Scroll down for a discussion on Obama Awarded Nobel Prize within the Non-Insurance Related Discussion.
Originally Posted by Mac1958
*** BREAKING NEWS ***
(London) -- The Professional Cricketers' Association has announced its NatWest PCA Awards for 2009, and Marcus Trescothick ...
(London) -- The Professional Cricketers' Association has announced its NatWest PCA Awards for 2009, and Marcus Trescothick of Somerset was named NatWest PCA Player of the Year as the top Cricket Player in England.
The White House immediately expressed its disappointment that Barack Obama did not win the award, and blamed his loss on Fox News.
Film at 11.
...
That is Awsome!
I don't quite understand the public option?
I do understand Socialism. Bad!
Abortion funding. Bad!
Cut backs on elderly care. Bad!
Obama Care. Bad!
------------------------------------
Today is the day of Salvation!
Please name the top 3 messes you say were caused by W.
That were "caused" by W.
1)Iraq war. 2)He undid all the environmental laws in favor of corporations 3) He revised tax laws to build in long term deficit spending
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Originally Posted by Winter
You assume along with many that any opposition to a government takeover of health care equates to a lack of recognition of the problem at hand. What is missing for you, is that some of us live in states where the government implemented many of the reforms that are being talked about nationwide now and then we watched our system collapse, leaving people worse off. Similarly, as California demonstrates if something is not affordable or workable in the long run then it helps no one when iit collapses. Calfiornia was a leader in providing benefits at one point. They are now a leader in talking about cutting back on those services. Even if we disagree, dont exclude for a minute the possibility that the cure could be worse than the disease because that is a very real possibility.
In regard to the USA report, and the teachers jobs, the stimulus package just plugged the holes in state budgets and preserved lots and lots of public sector jobs. No one doubts that. There is no "stimulus" there though. They dont create any economic growth and when the stimulus runs out you have to either have another stimulus or it all falls back on to the state deficits again. It merely forestalls the day when states need to balance their budgets unless we are talking about permanently nationalizing state budgets which in fact some people are.
In regard to Obama not wanting to pull the plug on grandma, his policies have that effect so he must take responbility for it. He proposes to cut Medicare by a half trillion and talks about needing to cut costs, and oh by the way, highlights that most of the cost is in the final year of life. I am okay letting him work that out with the Blue Hair Brigade. No need for me to get in the middle of that tussle. They can take care of themselves. If their fears have no basis, then he is all set. President Obama is very vocal in giving example of how lack of certain policies lead to the untimely death of many so it is equally fair for him to be criticized thusly in regard to seniors. And if it is not fair, take it up with the Blue Hair Brigade.
Pulling the plug on Grandma. Change you can believe in.
I can't belive how some people can be so blind to the plight of so many in our country who don't have health care, live in poverty, and are losing their homes. All of these problems are results of the unfettered capitalism under which we lived with Bush and his team in power for eight years.
When an administration practices neoliberalism, privatization, deunionization, deregulation, and dehumanization, that administration has to carry the responsibility of what happened during its administration and well into the future. George Bush, free market capitalist that he is, pushed the envelop too far in the direction of deregulation.When he deregulated the financial and banking industries, he paved the way for the housing market to fall which led to the current economic crash. When he put into place a new perscription plan for seniors which was funded by the big pharma and is now causing huge problems for seniors who can't understand the maze of forty plus forumlas through which they have to wade to pick out a plan, he favored pharmachutical companies over senior citizens. When he built into the tax system long term deficit spending, he created a framework for a tax system which will cost our children and grandchildren for years into the future. When he put into place "no child left behind" and didn't fund it, he placed thousands of children in peril through "teaching to the test."
When he signed a new bankrupty law into effect, he favored banking and credit card companies leaving hundreds of thousands of individuals with debt (which is what bankruptcy is supposed to eradicate). When he undid all the environmental laws that were in place, he did so to favor corporations who found it cheaper to pollute and ruin our planet rather than act responsibly and clean up their waste and posions. When he led us into an unwarrented war in Iraq and turned his back on Afghanastan, he effectively created a vacuum in Afghanastan in which Al Quida flourished. When he took his paternalist attitude toward the world with his famous "you're either for us or against," he turned the entire world against us. Under the Bush administration, the US lost more jobs than any president since Hoover. Had Obama not been elected president, our country would have been plunged into a depression more serious than the great Depression. We should thank our lucky stars that Obama is the leader of our nation. He has in a few short months restored our status in the world, kept our economyfrom going down the tubes, and, with a little bit of luck, will see national health care reform put into place. The US is the only democratized country in the world that doesn't provide health care for its citizens. Shame on the insurance companies for providing fradulent information and creating bogus studies to turn public opinion against a national health care plan. I find it very interesting that big insurance, which promotes capitalism in a free market economy, does not what to complete with a public option. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Finally, I'd be ashamed of my party if the face of that party was Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Dick Cheny.
