying the rhetoric and get the facts.

If you truly care about the uninsured then find out why they are uninsured and actually do something that will improve quality of care and actually lower costs. Subsidizing people does nothing to lower actual healthcare costs.
 
Conservative said:
Too bad you don't spend more time focusing on what you can control instead of trying to micromanage what others do.
Click to expand...

The people are supposed to tell our leaders what to do, by elections. My efforts (along with the majority of voters in this country) were directed at getting representatives elected that would take on the unaffordable health care crisis in this country. And we were successful. :)
 
Catawba said:
The people are supposed to tell our leaders what to do, by elections. My efforts (along with the majority of voters in this country) were directed at getting representatives elected that would take on the unaffordable health care crisis in this country. And we were successful. :)
Click to expand...

Well then when can we expect you and the majority to deliver on your commitment. Nothing in this bill lowers costs and improves quality. A universal plan makes it worse. It may lower what people pay but that doesn't lower actual costs. All it will do is increase the debt and how do you expect that to be paid?
 
Conservative said:
What I see are politicians that aren't addressing those statements nor am I seeing politicians taking action over those so called lies that you blame Bush for. Where were the impeachment charges? Not surprised that you ignore that reality.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse things. Not putting the country through the fight charges would bring doesn't mean Bush wasn't wrong. The facts show that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom