"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).

[Blitz]

http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/...ws_1-14-99.html
I guess ABC news lied.... The video is proof!

http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/...ry_of_Terrorism
a lot of reading here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1520819/posts
The Clinton administrations case for war... err airstrikes to take the heat off the Monica issue anyway.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...30205-1.html#13
The actual UN briefing... Iraq was after all in violation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/09/...ain604971.shtml
Libya turned over a new leaf... I wonder why?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
Saddam pays terrrorists.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/
(the address to the nation after 9-11, please re-read / watch it in case you've fogotten)

I found these quotes interesting.

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. "

"It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated"

"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists"

I guess I look at the war like this... We tried to catch Bin Laden in Afghanistan and failed. (no different than other administrations) finding a dead end there we want after another sponser of terrorism that was funding terrorism and harboring terrorists.

Did the administration muck things up in this war. Hell yes, are things getting better?
It seems like it to me...

People seem to forget that we are at war with terrorism / radical islam as a whole not only Bin Laden.
Creating a safe-haven for freedom and democracy in the middle east could have long lasting reprocussions that would be felt for generations. Maybe that was the idea?

I guess we should have just said Saddam was a terror supporting tyrant and went in, if anyone thinks this is all about WMD's I'm sure the government has a $5,000 toilet seat they could sell you.

[Hellfighter]

http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/...ws_1-14-99.html
I guess ABC news lied.... The video is proof!

http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/...ry_of_Terrorism
a lot of reading here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1520819/posts
The Clinton administrations case for war... err airstrikes to take the heat off the Monica issue anyway.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...30205-1.html#13
The actual UN briefing... Iraq was after all in violation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/09/...ain604971.shtml
Libya turned over a new leaf... I wonder why?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
Saddam pays terrrorists.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/
(the address to the nation after 9-11, please re-read / watch it in case you've fogotten)

I found these quotes interesting.

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. "

"It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated"

"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists"

I guess I look at the war like this... We tried to catch Bin Laden in Afghanistan and failed. (no different than other administrations) finding a dead end there we want after another sponser of terrorism that was funding terrorism and harboring terrorists.

Did the administration muck things up in this war. Hell yes, are things getting better?
It seems like it to me...

People seem to forget that we are at war with terrorism / radical islam as a whole not only Bin Laden.
Creating a safe-haven for freedom and democracy in the middle east could have long lasting reprocussions that would be felt for generations. Maybe that was the idea?

I guess we should have just said Saddam was a terror supporting tyrant and went in, if anyone thinks this is all about WMD's I'm sure the government has a $5,000 toilet seat they could sell you.

How does 'if anyone thinks' reasoning support the lies for war. Why dance around the issue of why the war actually started- why do you skip over the fact that UN Inspectors were scouring Iraq entirely!!
Why do you ignore the fact the CIA never gathered any solid proof at all regarding wmds -let alone terrorists in Iraq.
Things getting better you say.... things are perhaps getting back to modest levels of violence -how's that better is a strange argument -almost 200,000 Iraqi citizens confirmed dead and neighbourhoods ethnically cleansed, 10's of 000's more displaced from their homes! Better.....
The Surge which should have ended 6 months ago [Bush lie] seems to be well executed but do you think that's a guarantee against several terrorists a month causing massive destruction around Iraq each month even after 'a declaration of mission accomplished' for the surge.

As well-informed pro-iraq war enthusiasts want to believe they are since their rivals make opposite cases to them they need to perhaps realize how much informed they are of the total picture. Pakistan is a safe haven for terrorists -we KNOW that. Now where is your case for why a major military assault doesn't go in there... any 'ideas' for that?
Why do you say we failed to get Bum Laden -he's still around....
Does 'pursue' =launch falsified reasons to go into a $1 trillion war?
Give truthful reasons and let citizens/soldiers/representatives decide based on that truth what they will be asked to sacrifice for.....

Who does the war end with after al quaeda? - you apparently know who this mysterious endgame enemy is - who and why?

Why when we're focussed on one issue do you bring up other irrelevant issues as an argument that I've not defended nor supported.
I didn't even bother going through your links, sorry- I know the stories and don't find them relevant - but from what I remember of them I'll give you brief replies based on my views that you are being presumptious to know about how I I 'must be thinking of them/defending'.
-At the time of Clinton's airstrikes I was initially outraged thinking it was a diversion from Lewinsky. I liked Clinton as a President but that doesn't mean I like him altogether.
Funny how neocons were obsessed on Monica affair at the time instead of pushing billyboy to go after bum Laden.
-Libya takes an airstrike killing Khadafy's relatives -he gets shaken and has a change of attitude /not to mention lawsuit filed against him for Locherby airplane bombing he was involved in.
Airstrike is way-way-way different than a nation-wide war - don't you think?
-Iraq was in violation you say - how about Bush leading US into war practically alone without a UN consensus?
-You can pour out all the 'feel good' reasons for war in Iraq you want but you need to focus on what the reasons given for war was, and the actual reason for war was - even with full access inspections going on in Iraq, Sadam did not leave Iraq within 48 hours-bottom line.

Out of curiosity, I did look at the first link 'Proof!'
I was confused and mystified -what proof for what - there was nothing in that whole article that I hadn't known about for many years....
and let's see - can I show you a photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Sadam... well ok
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
this was in the time Sadam was using gas /WMDs against Iranian human wave attacks in their war...
X-Files time-> what were Rumsfeld and Sadam being chummy about - and no doubt in this time Sadam was exterminating the first thousands of his quarter million Iraqi civilian victims.
So proof of a Iraqi intel/al quaeda meeting means what - where in 2003 was the case to go to war in Iraq....
You need to know this I suppose - not a 1998 meeting, but a reality of the sit. closer to the war;
this is nothing to do with the actual deceptive reasons Bush wanted a war in Iraq -he didn't say it was for those dreamed up connections with al quaeda pro-war 'experts' like to claim - show me where he told the UN that please?
anyway, You want real proof regarding your 'proof' side track, then here it is ->
at best any connections regarding al quaeda and Iraq are maybes; not reason for a War or the argument for the War. Sadam and bum Laden had differing views on how they run their brands of dictatorships.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1813266/posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussei...-Qaeda_timeline

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409c.asp


Boogeyman reasons are not worth hundreds of thousands of deaths.



This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 01/28/08 11:19pm