Fifty-seven percent (57%) now disapprove

[code1211]

Really? Then Obama's off the hook. Let BP handle the cleanup of the Gulf.

How do think our troops like putting their lives on the line in Iraq for GI pay, while Blackwater 'shooters' get paid 6 times as much? Should We, the taxpayers call it Being Smart ?

So The Government can run__________ better than the Private sector?

Insert in Blank:

Social Security
Post Office
Medicare
Schools

And yes to an extent if Big Brother had kept their nose out of it, the cleanup would be further along, you think ignoring Jindal's request for Booms and Sand Burms helped? You think halting a pre-approved burn of the oil helped? You saying holding 18 ships in port to check for frigging life jackets and fire extinguishers helped?

Not that I condone a non-government Military of the US at this time, but one army a few hundred years ago kicked butt against the Brits, didn't they?

Of course Government has its' place, no am not suggesting stupidity, but there are a heck of a lot of things the Private Sector can do Better and more Cost Effective, it should not take a Rocket Scientist to figure that one out

.

Sure, private contractors can bid on picking up my garbage and taking it to the landfill. Garbage doesn't need representation or a voice for it's concern in government. But when human lives are collateral, then representation is paramount.

Social Security...can private enterprise operate at 1% operating cost? Because that's what SS operates at. It's return to We, the People is 99%.

Medicare...WHO is ripping off the taxpayers when there is Medicare fraud? Doctors, hospitals and private entities...

How can concepts that are so basic to a democratic society be so far beyond the comprehension of you right wing corporatists?

NOTHING is free. Would you prefer to pay for a service and it's operating costs, or would you rather pay for a service, it's operating costs AND stockholders profits and CEO bonuses?

Link for the Social Security Administative costs, please.

A standing army is an expensive thing and, if one is desired, will be a money losing thing. Anything that demands a loss in operating is perfect for government. Anything that can be supported on a profit basis, should be privatized and regulated. Especially those areas, like the military, in which a seldom used skill set is required for success.

Business does this all the time. Janitorial services are hired, lawn maintenance, design firms, trucking and delivery for freight and on and on. Insurance of all varieties is another great example.

Because the people who run things in government are often inexperienced and are often politically appointed and are often not motivated to cut costs and are often in functions that are no in competition to produce the same service at a lower cost, the services rendered are often non-efficient and non-progressive.

The less that can be done by government, the better off we will be.

 

[code1211]

[
We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes. Indeed, since the 1980s Social Security revenues have been used to fund general government. Today Social Security revenues are being used to fund trillion dollar bailouts for Wall Street and to fund the Bush/Obama wars of aggression against Muslims.
Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics

Social security is a different animal now than it was when passed. First, people live allot longer than before. the mathematics are dramatically different now than before and will continue to become less and less favorable.

At its inception, the ratio was something like 40 to 1 in taxpayers supporting retired. In 20 years, that will become about 2 to 1.

SS is NOT a pay as you go operation. It's a ponzi scheme and at the end of the line, the empty bag is held by thos at the bottom of the Pyramid.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why don't you quote Bill Clinton on Saddam as well?

Bill Clinton didn't invade Iraq...Bush DID...

I think it’s just crazy. It's part of that worldview that led us to where we are. Think about it. The United States went and negotiated with and supported Saddam Hussein himself against Iran under this notion that sometimes my enemy is my friend. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That emboldened Saddam Hussein and allowed him to invade Kuwait. It made us go to war that we did not finish and did not take Saddam Hussein out.
Former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) 12/11/06 (The Hill)

Wrong again, dumbshit.
CNN - Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance - December 16, 1998
You are conflating about 30 years of events like they all happened within 18 months. It amounts to a lie.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The President and VP out golfing again on Saturday? The BP buffoon out sailing on his yacht? Yea they feel your pain alright. What a sad nightmare.

 

[NYcarbineer]

204 million eligible voters (age 18 or older)
63 million registered Democrats
47 million registered Republicans
32 million registered as independents or with minor party
62 million not registered

Here's to the beauty of two-party system

So, quick math in my head, 32% Democrats, 24% Republicans, for an 8 percentage point gap, which, amazingly,

is around the middle of the pack in the chart I posted.

actually, the polling states what dems polled verses repubs polled, it doesn't mention independents...i don't believe?

so, taking Dems vs Repubs registered voters only....57% dems vs 43% repubs

I took your 204 million number and figured well that's 2 times 100 so if I divide the Dem and Repub numbers by 2 that would roughly equate to their percentages.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

so, it's a tie, according to all polling combine...

Obama's approval 47.9%
Obama's disapproval 47.9%

Actually Pollster.com has obama at 49.5 disapprobal and 46.5 approval

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php

 

[gautama]

Hitler? A much stronger case could be made that Bush and Cheney embodied fascism and Hitler.

We don't live in a country with parliamentary rule. Educate yourself before you 'emote'

And the prove is in the pudding, you lying asshole.

I supported Bush's efforts to go after bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But the minute Iraq appeared in his gun sights, I became very, very skeptical. And ALL my suspicions were proven true. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with who attacked us on 911. Where is YOUR outrage that over 4,000 American sons and daughter's died and a hundred thousand Iraqi's died? What was their crime, living in a country with a dictator that threatened Bush's daddy?

