Just to make sure everyone understands that chart, it is a chart of increases in the national debt. So for example, the national debt at the beginning of '02 was $133 billion more than it was at the beginning of '01. I imagine this number is calculated by taking the budget surplus/deficit and combining it with the interest on the existing debt.
Looking at that graph makes me sad. If BIll Clinton had been allowed another year the debt may have decreased for the first time in forever.
Funny how a Republican congress was in control through Clinton and for the majority of G.W. Bush's terms. So... the republican congress remained a constant throughout both presidencies... you now want to tell me that the President has nothing to do with reigning in the congress and directing their hands? Please, Steve, stop grasping at straws.
Funny how a Republican congress was in control through Clinton and for the majority of G.W. Bush's terms. So... the republican congress remained a constant throughout both presidencies... you now want to tell me that the President has nothing to do with reigning in the congress and directing their hands? Please, Steve, stop grasping at straws.
I'll just play the "war on terror" card.
Show me a chart of the Bush years without the National Security costs added in.
Congress controls the purse strings and makes the budget. How about providing the information on who controlled Congress during those years?
Funny how a Republican congress was in control through Clinton and for the majority of G.W. Bush's terms.
Yeah. Unless you've gone back in time and changed history, I'm pretty sure that the Republicans were in control of Congress during the time you're talking about, Steve. In fact, they still control the Senate for all intents and purposes.
Funny how a Republican congress was in control through Clinton and for the majority of G.W. Bush's terms. So... the republican congress remained a constant throughout both presidencies... you now want to tell me that the President has nothing to do with reigning in the congress and directing their hands? Please, Steve, stop grasping at straws.
I'll just play the "war on terror" card.
Show me a chart of the Bush years without the National Security costs added in.
No you do not get to ignore the expense of an unnecessary war that has allowed for terrorists to congregate in a nation where they were not before. It is not a war on terror. It is a war that allowed for terror.
Funny how a Republican congress was in control through Clinton and for the majority of G.W. Bush's terms. So... the republican congress remained a constant throughout both presidencies... you now want to tell me that the President has nothing to do with reigning in the congress and directing their hands? Please, Steve, stop grasping at straws.
I'll just play the "war on terror" card.
Show me a chart of the Bush years without the National Security costs added in.
No you do not get to ignore the expense of an unnecessary war that has allowed for terrorists to congregate in a nation where they were not before. It is not a war on terror. It is a war that allowed for terror.
I'm not trying to ignore it. I just want to see what happens to the deficit chart if the war had not occurred. A war that most of the free world was behind when it started.
The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:
Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
So the next time someone like McSame says "I believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction as did every intelligence agency in the world and every assessment", you can tell them to go to hell.
So the next time someone like McSame says "I believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction as did every intelligence agency in the world and every assessment", you can tell them to go to hell.
1) Who had access to all of the data? 2) Was the fabricated data obviously fabricated? 3) Was the fabricated data presented in such a way as to appear true? 4) Who exactly fabricated the data? 5) Was the erroneous information included with footnotes detailing that it may or not be reliable? 6) Why did so many Democrats vote for the resolution? 7) What would have been the outcome if the information was true and we had not acted on it? 8) Will everything be revealed or is much of it still classified? 9) What ever happened to that diplomat Iraq approached prior to invading Kuwait that gave Iraq the impression that invading Kuwait would not cause a problem? 10) If Iraq had no WMDs or WMD programs active but was ready to reconstitute them as soon as sanctions were lifted how do you deal with that? If you know the cookie jar is only safe while you watch it how do you stop watching it and expect no one to eat a cookie?
Several Republicans on the committee protested its findings as a "partisan exercise."
Steve, this Senate report shows that the things you people have been saying for years SIMPLY WERE NOT TRUE. Deal with it.
The report also proves that GWB and members of his administreation LIED. Hundreds of thousands of people died BECAUSE OF THEIR LIES. Take that to bed with you tonight. Sweet dreams.
Maybe that's why you like Hillary so much. You're a lot like her in that you just don't know when you're beaten.
Osama said in his interrogation that he spread the rumor that he had WMD's because he was more afraid of Iran than the US. To top it off Osama did have WMDs left over from the first gulf war. Now imagine what one table spoon of Serin nerve agent cold do to one square block of a crowded city, new york for example.
Osama said in his interrogation that he spread the rumor that he had WMD's because he was more afraid of Iran than the US. To top it off Osamadidhave WMDs left over from the first gulf war. Now imagine what one table spoon of Serin nerve agent cold do to one square block of a crowded city, new york for example.
Osama said what? This is the funniest thing I've read in ages!
Osama said in his interrogation that he spread the rumor that he had WMD's because he was more afraid of Iran than the US. To top it off Osamadidhave WMDs left over from the first gulf war. Now imagine what one table spoon of Serin nerve agent cold do to one square block of a crowded city, new york for example.
This is why I love conservatives. They're so well informed.
2. You might be confusing Osama with Saddam Hussein. That's okay. Most conservatives are pretty confused. You people say Saddam had WMDs, but the Senate Report I cited to earlier says that there were none, and the intelligence available at the time said there were none.
Xenoc - Joe is right, you probably confused Osama with Saddam.
