"War on Terror" Unfunded Options

[Midnight Rambler]

Bush, before:

“I believe it is the job of a President to confront problems, not pass them on to future Presidents and future generations.”

Bush, now:

The White House confirmed Wednesday that its new budget next month will not request a full year’s funding for the war in Iraq, leaving the next president and Congress to confront major cost questions soon after taking office in 2009.





Now the republicans are trying to tell us that Bush isn't a "real" conservative. He's not a Reagan conservative. Give me a break. He was the republican conservative wet dream when he was running the first time. When the second election rolled around everyone could see he was a disaster but the conservatives backed him anyway.


You can say what you want but Reagan never balanced a budget. Never even came close. Bush hasn't even tried. I do remember Clinton doing it. No, the republican congress didn't do it for him. If you do a little research you find that he had to shut down the government to force the republican congress to go along with a balanced budget.

Will your taxes go up with a Democrat in office? Yes. Becuase no matter who is elected the chickens are coming home to roost and you can't pay the bills by cutting your income (taxes).

[Hellfighter]

welcome back into the sandbox Mr.Rocket
lol I knew you couldn't stay away for too long....
the tension was just too much I bet at not pouncing on the Bush-hater meanies

Anyway-regardless of the counter claims you put forth the fact is- Bush and cronies lied their thick heads off to get their costly war. I'm a Bush-policy hater btw -not a 'Bush-hater', as I mentioned before. So this isn't personal- it's his dumb logic I hate.
Here's the truth-> regardless of the diversions about Clintons and Edwards backtracking -irrelevant....
Hillary is smart but dumb at the same time.... she mispronounces words she should know as a 'leader' -ie, her reference to the Glascow bombing she emphatically says Glas -COooow-instead of Glascohhh -and double talks consistently to earn popularity points.
All this 'conspiracy to hate Bush anyway' chit-chat means nothing regarding the neo-con faction lying at that time in question- how does whether all, some, or none of people being gullable to fall for their lies, change the fact that lies knowingly took place? What kind of defence is that?

1.
The CIA WERE mystified by Bush admin.'s eagerness to state their self-admittedly HEDGY reports on uranium transfer between Iraq and Niger IN the UN presentation speech to make the case to go to War. FACT.
Bush lied about the actual ineffectuality of the cia documents -he trumped up the info- deliberately misleadingly -and used a mr.Nice guy Colin Powwell to do so purposefully. DECEPTION.
> this was not a case to launch a nation into war -there was NO SOLID proof ->>>>>>lie-lie-lie period.
Where's the logic for starting wars on heresay unless other unspoken reasons are the real cause.

2.
The sole reason given to go to War was over WMD existence.
No-please, don't start with- 'Sadam used weapons on his own people' line -that was many years before and pansy international actions were taken back then - the War was not about taking him down for that - many other dictators currently around not being bothered with to be squashed. Reasons were WMD. So for Bush and cronies to start saying WMD was the reason for war when the neo-cons had other motivations for going into war is again LIE,LIE, LIE-period
3.
Why was the war started. Bush then -AND STILL a small percentage neo-con doorknobs believe there was WMD in Iraq. Anyone can say/claim anything - even Sadam was initially not denying accusations of having WMDs in Iraq to intimidate Iran -according to US intels interview with captured sadam.... BUT, once sadam was giving up on that deception with UN inspectors being given full access to scour everywhere for WMDs the Bush blow-hards were in a panic..... they had been revealed as schemers AND liars, liars, liars -not merely over-zealous fools. The actual war started WHEN Bush gave Sadam 48 hours to leave Iraq;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030317-7.html
Yes, Mr.Rocket that was how the war began-
-not discovery of WMD
-not because of an immediate threat of WMD
-not for payback for 911 in which Iraq had no part
-not because connections with Bum Laden
-not for a Crusade against Jihadists
-not because sadam may be thinking about a wmd program 'down the road'.
The neo-cons had territorial ulterior motives one can now safely establish -they thought they had a clear run at sadam but all their reasonings evaporated. So they made a deadline while the iron was not hot- but getting lukewarm. Sadam wouldn't leave in the 48 power period that's why the war started.
And what if the thug sadam did leave--- can you imagine the worse mess hypothetically with a fracticious government taking over.... imagine what the muck-up now would be like in Iraq AND no 150,000 US troops there stabilizing and poilicing things. Can you imagine how much worse that nation would be ripped up-with even larger incursions of factions from Iran, Saudis, international al quaeda flooding in- and then internally sunni,shite radicals going at it full force... kurds breaking away from southern Iraq-Turkey launching an invasion in the north against them.
Remember 'Chump' Cheney predicted such destabilization if Iraq was invaded 10 years earlier -the interview is in a thread in this forum. So there's another LIE LIE LIE for you regarding how neo-cons claimed they had everything ready for a smooth transitional takeover of power with their puppet government and lying iraqi dissidents.

So my chum, you can pick through items with a fine tooth comb all you want on the basis of hindsight is 20/20 - but none of the [slanted in my opinion] revelations -if any are even irrefutable- does not change the facts of the times gone by - Bush and his admin [and perhaps Bush was a patsy for the neo-cons, but still he went along with them] were lying and deceiving in their PREPARATION for war and during the war.They lied all the way and 80% of Americans are fed up with the now-obvious charade....
Did you see the Florida Republican debate- all but one of the challengers were backing the Bush 'case' for war - and the audience was utterly silent- a few years ago, the audience would've been hooting with support.... so imagine when Ron Paul spoke and utterly denounced the war as a farce [in so many words] and the entire lot of Repubs were openly wild with a supporting outburst!!!
Despite the neocons claim the world is safer with Sadam gone ??? the lie, lie, lie reveals otherwise- the world is not safer for it-bum laden has recovered, recruited more fanatics -now I wish I was wrong, but one can only deludeoneself so much with the tragic facts staring straight out.
And is it now too late that focus is switching back to the critical Afghan/Pakistan border - the weakened Musharraf is now fearful of letting the US forces operate effectively in that area.

That's my undeniable claim of contradictions. Bush's going back on alot of what he formerly trumpeted as gospel truth and now he's sheepishly adopting the advice of what others were telling him to do wisely in the first place /Generals included -which he had frowned upon as nonsense... [in more patriotic-hyped statements].
- hmmm, for one - oh, look he's now talking OPENLY about a timetable for troop withdrawals from Iraq-need I pull up links where he angrily scoffed at senators/congresspersons calls for that action.

So now if you're defining 'Bush-haters' / Bush disagreer's as doofuses for not forgiving his lying ways then you're in that special group of 20% of Americans thinking the neo-con con job had merits and were done for above-board reasons.

Why do I beat this subject to death... I'm doing my small part to reveal misconceptions about this huge 'mistake' that's directly wrecking innocent lives -American and others all over the world, because there are still some uninformed holdouts [as I saw from a few folks in this forum in recent threads] that equate the reasons for going to war as getting back at sadam for 9-11 -figure that out!!?
Anyway voters should send a strong message of never again to the candidates in this and future races-not just repubs... A Dem here for instance who spins yet again on a dime.... this was what lost my support a few months ago in formerly believing Hill-Billy's had the needed smarts and shrewdness for a responsible world leader role.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwi...or_b_66174.html

Anyways, good to see you in trench warfare again ... Let's get readddyyyyyyyy to ruuuuuumble!!!


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 01/28/08 11:22am