Your idea of supporting our troops is grabbing a casket handle. Fuck YOU you scummy little slime ball.

Hey ButtFuckedGrin,

The Intelligence agencies of ALL the major powers of the World (except China which was silent) claimed that the Baghdad Psycho, who TORTURED and MURDERED over ONE MILLION of his own people, had the WMDs. Including Clinton's CIA. Also, the RagheadWhackjob broke the Kuwait Invasion Treaty SCORES of times, the penalty for the violation of each was WAR.

Plus Clinton, and the Congressional Dems (especially their leaders including Pelosi, Reid, Hanoi Kerry, KKK Byrd, The Chappaquidick Murderer, etc) voted for the Iraqi War ......and rightly so. Because the Baghdad Monster AND Akhmantheguyisnuts with NUKES woulda been the REALITY of the day instead of the ONE Iranian Islamofascist arsehole which the Black Racist MARXIST Palestinian Guardian and Muslim PC Protector Obami Salaami is bowing to with his thumb in his own arse.

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT YOU BLITHERING OBAMARRHOIDAL MORON !!!!

 

[gautama]

so, it's a tie, according to all polling combine...

Obama's approval 47.9%
Obama's disapproval 47.9%

Actually Pollster.com has obama at 49.5 disapprobal and 46.5 approval

Pollster.com: National Job Approval: Pres. Barack Obama

ButtFuckedGrin,

The bottom line is that the Black Racist MARXIST Palistinian Guardian and Muslim PC Protector Obami Salaami IS TOAST !!!

 

[Bfgrn]

And the prove is in the pudding, you lying asshole.

I supported Bush's efforts to go after bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But the minute Iraq appeared in his gun sights, I became very, very skeptical. And ALL my suspicions were proven true. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with who attacked us on 911. Where is YOUR outrage that over 4,000 American sons and daughter's died and a hundred thousand Iraqi's died? What was their crime, living in a country with a dictator that threatened Bush's daddy?

Your idea of supporting our troops is grabbing a casket handle. Fuck YOU you scummy little slime ball.

Hey ButtFuckedGrin,

The Intelligence agencies of ALL the major powers of the World (except China which was silent) claimed that the Baghdad Psycho, who TORTURED and MURDERED over ONE MILLION of his own people, had the WMDs. Including Clinton's CIA. Also, the RagheadWhackjob broke the Kuwait Invasion Treaty SCORES of times, the penalty for the violation of each was WAR.

Plus Clinton, and the Congressional Dems (especially their leaders including Pelosi, Reid, Hanoi Kerry, KKK Byrd, The Chappaquidick Murderer, etc) voted for the Iraqi War ......and rightly so. Because the Baghdad Monster AND Akhmantheguyisnuts with NUKES woulda been the REALITY of the day instead of the ONE Iranian Islamofascist arsehole which the Black Racist MARXIST Palestinian Guardian and Muslim PC Protector Obami Salaami is bowing to with his thumb in his own arse.

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT YOU BLITHERING OBAMARRHOIDAL MORON !!!!

BLITHERING? Boy that sure sounds like an appropriate adjective to describe your post...did you break the keyboard typing it with a hammer???

Educate yourself on the British intelligence's assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.


C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The secret Downing Street memo - Times Online

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Educate yourself on WHO voted for and against...

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent who courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq were:

* Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
* Barbara Boxer (D-California)
* Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
* Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
* Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
* Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
* Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
* Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
* Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
* Bob Graham (D-Florida)
* Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
* Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
* Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
* Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
* Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
* Patty Murray (D-Washington)
* Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
* The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
* Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Re[resentatives in voting NAY, on October 11, 2002, to the unprovoked use of force against Iraq:

Iraq War Vote in 2002: Honoring the 23 Senate and 133 House Members Who Voted NO

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like you just BLITHERING butt fucked yourself....................Next...

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

 

[Bfgrn]

So The Government can run__________ better than the Private sector?

Insert in Blank:

Social Security
Post Office
Medicare
Schools

And yes to an extent if Big Brother had kept their nose out of it, the cleanup would be further along, you think ignoring Jindal's request for Booms and Sand Burms helped? You think halting a pre-approved burn of the oil helped? You saying holding 18 ships in port to check for frigging life jackets and fire extinguishers helped?

Not that I condone a non-government Military of the US at this time, but one army a few hundred years ago kicked butt against the Brits, didn't they?

Of course Government has its' place, no am not suggesting stupidity, but there are a heck of a lot of things the Private Sector can do Better and more Cost Effective, it should not take a Rocket Scientist to figure that one out

.

Sure, private contractors can bid on picking up my garbage and taking it to the landfill. Garbage doesn't need representation or a voice for it's concern in government. But when human lives are collateral, then representation is paramount.

Social Security...can private enterprise operate at 1% operating cost? Because that's what SS operates at. It's return to We, the People is 99%.

Medicare...WHO is ripping off the taxpayers when there is Medicare fraud? Doctors, hospitals and private entities...

How can concepts that are so basic to a democratic society be so far beyond the comprehension of you right wing corporatists?

NOTHING is free. Would you prefer to pay for a service and it's operating costs, or would you rather pay for a service, it's operating costs AND stockholders profits and CEO bonuses?

Link for the Social Security Administative costs, please.