Last edited by armydad : 10-23-2009 at 05:12 AM.
Reason: Posts merged
RB I dont support either of those wars, Iraq emphatically. Pres Bush should have been impeeched the day after he lied to congress claiming Iraq had wmds and scaring our people with mushroom clouds.
Our Defense Department is REALLY a War Department. These terrorist should be handled by the CIA and Special Ops Military in Tandom with no regard for borders. But, as warned by Eisnhower, we have this huge Miliatry Industrial Complex instigated by private corperation like Haliburton, Exxon, BlackWater, even Fast Food companies like KFC looking to make crazy profits off Millitary contracts they dont have to pay taxes on.
Violence begats violence.
"Pulling the plug on Grandma. Change you can believe in."
Winter you know your spreading a lie.
Last edited by AgentOrange : 10-23-2009 at 07:33 AM.
Given that Obama hasn't been too concerned with contract law since he was elected, and given how much he criticized the likes of Halliburton, Exxon, and the feeders of the Military Industrial Complex (oh, let's just say Boeing and Northrop Grumman, etc.), doesn't it just piss you off a wee little bit that he hasn't done ANYTHING to make changes?
I would've thought that he would have at least made some sort of attempt by now. Seems like BHO sure talked a big game and now that he's in office, he's simply a puppet waiting for the puppet master to pull his strings.
Other than George Soros and the SEIU, I'm not sure who the other puppet masters are.
RB I dont support either of those wars, Iraq emphatically. Pres Bush should have been impeeched the day after he lied to congress claiming Iraq had wmds and scaring our people with mushroom clouds.
So you believe Bush KNEW that Iraq didn't have WMD's, and lied in order to get us into the war. That's your position?
1)Iraq war. 2)He undid all the environmental laws in favor of corporations 3) He revised tax laws to build in long term deficit spending
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I can't belive how some people can be so blind to the plight of so many in our country who don't have health care, live in poverty, and are losing their homes. All of these problems are results of the unfettered capitalism under which we lived with Bush and his team in power for eight years.
.
The Dems were in charge of the congressional oversight committees for all financial and housing matters. If you want to hang some Republicans out on the national mall or some SEC administrators, I am all for it, as long as I look over and see Dodd and Frank swinging there too.
The financial crisis was precipitated by the dem passed Community Reinvestment Act which required the governent/fannie mae to lend to people who had no job, no income, and no assets and then Barney and company systematically punished any bank (by withholding funds) that could not demonstrate that it was not lending to people who had not creditworthiness whatsoever. And when a bank did not want to squander money, ACORN would picket the bank (all while acorn was receiving federal funds) The rest is history. Did I mention that Barney was porking the head of the program at Fannie Mae?
Perhaps someone still has the video to post but it was ultra-rich when Congress asked the TARP officials for an accounting of where the money has gone and the woman replied basically by saying "we don't know." Deja vu all over again except it gets harder to blame it on Bush.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Originally Posted by armydad
I find it very interesting that big insurance, which promotes capitalism in a free market economy, does not what to complete with a public option. .
Nothing like competing against a team where both the other team and the umpires work for the same owner. That's a zippy, competitive arrangement, eh? Right out of the socialist playbook.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Originally Posted by armydad
1)Iraq war. 2)He undid all the environmental laws in favor of corporations 3) He revised tax laws to build in long term deficit spending
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
When he put into place a new perscription plan for seniors which was funded by the big pharma and is now causing huge problems for seniors who can't understand the maze of forty plus forumlas through which they have to wade to pick out a plan, he favored pharmachutical companies over senior citizens..
Huh? You even beat bush up for implementing a liberal, giveaway program in order to get the senior vote and spending money we didnt have as the dems also want us to do. Wouldnt those 40 plus plans be called "competition and choice" which you say the carriers resist. Yep, Part D was/is a confusing mess along with the rest of Medicare but that doesnt mean seniors are saying they are not better off with it. The Canadian pharmacies just across the border used to see thousands of Americans an hour and that all ended when Part D was implemented. I am not speaking for or against Bush's ramming Part D though, I am just saying that is sort of a peculiar example to choose to try to villainize Bush. Gawd, if he cant get points with libs for that he never will, and of course, he never will.
In regard, to all the comments about Bush and the environment, how come your buddies Clinton and Gore signed Kyoto but never presented it to the Senate to be ratified as the constitution requires? Thus they were able to say they signed it but in fact they never presented it for ratification. Nevermind. President Obama is president now. Not bush or clinton.
------------------------------------ Spending Our Way to Prosperity
Last edited by Winter : 10-23-2009 at 03:41 PM.
Reason: Posts merged
You say the Iraq war was a Bush mess. What is your position, that we should never have gone into Iraq?
