Dear GOP, Remember the "PROMISE" about cheap Iraqi gas and oil? Oops!

Gas was cheaper. In 2008 the price was 1.89
At the end of Obama's 1st year it was 2.49.
Now it's 3.79.
Ever since Obama got into office the price of gas has gone up.

An in the last three years, since I moved into the house I live in, the sun has come up about a thousand times. They must be connected.
 
Funny, no one remembers cheap gas from Iraq, but they want to blame the guy who didn't want to go into Iraq.



Do you recall the Big0's plan to get us to gas that costs $2.00 / gallon?

His plan was to add another .13 a gallon to the then current price.

He has had the same effect on gas prices as he's had on the National Debt. The guy is a genius at making things go up: Gas prices, unemployment, deficits, debt, misery, class envy, race hatred, international distrust, nuclear proliferation and the list goes on.

What a guy!
 
I believe it was the fact they were impeding weapons inspectors, everyone believed they had WMD's, they moved them to syria, Saddam killed millions of people and was a threat to the middle east.

Saddam killed "millions" of people? Millions? You sure? You might want to "rethink" that statement.

over half a million is a more accurate figure.

IRAQ: Deaths under Saddam Hussein
Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"


Only more than half a million?

I don't see anything bad about that. Seems like a human rights champion to me.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S6RzXd4GNY]2003 02 21 Hannity and Colmes Iraq will Pay for Itself - YouTube[/ame]

If you can remember that far back, before the invasion of Iraq, Dick Cheney and friends were arrogantly sure that (a) the cost of the war would be minimal, and (b) Iraq's oil revenue would fund reconstruction efforts; it would virtually be a no-cost war, one that paid for itself.


Then, reality met fantasy and, as usual, reality prevailed.


Sunday, January 19, 2003:
--Q: Mr. Secretary, on Iraq, how much money do you think the Department of Defense would need to pay for a war with Iraq?
--A (Rumsfeld): Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question. I think the way to put it into perspective is that the estimates as to what September 11th cost the United States of America ranges high up into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, another event in the United States that was like September 11th, and which cost thousands of lives, but one that involved a -- for example, a biological weapon, would be -- have a cost in human life, as well as in billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, that would be vastly greater.



3/27/03 testimony before a Senate Appropriations Hearing
a. Rumsfeld:


I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense...[Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it.



b. Wolfowitz:


We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.




September 3, 2003

Before the war the hope was that Iraq's annual production could relatively quickly rise to $15 billion to $20 billion per year. However, the system is far more decrepit that such estimates assumed, and combined with the near-daily sabotage of facilities and pipelines, it appears that oil revenues will rise only slowly over the next three years, from approximately $10 billion in 2004 to $20 billion in 2006.
Donald Hepburn, former chief executive of the Bahrain Petroleum Company and an advisor to the Middle East Policy Council, stated in his op-ed article "Nice War. Here's the Bill", published in The New York Times

The Iraq war will cost little, and Iraq oil will pay for it. Then.....
 
What was the reason again?

Mushroom clouds?

I believe it was the fact they were impeding weapons inspectors, everyone believed they had WMD's, they moved them to syria, Saddam killed millions of people and was a threat to the middle east.

I don't recall any such statement out of the Bush administration; that was a canard thrown up by the left to accuse Bush of doing it just for oil. There were many reasons, and that wasn't one of them.

Soooo.....you all are saying that invading and occupying Iraq was the right thing to do and was worth the cost in lives?

Please answer....



In the full light of history, it was the wrong decision. At the time, there was hysterical war fever in action.

I'm a little amazed that we continue to go to war as a pass time. The Founders made going to war a tedious process. Our more recent leaders seem to have grabbed the Tonkin Bay Resolution as a good option to actually making a decision.

I think that everyone who votes in favor of war should be in the first wave that hits the beach or jumps out of the planes or gets out of the helicopters.

There seems to be a belief that we can fight a war that is not messy, does not produce crippled victims on all sides and won't cost a bunch of cash.

How do we believe this?
 
[We know the right wing will latch on to anything written they believe supports their dangerous agenda.

Recent examples:

Keystone will bring in a million jobs.

Obama took a trip costing 200 million dollars a day and included 32 warships and a carrier.

There is less drilling and more regulations under Obama than Bush.

The list is endless. You have to do better if you make such a claim.



I don't recall anybody saying a million jobs or citing that particular cost and the war ships.

The charge of less drilling is of the drilling on non-private lands and the effects of the more powerful EPA are pretty well known acting in concert with the defacto moritorium in th eGulf that has resulted in a 17% reduction in the production of Gulf oil since the Big 0 put his boot on the throat of the oil companies.
 
Bush White House Counselor Dan Bartlett Caught In A Lie: ‘No One Ever Said The War Would Result In Cheaper Gas Prices’

President Bush’s senior economic advisor at the time — argued in 2002 that the Iraq war would increase oil supplies and lower prices. From the Washington Times, 9/19/02:
As for the impact of a war with Iraq, “It depends how the war goes.” But he quickly adds that that “Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits that would come from a successful prosecution of the war.”
“The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,” which would drive down oil prices, giving the U.S. economy an added boost.

Dan Bartlett Caught In A Lie: 'No One Ever Said The War Would Result In Cheaper Gas Prices'

Isn't this just another Republican screw up the GOP is blaming on Obama?