A standing army is an expensive thing and, if one is desired, will be a money losing thing. Anything that demands a loss in operating is perfect for government. Anything that can be supported on a profit basis, should be privatized and regulated. Especially those areas, like the military, in which a seldom used skill set is required for success.

Business does this all the time. Janitorial services are hired, lawn maintenance, design firms, trucking and delivery for freight and on and on. Insurance of all varieties is another great example.

Because the people who run things in government are often inexperienced and are often politically appointed and are often not motivated to cut costs and are often in functions that are no in competition to produce the same service at a lower cost, the services rendered are often non-efficient and non-progressive.

The less that can be done by government, the better off we will be.

Social Security: Near-Bankrupt

FALSE

Deficit hawks plotting to cut Social Security to reduce the deficit are seriously misguided. The truth is that Social Security contributes not a single penny to the deficit. Indeed, it is the poster child for fiscal responsibility.

Social Security has administrative costs strikingly lower than those of private sector retirement plans. Unlike 401(k) plans, for example, whose administrative fees are routinely 15 or 20 percent of plan contributions, Social Security's administrative costs are less than one percent. It returns in benefits more than 99 cents of every dollar collected.

Moreover, Congress has been scrupulous about paying for every Social Security benefit it has ever enacted. To meet the anticipated higher retirement costs of the baby boom, workers and their employers have contributed more over the past few decades than has been needed to meet current costs. These higher contributions have, as intended, resulted in an accumulated surplus in 2009 of $2.6 trillion, a surplus which is projected to grow to $4.3 trillion by 2023.

To ensure that all benefits will always be paid in full and on time, Social Security's Board of Trustees annually reports to Congress on how the program is projected to do over the next three-quarters of a century. Obviously, projections extending so far out in the future will sometimes show deficits or, for that matter, unintended surpluses. The simple, mundane truth is that the actuaries refined some of their assumptions and methodologies in the 1990s and began, as a consequence, forecasting a manageable deficit over the 75-year valuation period. These constantly-evolving long-run projections, part of the program's prudent, conservative management, demonstrate that Social Security is closely monitored, a fact which could and should reassure the American people about Social Security's reliability. Instead, the fact of a projected manageable shortfall, still decades away, has been used in exactly the opposite way, to convince the American people, against all evidence, that Social Security will not be there in the future.

The shaken confidence produced by hyperbolic rhetoric surrounding every release of quite ordinary trustees reports has been exacerbated by the cavalier tone of today's deficit hawks toward the legal requirement that Social Security's revenue be used exclusively for paying benefits and related expenses.

To Deficit Hawks

 

[code1211]

Sure, private contractors can bid on picking up my garbage and taking it to the landfill. Garbage doesn't need representation or a voice for it's concern in government. But when human lives are collateral, then representation is paramount.

Social Security...can private enterprise operate at 1% operating cost? Because that's what SS operates at. It's return to We, the People is 99%.

Medicare...WHO is ripping off the taxpayers when there is Medicare fraud? Doctors, hospitals and private entities...

How can concepts that are so basic to a democratic society be so far beyond the comprehension of you right wing corporatists?

NOTHING is free. Would you prefer to pay for a service and it's operating costs, or would you rather pay for a service, it's operating costs AND stockholders profits and CEO bonuses?

Link for the Social Security Administative costs, please.

A standing army is an expensive thing and, if one is desired, will be a money losing thing. Anything that demands a loss in operating is perfect for government. Anything that can be supported on a profit basis, should be privatized and regulated. Especially those areas, like the military, in which a seldom used skill set is required for success.

Business does this all the time. Janitorial services are hired, lawn maintenance, design firms, trucking and delivery for freight and on and on. Insurance of all varieties is another great example.

Because the people who run things in government are often inexperienced and are often politically appointed and are often not motivated to cut costs and are often in functions that are no in competition to produce the same service at a lower cost, the services rendered are often non-efficient and non-progressive.

The less that can be done by government, the better off we will be.

Social Security: Near-Bankrupt

FALSE

Deficit hawks plotting to cut Social Security to reduce the deficit are seriously misguided. The truth is that Social Security contributes not a single penny to the deficit. Indeed, it is the poster child for fiscal responsibility.

Social Security has administrative costs strikingly lower than those of private sector retirement plans. Unlike 401(k) plans, for example, whose administrative fees are routinely 15 or 20 percent of plan contributions, Social Security's administrative costs are less than one percent. It returns in benefits more than 99 cents of every dollar collected.

Moreover, Congress has been scrupulous about paying for every Social Security benefit it has ever enacted. To meet the anticipated higher retirement costs of the baby boom, workers and their employers have contributed more over the past few decades than has been needed to meet current costs. These higher contributions have, as intended, resulted in an accumulated surplus in 2009 of $2.6 trillion, a surplus which is projected to grow to $4.3 trillion by 2023.

To ensure that all benefits will always be paid in full and on time, Social Security's Board of Trustees annually reports to Congress on how the program is projected to do over the next three-quarters of a century. Obviously, projections extending so far out in the future will sometimes show deficits or, for that matter, unintended surpluses. The simple, mundane truth is that the actuaries refined some of their assumptions and methodologies in the 1990s and began, as a consequence, forecasting a manageable deficit over the 75-year valuation period. These constantly-evolving long-run projections, part of the program's prudent, conservative management, demonstrate that Social Security is closely monitored, a fact which could and should reassure the American people about Social Security's reliability. Instead, the fact of a projected manageable shortfall, still decades away, has been used in exactly the opposite way, to convince the American people, against all evidence, that Social Security will not be there in the future.