Regardless of that, can we agree that Iraq is now stabilized?
I noticed that you listed Iraq but not Afganistan. Do you support the war in Afganistan?
Let's try to stay on topic.
The U.S. should not have gone to war with Iraq. Iraq didnot have a damn thing to do 9-11. We have lost 4,326 men and women. On Oct. 19th, a 26 year old soldier from Texas was killed by an IED. How sad.
Afghanistan was underfunded by Bush because of Iraq. Plus the troops were stretched thin by two wars. Can the Afghan government operate without the U.S. being over there? I don't think we need to be there for 20 years. Pakistan worries me. I wonder how safe their nukes are from falling into the wrong hands.
The U.S. should not have gone to war with Iraq. Iraq didnot have a damn thing to do 9-11. We have lost 4,326 men and women. On Oct. 19th, a 26 year old soldier from Texas was killed by an IED. How sad.
Afghanistan was underfunded by Bush because of Iraq. Plus the troops were stretched thin by two wars. Can the Afghan government operate without the U.S. being over there? I don't think we need to be there for 20 years. Pakistan worries me. I wonder how safe their nukes are from falling into the wrong hands.
You said that Bush lied to get us into Iraq. You said that Bush knew that there were no WMD in Iraq, that even though Bush knew it he lied about it in order to go to war.
That is a SERIOUS charge.
I gave you links to information that refutes that. Did you read the quotes from all the Democrats, including former President Bill Clinton, who said Iraq had WMD, was pursuing WMD, and who had used WMD? Did that change your mind? Here are those quotes again:
"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.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], 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
"[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, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"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 reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace 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, Dec, 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 mandate 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 useing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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 Rockerfeller (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. "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 has 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.
NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!! No, he just did what the Democrats had been asking for since the Clinton administration.
You said that Bush lied to get us into Iraq. You said that Bush knew that there were no WMD in Iraq, that even though Bush knew it he lied about it in order to go to war.
That is a SERIOUS charge.
I gave you links to information that refutes that. Did you read the quotes from all the Democrats, including former President Bill Clinton, who said Iraq had WMD, was pursuing WMD, and who had used WMD? Did that change your mind? Here are those quotes again:
"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.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], 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
"[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, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"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 reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace 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, Dec, 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 mandate 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 useing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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 Rockerfeller (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. "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 has 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.
NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!! No, he just did what the Democrats had been asking for since the Clinton administration.
You forget that Bush and his crew also tied Iraq to the 9-11 attack and to terrorism. Iraq didn't have any ties to al quaida until the U.S. invaded them.
At the end of George H. Bush's term, the U.S. Great Britan & France started the "no fly zones" in Iraq. The north zone was to protect the kurds. The south zone to protect the shiites. This worked pretty well until it ended with the start of the war in 2003.
This is George Bush's war. You mention "oil buddies". How come we didn't invade North Korea? They have an evil dictator who wanted to have nukes.
Dick Cheney's old company, Haliburton made out pretty well. What with the "no bid" contracts. Yeah, that was a good use of our tax dollars.
4,326 U.S. deaths so far. Let's not forget the soldiers who have lost arms, legs, their eye sight, brain injuries. I wonder how Bush and his cronies sleep at night.
The only reason we remain in Iraq is because to pull our troops out will result in our "losing face." Bullshit. Get the troops out now. Same with Afganistan.
Only Congress can declare war. Either grow some nads or get the hell out.
Damn, I miss our Constitution.
Rick
------------------------------------ ILIAA
Training, Community, Support, and Success Independent Life Insurance Agents Assn rick@iliaa.org
4,326 U.S. deaths so far. Let's not forget the soldiers who have lost arms, legs, their eye sight, brain injuries. I wonder how Bush and his cronies sleep at night.
Why shouldn't they sleep well? Military life is cheap to arch-conservatives. We learned that in Vietnam. (Well, actually we obviously didn't learn anything!)
We're probably going to be in Iraq and Afg. for another ten years and we'll grind up the lives of some 25,000 of our young people... and every time the brass-hats say "Just give us a few more troops... another surge... and another few years... and we'll do the job" the arch-conss and some of the neo-cons will rally-round the flag and send 'em off to the grinder... as long as there are young people foolish enough to listen and buy the propaganda that somehow the "sacrifice" is for OUR country... because it isn't. It's for a failed policy of the conservative wing of both parties.
If young people want to wear the uniform and believe they are dying for their country, well so be it. Nothing has changed since Vietnam except that instead of a draft, we recruit kids saying that war is just like a video game... but better. Very slick, very cool... but the TV ads leave out the part that you can come back very dead or very wounded.
Winter is right. Obama takes ownership very soon... I'd say by January or March. That's how it worked for Nixon... the rules have not changed.