Thanks for the link to the cato site, I consider myself better educated about the usefulness of those artillery shells as roadside bomb ingredients. After reading that article I consider it more likely that any improvised explosive devices created using those old WMD shells were likely made thinking they were high-explosive shells. I have never seen one of these shells so I have no idea how clearly they are marked.
Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA,[2] in 1989 the Iraqi Government destroyed 40 or more tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks, owing mostly to impure precursors.
The article goes on to say that Sarin can be made to last at most five years. So yeah, sounds like the Sarin report by Santorum was just a bunch of political maneuvering. Lies of omission, aren't they just great?
Not to defend Bush, but congresspeople don't read the bills they sign. Not reading intelligence is relatively not so bad.
Think about this. We're not talking about an approprations bill to build a bridge. We're talking about GWB's repeated attempts to persuade the country to undertake a war which has claimed the lives of thousands of people and which has cost billions of dollars. I think the question of whether he read intelligence, especially since he claims he read it, or whether he simply lied is pretty important.
Also, are you satisfied that congresspeople "don't read the bills they sign"? Do you think that's true? If you think it's true, do you think it's acceptable?
but congresspeople don't read the bills they sign. Not reading intelligence is relatively not so bad.
It's not so bad, until war is declared because of it, in which case I lean very close to calling it treason.
Yeah, I'm talking about just the not reading part. Think about how many documents, reports, etc. that the federal government produces every day. Look at how insanely large some of them are. It's unreasonable to expect anyone, even the president. to actually read all that. Advisors and staff are supposed to read it, and then advise.
Even though this is true, it's not an excuse for any of Bush's fuck ups. Most major world leaders of past and present are faced with more information than they can process, and few fuck up as royally as George.
Comments
Looking at that graph makes me sad. If BIll Clinton had been allowed another year the debt may have decreased for the first time in forever.
Show me a chart of the Bush years without the National Security costs added in.
Contained in the report: So the next time someone like McSame says "I believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction as did every intelligence agency in the world and every assessment", you can tell them to go to hell.
2) Was the fabricated data obviously fabricated?
3) Was the fabricated data presented in such a way as to appear true?
4) Who exactly fabricated the data?
5) Was the erroneous information included with footnotes detailing that it may or not be reliable?
6) Why did so many Democrats vote for the resolution?
7) What would have been the outcome if the information was true and we had not acted on it?
8) Will everything be revealed or is much of it still classified?
9) What ever happened to that diplomat Iraq approached prior to invading Kuwait that gave Iraq the impression that invading Kuwait would not cause a problem?
10) If Iraq had no WMDs or WMD programs active but was ready to reconstitute them as soon as sanctions were lifted how do you deal with that? If you know the cookie jar is only safe while you watch it how do you stop watching it and expect no one to eat a cookie?
The report also proves that GWB and members of his administreation LIED. Hundreds of thousands of people died BECAUSE OF THEIR LIES. Take that to bed with you tonight. Sweet dreams.
Maybe that's why you like Hillary so much. You're a lot like her in that you just don't know when you're beaten.
EDIT: Wow, it's so confusing when Joe and Steve speak that I thought this was the Obama thread...
Osama said in his interrogation that he spread the rumor that he had WMD's because he was more afraid of Iran than the US. To top it off Osama did have WMDs left over from the first gulf war. Now imagine what one table spoon of Serin nerve agent cold do to one square block of a crowded city, new york for example.
1. Osama didn't say shit in his interrogation because he was never interrogated. He's still on the loose because GWB let him escape at Tora Bora. TWICE. But that's okay. GWB doesn't care where if he's caught or not.
2. You might be confusing Osama with Saddam Hussein. That's okay. Most conservatives are pretty confused. You people say Saddam had WMDs, but the Senate Report I cited to earlier says that there were none, and the intelligence available at the time said there were none.
Your link is screwed up, but it appears to go to some FOX News site. Don't listen to FOX. FOX lies and actually took a case to court to protect their right to lie.
3. If Saddam did have any Sarin, it was worthless. I remember when Rick Santorum claimed that Saddam had some Sarin, but it was too old to be used. Here is another article that says that any Sarin Saddam had was too old to be used. Also, it was intended for battlefield use, not terrorist use. Please read it.
If you people would just read and think, maybe you wouldn't be so confused.
Thanks for the link to the cato site, I consider myself better educated about the usefulness of those artillery shells as roadside bomb ingredients. After reading that article I consider it more likely that any improvised explosive devices created using those old WMD shells were likely made thinking they were high-explosive shells. I have never seen one of these shells so I have no idea how clearly they are marked. wikipedia
The article goes on to say that Sarin can be made to last at most five years. So yeah, sounds like the Sarin report by Santorum was just a bunch of political maneuvering. Lies of omission, aren't they just great?
Also, are you satisfied that congresspeople "don't read the bills they sign"? Do you think that's true? If you think it's true, do you think it's acceptable?
So far, the war has cost about half a trillion dollars. I guess that's not so bad, either.
Even though this is true, it's not an excuse for any of Bush's fuck ups. Most major world leaders of past and present are faced with more information than they can process, and few fuck up as royally as George.