The shaken confidence produced by hyperbolic rhetoric surrounding every release of quite ordinary trustees reports has been exacerbated by the cavalier tone of today's deficit hawks toward the legal requirement that Social Security's revenue be used exclusively for paying benefits and related expenses.

To Deficit Hawks

I was hoping more for a link like this one:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/52xx/doc5277/Report.pdf

The administrative costs of the SSA are low. This owing to the facts that the employers do allot of the work, the IRS actually collects the money, there are few investment options, the costs incurred by the SSA are primarily only in the claims function and there is no sales or marketing.

The CBO says that it's very difficult to actually isolate the costs of the SSA even to separate costs owing to retirees or to survivors. I could not find a listing of the costs of the SSA born by the IRS or by the employers, but these are probably substantial.

Does anybody have a reliable source for these numbers?

 

[gautama]

As a liberal, I wasn't a fan of George W. Bush, But I didn't want him to fail, because this is my country and my children's future is collateral.

You folks are Republicans, right wingers or whatever you wish to call yourselves, but you are not patriots or Americans. The word domestic terrorist would best describe your wishes.



Our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in...war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.
General Douglas MacArthur

Fucking retard.

Soggy in NOLA,

That he is......most assuredly so.

Every one of ButtFuckedGrin's posts underlines that fact.

 

[gautama]

I supported Bush's efforts to go after bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But the minute Iraq appeared in his gun sights, I became very, very skeptical. And ALL my suspicions were proven true. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with who attacked us on 911. Where is YOUR outrage that over 4,000 American sons and daughter's died and a hundred thousand Iraqi's died? What was their crime, living in a country with a dictator that threatened Bush's daddy?

Your idea of supporting our troops is grabbing a casket handle. Fuck YOU you scummy little slime ball.

Hey ButtFuckedGrin,

The Intelligence agencies of ALL the major powers of the World (except China which was silent) claimed that the Baghdad Psycho, who TORTURED and MURDERED over ONE MILLION of his own people, had the WMDs. Including Clinton's CIA. Also, the RagheadWhackjob broke the Kuwait Invasion Treaty SCORES of times, the penalty for the violation of each was WAR.

Plus Clinton, and the Congressional Dems (especially their leaders including Pelosi, Reid, Hanoi Kerry, KKK Byrd, The Chappaquidick Murderer, etc) voted for the Iraqi War ......and rightly so. Because the Baghdad Monster AND Akhmantheguyisnuts with NUKES woulda been the REALITY of the day instead of the ONE Iranian Islamofascist arsehole which the Black Racist MARXIST Palestinian Guardian and Muslim PC Protector Obami Salaami is bowing to with his thumb in his own arse.

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT YOU BLITHERING OBAMARRHOIDAL MORON !!!!

BLITHERING? Boy that sure sounds like an appropriate adjective to describe your post...did you break the keyboard typing it with a hammer???

Educate yourself on the British intelligence's assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.


C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The secret Downing Street memo - Times Online

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Educate yourself on WHO voted for and against...

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent who courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq were:

* Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
* Barbara Boxer (D-California)
* Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
* Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
* Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
* Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
* Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
* Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
* Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
* Bob Graham (D-Florida)
* Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
* Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
* Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
* Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
* Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
* Patty Murray (D-Washington)
* Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
* The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
* Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Re[resentatives in voting NAY, on October 11, 2002, to the unprovoked use of force against Iraq:

Iraq War Vote in 2002: Honoring the 23 Senate and 133 House Members Who Voted NO

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like you just BLITHERING butt fucked yourself....................Next...

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

ButtFuckedGrin:

FIRST: The Iraq War was won by Bush in TWENTY TWO DAYS.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !!!!

SECOND: NOT Clinton, but the HYPOCRITICAL and TREACHEROUS Dems realizing that their chances in the upcoming elections was ZIPPO, NADA.......made the TREACHEROUS "180 degree about face" and by stabbing Bush in the back on a 24/7 basis with its Libcontrolled National Media (there wasn't any countervailing reportage from any source as it is now) gave the IslamoFascist Swine the GREEN LIGHT to create the IRAQI QUAGMIRE ......WHICH IS THE SOURCE OF ALL OUR ILLS TODAY IN THE MID EAST.....AND AFGHANISTAN !!!!!

It is OBVIOUS that the IRAQ WAR was necessary. BTW, The Clinton Adm yowled and Howled for the violent removal of the Baghdad Psycho which not only threatened our STRATEGIC INTERESTS in the Mid East......but for HUMANE REASONS (a la Kosovo) since the Baghdad Monster TORTURED and MURDERED over a MILOLION of his own people.