Remember "Jobs Jobs Jobs" and then, "Government can't make jobs"?

So are they running on "We don't know how to do anything"?

I also REMEMBER TRAITORS probably LIKE YOU that CAUSED 3,000+ more deaths and $700 billion more BY YOUR CHEERLEADING THE TERRORISTS with comments like what Obama et.al. cheering on the sidelines did .. all the while you cheerleaders hoping more US troops would DIE just so you could have political power!

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets --action of Americans
in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the
dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama(D) .."troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

IT WAS because of traitor/cheerleaders like you that WANTED to see US troops killed!
YOU gave all sorts of WORDS like above encoureagment to the terrorists and all the while US troops wondering "geez with countrymen like this why do we need terrorists"?
 
I am livid at how you TRAITORS that supported the TERRORISTS by telling the world the US troops are "cold blooded murderers" - Murtha.. Or "our troops are Terrorists.".Kerry... or "killing civilians" like Obama did!

While most of that was pure LIES EVEN so WHY would idiots most likely like you Obama,et.al. WANT to give the enemy cheers? WHY would you make our troops demoralized by reading/hearing LEADERS of our country calling them cold blooded killers?

WHO do you think that helped and who did it harm?????
 
What was the reason again?

Mushroom clouds?

I believe it was the fact they were impeding weapons inspectors, everyone believed they had WMD's, they moved them to syria, Saddam killed millions of people and was a threat to the middle east.

And that is a lie. And not everyone believed that they had those weopons. The Inspectors were finding nothing, and stating that. Bush told them to get out, that he was going in anyway. The lies told by Bush and company cost us the lives of 4500+ of our sons and daughters and 3 trillion in national treasure.



Rocks, you are entitled to your own opinion, but the facts must be those that are available to all.

Saddam banished the Weapons inspectors from Iraq until the troops started to mass on his southern border. Then he grudgingly allowed them back in.

The intelligence used to justify the invasion was from the CIA, the Brits and the French.

The Israelis confirmed this, but any anti Arab info from Israel is suspect.

There is a long list of quotes from Democrat leaders supporting the "lies" your ascribe to Bush. The existance of the weapons of mass destruction, the attempts to secure weapons grade uranium and Saddam's willingness to commit mass murder are matters of record.

Just becasue you hate something is no excuse to spread lies. If you are justified in your hatred, then the truth should support your position.
 
OH and don't give that CRAP about "Free speech" and garbage as if THESE WORDS were HELPFUL???

All these words did was INFLAMED the terrorists! Demoralized our troops!

AND YOU and your ilk that thought this was ok just because you and these traitors had the right and FREEDOM paid with blood by US TROOPS.. to say them!
I truly hope in some next life you that supported these traitorous statements calling them "honest" would met some of those brave discouraged troops that were MURDERED By the terrorists who after reading these words INFLAMED these thug/barbarian terrorists to strap bombs on kids that exploded when US troops handed them candy!
YOU people make me barf!
 
As far a the Kurds, many in the Middle East believe around 5,000 were killed by the Iranians using poison gas during their 8 year war. Others think that Iraq tried to use the gas on the Iranians, but being incompetent, the wind blew the gas back to the Kurds.

This statement alone is enough for me to know that you are one dumb ass Mo Fo.... Jeez, I thought I had seen the limits to your stupidity, but you amaze me
:clap2:

Why would you say that?

Allegations of Iranian involvement
An investigation into responsibility for the Halabja massacre, by Dr Jean Pascal Zanders, Project Leader of the Chemical and Biological Warfare Project at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute concluded in 2007 that Iraq was the culprit, and not Iran. The U.S. State Department, however, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, took the official position based on examination of available evidence that Iran was partly to blame.[13]
A preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study at the time reported that it was Iran that was responsible for the attack, an assessment which was used subsequently by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for much of the early 1990s. The CIA's senior political analyst for the Iran-Iraq war, Stephen C. Pelletiere, co-authored an unclassified analysis of the war[25] which contained a brief summary of the DIA study's key points.

Halabja poison gas attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I'm having trouble following your assertion here with regard to Iran and Iraq. Which despotic, brutal, murderous, stone age, tyrannical oppressor of human rights and killer of people are you holding up as the superior member of the community of nations?
 
Bush White House Counselor Dan Bartlett Caught In A Lie: ‘No One Ever Said The War Would Result In Cheaper Gas Prices’

President Bush’s senior economic advisor at the time — argued in 2002 that the Iraq war would increase oil supplies and lower prices. From the Washington Times, 9/19/02:
As for the impact of a war with Iraq, “It depends how the war goes.” But he quickly adds that that “Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits that would come from a successful prosecution of the war.”
“The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,” which would drive down oil prices, giving the U.S. economy an added boost.

Dan Bartlett Caught In A Lie: 'No One Ever Said The War Would Result In Cheaper Gas Prices'

Isn't this just another Republican screw up the GOP is blaming on Obama?

Remember "Jobs Jobs Jobs" and then, "Government can't make jobs"?

So are they running on "We don't know how to do anything"?

This is the quote, from your citation:

As for the impact of a war with Iraq, “It depends how the war goes.” But he quickly adds that that “Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits that would come from a successful prosecution of the war.”

Where in here is anything you are claiming mentioned?

You're an idiot deanie weanie.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top