Like Vietnam, Iraq is a war we got into because of faulty policy making (on both sides of the aisle) and Afg. is one we can never win.
Obama should just shut 'em down, take the political hit from the arch-cons (I don't even think most neos support the continuation anymore) and move on.
You forget that Bush and his crew also tied Iraq to the 9-11 attack and to terrorism. Iraq didn't have any ties to al quaida until the U.S. invaded them.
At the end of George H. Bush's term, the U.S. Great Britan & France started the "no fly zones" in Iraq. The north zone was to protect the kurds. The south zone to protect the shiites. This worked pretty well until it ended with the start of the war in 2003.
This is George Bush's war. You mention "oil buddies". How come we didn't invade North Korea? They have an evil dictator who wanted to have nukes.
Dick Cheney's old company, Haliburton made out pretty well. What with the "no bid" contracts. Yeah, that was a good use of our tax dollars.
4,326 U.S. deaths so far. Let's not forget the soldiers who have lost arms, legs, their eye sight, brain injuries. I wonder how Bush and his cronies sleep at night.
Armydad, you are still dodging the question. I asked you to indicate, in the light of the evidence that I gave to you, if you still believed Bush lied about WMD to get into Iraq. Rather than answer that you have gone on a tangent, which I am more than happy to discuss but can we deal with one item at a time?
Here is the question, one more time:
Did Bush lie (knowingly deceive) about the existence of WMD in Iraq?
That was YOUR charge and I have responded to it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Originally Posted by al3
Why shouldn't they sleep well? Military life is cheap to arch-conservatives. We learned that in Vietnam. (Well, actually we obviously didn't learn anything!)
The only reason we remain in Iraq is because to pull our troops out will result in our "losing face." Bullshit. Get the troops out now. Same with Afganistan.
Only Congress can declare war. Either grow some nads or get the hell out.
Damn, I miss our Constitution.
Rick
How about Japan, Germany and Korea - get our troops out of there too? You seem much more agitated about Iraq than those countries. It would appear at this juncture that Iraq is under control, why would we leave prematurely and risk it sinking back into a mess? You do realize that Iran is and will continue to work to destabilize Iraq don't you? And if we have to deal with Iran militarily, wouldn't you prefer to have military positions in Iraq?
I agree, the president should not be able to commence any military operations without congressional approval.
"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.
When did Kerry vote to do that?
And finally, given Obama's "dithering", and the likelihood that he is not committed to winning the "right war", I am in favor of Obama declaring retreat in Afghanistan.
Clearly the man has changed his previously stated views on that war:
And our troops should not pay for this man's political posturing.
Will a withdrawal lead to a resurgence of the Taliban, Al Quaeda and terrorist attacks in the world? You bet. But at least we will know who to blame and American voters can put someone in office who will do it right.
Last edited by Robert Barney : 10-25-2009 at 03:32 PM.
Reason: Posts merged
But at least we will know who to blame and American voters can put someone in office who will do it right.
Like I said, military life is CHEAP to arch-cons.
So tell me. What does "do it right" mean? Does it mean THEIR children (or grand-children) should be sent to the grinder to be killed or crippled or blinded?
Of course not.
The arch-cons are fine with seeing caskets come home with the bodies of OTHER people's children... because it's really important to "do it right!" It's an image they never get tired of... from one generation to the next.
So tell me. What does "do it right" mean? Does it mean THEIR children (or grand-children) should be sent to the grinder to be killed or crippled or blinded?
Of course not.
The arch-cons are fine with seeing caskets come home with the bodies of OTHER people's children... because it's really important to "do it right!" It's an image they never get tired of... from one generation to the next.
I note with interest the fact that the media is no longer interested in taking or publishing pictures of military caskets returning from the Middle East.
They were only interested in fallen soldiers when Bush was President.
It was Obama who said the Afghanistan war was the "right war" and Iraq was the "wrong war".
There is no military draft. The rhetoric you used might have applied in Vietnam but is completely irrelevant today.
Further, the military is widely populated with volunteers who are conservatives and who are the children and grand children of conservatives. The idea that we do not want our children to share the responsibility for this nation's defense is preposterous. We fully understand the risk and cost.
What we do not want is our children dying due to mismanagement of a war by politicians who do not have the backbone to fight and win it. The recently used term "dithering" was kind and generous given the circumstances. There are other words that would be much more to the point.
I think most conservatives would agree that we prefer this approach to military action:
To answer your question, yes, I believe we have no business supporting Japan and other countries with our troops. It's time we stopped policing the world.
By the way, the reason for the 911 attacks were not because they hate our freedom. They hate the fact that we have bases all over the Middle East. I'm not at all saying we deserve the attacks, but our military policy might have helped cause them.
Re: Obama Awarded Nobel Prize
Linear Mode