The IRAQI QUAGMIRE which you fucking HYPOCRITICAL and TREACHEROUS Dems created DESTROYED Bush's FANTASTICALLY SUCCESSFUL "TWENTY TWO DAY" DEFEAT of the Iraqi Whackjob Hussein.......AND, IN ADDITION TO THE PROBLEMS WE NOW HAVE IN THE MID EAST BECAUSE OF YOUR TREACHERY, you HYPOCRITICAL and TREACHEROUS ARSEHOLES HAVE NOW CREATED THE IRANIAN POS, ACH/MAN/THIS/GUY/IS/NUTS with whom our MONUMENTAL FRAUD Obami Salaami is playing footise.... what with bowing and scraping with his own thumb up his own arse. And, in the process insulting Israel, Neytanyahuh........OUR ONLY TRUE ALLY IN THE MID EAST !!!!

As to your phony stats, the following is from the Wikipedia which you can google, states:

Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3


United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0

The above states that while house DEMs were in the majority voting against the Iraq War......THE SENATE DEMS MAJORITY VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR.

And, BTW.......until only recently CLINTON (to his credit) steadfastly stood with his PREVIOUS DECISION AND SUPPORTED THE IRAQ WAR REFUSING TO BE THE HYPOCRITE and TREACHEROUS ARSEHOLE LIKE THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the Congressional Dems, IF NOT ALL, THE DEMS WHO MADE THE TREACHEROUS "180 degree about face" STABBING DUBYA IN THE BACK CREATING THE IRAQI QUAGMIRE.......AND THE PRESENT PROBLEMS IN THE MID EAST !!!!!

So, you fucking Obamarrhoidal POS.......stop posting your BLITHERING buttfucked CRAP and get the FACTS STRAIGHT.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Want to know why conservatives love Rasmussen approval polls? Because Rasmussen gives them numbers that make Obama look bad.

Want to know why Rasmussen's numbers make Obama look bad?

Because they poll more Republicans than anyone else.

Imagine that!!

Your graph does not prove your contention, in fact all it proves is that others OVER SAMPLE Democrats and that would be why his numbers are better with them. Thanks for proving it for us.

Huh?

There ARE many MORE Democrats in this country of ours than republicans....THAT'S A FACT dearest.

Not by double digits there isn't. His graph does not address how many republicans are polled at all. His contention is pure bullshit with that graph. Both the Dems and the Repubs have a 30 percent share. Dems are higher in the 30 percent then Repubs but who knows for how long?

With Obama burning bridges as fast as he is? Even his own party is upset with him.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I supported Bush's efforts to go after bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But the minute Iraq appeared in his gun sights, I became very, very skeptical. And ALL my suspicions were proven true. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with who attacked us on 911. Where is YOUR outrage that over 4,000 American sons and daughter's died and a hundred thousand Iraqi's died? What was their crime, living in a country with a dictator that threatened Bush's daddy?

Your idea of supporting our troops is grabbing a casket handle. Fuck YOU you scummy little slime ball.

Another lie by the left. Bush NEVER claimed Iraq had anything what so ever to do with 9/11. EVER. In fact he repeated over and over Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. When will you lying cocksuckers stop with this bald faced lie?

As for Iraq we went because Saddam Hussein was a threat, proven by the documents we captured after the Invasion. He was bribing France, Russia and China to get him off sanctions, something the French hoped would happen by the end of the year we finally invaded. Saddam Hussein was set to return to mass production of chemical and biological weapons. he was set to return to research on obtaining a nuclear weapon. He illegally maintained the materials test equipment and scientists along with production facilities to do JUST that. All he was waiting for was sanctions to be lifted.

And need I remind your stupid ass that EVERYONE believed he had chemical weapons. EVERYONE. Including his own Generals. He either shipped them out or carried on a big lie that got him killed.

We had justification to invade and I believe we did the right thing given the facts we know now.

George W. Bush

2002

"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." - George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." - President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"I think they're both equally important, and they're both dangerous. And as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war on terror on two fronts. We've got plenty of capacity to do so. And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror. And he must disarm." - President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint." - President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002) - BushOnIraq.gov

"He's had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates." - Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

2003

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." - President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." - President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations." - President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other." President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003) -BushOnIraq.com

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more." - President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed." - President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) - BushOnIraq.com


Dick Cheney

2002

"In Afghanistan we found confirmation that bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network were seriously interested in nuclear and radiological weapons, and in biological and chemical agents. We are especially concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction." - Vice President Delivers Remarks to the National Academy of Home Builders, White House (6/6/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

"His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." - Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

"There is also a grave danger that al Qaeda or other terrorists will join with outlaw regimes that have these weapons to attack their common enemy, the United States of America. That is why confronting the threat posed by Iraq is not a distraction from the war on terror." - Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

2003

"His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us." - Vice President's Remarks at 30th Political Action Conference, White House (1/30/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"And Saddam Hussein becomes a prime suspect in that regard because of his past track record and because we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons. . . We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"I have argued in the past, and would again, if we had been able to pre-empt the attacks of 9/11 would we have done it? And I think absolutely. We have to be prepared now to take the kind of bold action that's being contemplated with respect to Iraq in order to ensure that we don't get hit with a devastating attack when the terrorists' organization gets married up with a rogue state that's willing to provide it with the kinds of deadly capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed and used over the years." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"(Since September 11) We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"And the reason we had to do Iraq, if you hark back and think about that link between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, Iraq was the place where we were most fearful that that was most likely to occur, because in Iraq we've had a government -- not only was it one of the worst dictatorships in modern times, but had oftentimes hosted terrorists in the past . . . but also an established relationship with the al Qaeda organization . . . ." - Vice President Dick Cheney Remarks at Luncheon for Congressman Jim Gerlach, White House (10/3/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"(I)f we had not paid any attention to the fact that al Qaeda was being hosted in Northeastern Iraq, part of poisons network producing ricin and cyanide that was intended to be used in attacks both in Europe, as well as in North Africa and ignored it, we would have been derelict in our duties and responsibilities." - Vice President Dick Cheney Remarks at Luncheon for Congressman Jim Gerlach, White House (10/3/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"He cultivated ties to terror, hosting the Abu Nidal organization, supporting terrorists, making payments to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He also had an established relationship with al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs." - Remarks by Vice President Dick Cheney at the Heritage Foundation, White House (10/10/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. He cultivated ties to terror -- hosting the Abu Nidal organization, supporting terrorists, and making payments to the families of suicide bombers. He also had an established relationship with Al Qaida -- providing training to Al Qaida members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs. He built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." - Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at the James A. Baker, III, Institute for Public Policy, White House (10/18/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

2004

"We'll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions." - Transcript of interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been -- we've never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11." - Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." - Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, White House (1/14/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." - Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks to Veterans at the Arizona Wing Museum, White House (1/15/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. We've discovered since documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now. So Saddam Hussein had an established track record of providing safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. . . . I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Dick Cheney, Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004) - BushOnIraq.com


From the White House website, Bush's comments about Saddam Hussein
(Campaign speeches only. For period of October 10 - November 04.)

OCT 28 Remarks by the President at New Mexico Welcome
"This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda."

OCT 28 Remarks by the President in Colorado Welcome
"He's got connections with al Qaeda."

OCT 31 Remarks by the President at South Dakota Welcome
"This is a guy who has had connections with these shadowy terrorist networks."

NOV 01 Remarks by the President at New Hampshire Welcome
"We know he's got ties with al Qaeda."

NOV 02 Remarks by the President in Florida Welcome
"We know that he's had connections with al Qaeda."

NOV 02 Remarks by the President in Atlanta, Georgia Welcome
"He's had connections with shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda."

NOV 02 Remarks by the President at Tennessee Welcome
"We know that he has had contacts with terrorist networks like al Qaeda."

NOV 03 Remarks by the President in Minnesota Welcome
"This is a man who has had contacts with al Qaeda."

NOV 04 Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome
"This is a man who has had al Qaeda connections."

NOV 04 Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome
"He's had contacts with al Qaeda."

NOV 04 Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome
"This is a man who has got connections with al Qaeda."

Plus this speculation:

OCT 14 Remarks by the President in Michigan Welcome
"... we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind."

NOV 03 Remarks by the President in South Dakota Welcome
"And, not only that, he is -- would like nothing better than to hook-up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come and do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action. "

NOV 03 Remarks by the President at Illinois Welcome
"He is a man who would likely -- he is a man who would likely team up with al Qaeda. He could provide the arsenal for one of these shadowy terrorist networks. He would love to use somebody else to attack us, and not leave fingerprints behind. "

Administration Quotes Linking 9/11 to Iraq

None of which is incorrect AND NONE OF WHICH claims Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Nice try though you lying piece of shit.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Want to know why conservatives love Rasmussen approval polls? Because Rasmussen gives them numbers that make Obama look bad.

Want to know why Rasmussen's numbers make Obama look bad?

Because they poll more Republicans than anyone else.

Imagine that!!

Your graph does not prove your contention, in fact all it proves is that others OVER SAMPLE Democrats and that would be why his numbers are better with them. Thanks for proving it for us.

Okay you can avoid answering the same question Frank won't answer.

What are the CORRECT percentages of Democrats vs. Republicans in this country, and in regards to the number you give me,

how do you know that is the correct number?

You haven't provided us with any.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sure, private contractors can bid on picking up my garbage and taking it to the landfill. Garbage doesn't need representation or a voice for it's concern in government. But when human lives are collateral, then representation is paramount.

Social Security...can private enterprise operate at 1% operating cost? Because that's what SS operates at. It's return to We, the People is 99%.

Medicare...WHO is ripping off the taxpayers when there is Medicare fraud? Doctors, hospitals and private entities...

How can concepts that are so basic to a democratic society be so far beyond the comprehension of you right wing corporatists?

NOTHING is free. Would you prefer to pay for a service and it's operating costs, or would you rather pay for a service, it's operating costs AND stockholders profits and CEO bonuses?

Link for the Social Security Administative costs, please.

A standing army is an expensive thing and, if one is desired, will be a money losing thing. Anything that demands a loss in operating is perfect for government. Anything that can be supported on a profit basis, should be privatized and regulated. Especially those areas, like the military, in which a seldom used skill set is required for success.

Business does this all the time. Janitorial services are hired, lawn maintenance, design firms, trucking and delivery for freight and on and on. Insurance of all varieties is another great example.

Because the people who run things in government are often inexperienced and are often politically appointed and are often not motivated to cut costs and are often in functions that are no in competition to produce the same service at a lower cost, the services rendered are often non-efficient and non-progressive.

The less that can be done by government, the better off we will be.

Social Security: Near-Bankrupt

FALSE

Deficit hawks plotting to cut Social Security to reduce the deficit are seriously misguided. The truth is that Social Security contributes not a single penny to the deficit. Indeed, it is the poster child for fiscal responsibility.

Social Security has administrative costs strikingly lower than those of private sector retirement plans. Unlike 401(k) plans, for example, whose administrative fees are routinely 15 or 20 percent of plan contributions, Social Security's administrative costs are less than one percent. It returns in benefits more than 99 cents of every dollar collected.

Moreover, Congress has been scrupulous about paying for every Social Security benefit it has ever enacted. To meet the anticipated higher retirement costs of the baby boom, workers and their employers have contributed more over the past few decades than has been needed to meet current costs. These higher contributions have, as intended, resulted in an accumulated surplus in 2009 of $2.6 trillion, a surplus which is projected to grow to $4.3 trillion by 2023.

To ensure that all benefits will always be paid in full and on time, Social Security's Board of Trustees annually reports to Congress on how the program is projected to do over the next three-quarters of a century. Obviously, projections extending so far out in the future will sometimes show deficits or, for that matter, unintended surpluses. The simple, mundane truth is that the actuaries refined some of their assumptions and methodologies in the 1990s and began, as a consequence, forecasting a manageable deficit over the 75-year valuation period. These constantly-evolving long-run projections, part of the program's prudent, conservative management, demonstrate that Social Security is closely monitored, a fact which could and should reassure the American people about Social Security's reliability. Instead, the fact of a projected manageable shortfall, still decades away, has been used in exactly the opposite way, to convince the American people, against all evidence, that Social Security will not be there in the future.

The shaken confidence produced by hyperbolic rhetoric surrounding every release of quite ordinary trustees reports has been exacerbated by the cavalier tone of today's deficit hawks toward the legal requirement that Social Security's revenue be used exclusively for paying benefits and related expenses.

To Deficit Hawks

You curiously forgot to mention that since the 90's at least the Government has been raiding social security money and replacing it with IOU's. Exactly HOW will a broke Government pay back those IOU's?

 

[Bfgrn]

Hey ButtFuckedGrin,

The Intelligence agencies of ALL the major powers of the World (except China which was silent) claimed that the Baghdad Psycho, who TORTURED and MURDERED over ONE MILLION of his own people, had the WMDs. Including Clinton's CIA. Also, the RagheadWhackjob broke the Kuwait Invasion Treaty SCORES of times, the penalty for the violation of each was WAR.

Plus Clinton, and the Congressional Dems (especially their leaders including Pelosi, Reid, Hanoi Kerry, KKK Byrd, The Chappaquidick Murderer, etc) voted for the Iraqi War ......and rightly so. Because the Baghdad Monster AND Akhmantheguyisnuts with NUKES woulda been the REALITY of the day instead of the ONE Iranian Islamofascist arsehole which the Black Racist MARXIST Palestinian Guardian and Muslim PC Protector Obami Salaami is bowing to with his thumb in his own arse.

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT YOU BLITHERING OBAMARRHOIDAL MORON !!!!

BLITHERING? Boy that sure sounds like an appropriate adjective to describe your post...did you break the keyboard typing it with a hammer???

Educate yourself on the British intelligence's assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.


C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The secret Downing Street memo - Times Online

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Educate yourself on WHO voted for and against...

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent who courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq were:

* Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
* Barbara Boxer (D-California)
* Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
* Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
* Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
* Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
* Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
* Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
* Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
* Bob Graham (D-Florida)
* Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
* Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
* Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
* Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
* Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
* Patty Murray (D-Washington)
* Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
* The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
* Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Re[resentatives in voting NAY, on October 11, 2002, to the unprovoked use of force against Iraq:

Iraq War Vote in 2002: Honoring the 23 Senate and 133 House Members Who Voted NO

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like you just BLITHERING butt fucked yourself....................Next...

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

ButtFuckedGrin:

FIRST: The Iraq War was won by Bush in TWENTY TWO DAYS.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !!!!

SECOND: NOT Clinton, but the HYPOCRITICAL and TREACHEROUS Dems realizing that their chances in the upcoming elections was ZIPPO, NADA.......made the TREACHEROUS "180 degree about face" and by stabbing Bush in the back on a 24/7 basis with its Libcontrolled National Media (there wasn't any countervailing reportage from any source as it is now) gave the IslamoFascist Swine the GREEN LIGHT to create the IRAQI QUAGMIRE ......WHICH IS THE SOURCE OF ALL OUR ILLS TODAY IN THE MID EAST.....AND AFGHANISTAN !!!!!

It is OBVIOUS that the IRAQ WAR was necessary. BTW, The Clinton Adm yowled and Howled for the violent removal of the Baghdad Psycho which not only threatened our STRATEGIC INTERESTS in the Mid East......but for HUMANE REASONS (a la Kosovo) since the Baghdad Monster TORTURED and MURDERED over a MILOLION of his own people.

The IRAQI QUAGMIRE which you fucking HYPOCRITICAL and TREACHEROUS Dems created DESTROYED Bush's FANTASTICALLY SUCCESSFUL "TWENTY TWO DAY" DEFEAT of the Iraqi Whackjob Hussein.......AND, IN ADDITION TO THE PROBLEMS WE NOW HAVE IN THE MID EAST BECAUSE OF YOUR TREACHERY, you HYPOCRITICAL and TREACHEROUS ARSEHOLES HAVE NOW CREATED THE IRANIAN POS, ACH/MAN/THIS/GUY/IS/NUTS with whom our MONUMENTAL FRAUD Obami Salaami is playing footise.... what with bowing and scraping with his own thumb up his own arse. And, in the process insulting Israel, Neytanyahuh........OUR ONLY TRUE ALLY IN THE MID EAST !!!!

As to your phony stats, the following is from the Wikipedia which you can google, states:

Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3


United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0

The above states that while house DEMs were in the majority voting against the Iraq War......THE SENATE DEMS MAJORITY VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR.

And, BTW.......until only recently CLINTON (to his credit) steadfastly stood with his PREVIOUS DECISION AND SUPPORTED THE IRAQ WAR REFUSING TO BE THE HYPOCRITE and TREACHEROUS ARSEHOLE LIKE THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the Congressional Dems, IF NOT ALL, THE DEMS WHO MADE THE TREACHEROUS "180 degree about face" STABBING DUBYA IN THE BACK CREATING THE IRAQI QUAGMIRE.......AND THE PRESENT PROBLEMS IN THE MID EAST !!!!!

So, you fucking Obamarrhoidal POS.......stop posting your BLITHERING buttfucked CRAP and get the FACTS STRAIGHT.

Hey pea brain, do you ENJOY walking into the path of oncoming semi's? Do you feel YELLING at them will scare them away so they don't flattening you? If you want to swallow the propaganda you are indoctrinated with by Limbaugh and Fox News, that is your right. If you choose to be a koolaid swallowing brainwashed pea brain, and then try to pass those 'fairy tales' off as truth here, you will continue to be flattened...


FIRST: The Iraq War was won by Bush in TWENTY TWO DAYS.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !!!!

And THEN what...CHAOS

Without ground troops to secure the border, top Ba'athist regime members fled the country with vast Iraqi funds and foreign insurgents moved into the country. There were not enough troops to defend the Iraqi border from foreign-backed insurgents.
wiki

We are we still there 7 years later, But you say the reason is:

SECOND: NOT Clinton, but the HYPOCRITICAL and TREACHEROUS Dems realizing that their chances in the upcoming elections was ZIPPO, NADA.......made the TREACHEROUS "180 degree about face" and by stabbing Bush in the back on a 24/7 basis with its Libcontrolled National Media


Hey pea brain, does that Libcontrolled National Media include retired US Generals?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul D. Eaton, a retired U.S. Army major general, was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004

Rumsfeld failed in terms of operations in Iraq. He rejected the so-called Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force and sent just enough tech-enhanced troops to complete what we called Phase III of the war - ground combat against the uniformed Iraqis. He ignored competent advisers like General Anthony Zinni and others who predicted that the Iraqi forces might melt away, leading to chaos.

It is all too clear that Shinseki was right: Several hundred thousand men would have made a big difference then, as we began Phase IV, or country reconstruction. There was never a question that we would make quick work of the Iraqi Army.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of the most respected retired generals are publicly criticizing Rumsfeld and his policies in a manner that's nearly unprecedented in the United States, where civilian control of the military is accepted as a hallowed principle. Gen. Anthony Zinni, a Marine with a long record of command positions (his last was as head of U.S. Central Command, which runs military operations in the Persian Gulf and South Asia), called last month for Rumsfeld's resignation. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who ran the program to train the Iraqi military, followed with a New York Times op-ed piece lambasting Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically," and a man who "has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his Cold Warrior's view of the world, and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower."

But the most eye-popping instance appears in this week's Time magazine, where retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, the former operations director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He writes in Time:

I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat—al-Qaeda. … [T]he Pentagon's military leaders … with few exceptions, acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard. When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction. … It is time for senior military leaders to discard caution in expressing their views and ensure that the President hears them clearly. And that we won't be fooled again.

Gen. Eric Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff who spoke truth to power and got slammed for his troubles. Shortly before the invasion, Shinseki told the Senate armed services committee that "a few hundred thousand" troops would be needed to impose order after the war was over. Paul Wolfowitz, then deputy secretary of defense, upbraided him in public the next day; Rumsfeld named Shinseki's successor a year in advance of his scheduled retirement, thus undercutting his authority for the rest of his term. In his Times op-ed, Gen. Eaton wrote of Shinseki's punishment, "The rest of the senior brass got the message, and nobody has complained since."

The revolt against Donald Rumsfeld
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHY was there CHAOS after the 'Mission Accomplished' photo-op stunt?

Rumsfeld Forbade Planning For Postwar Iraq, General Says

Long before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld forbade military strategists to develop plans for securing a postwar Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said.

Brig. Gen. Mark E. Scheid told the Newport News Daily Press in an interview published yesterday that Rumsfeld had said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a postwar plan.

Scheid was a colonel with the U.S. Central Command, the unit that oversees military operations in the Middle East, in late 2001 when Rumsfeld "told us to get ready for Iraq."

"The secretary of defense continued to push on us . . . that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."

Planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4" -- plans that covered post-invasion operations such as security, stability and reconstruction, said Scheid, who is retiring in about three weeks, but "I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that."
Washington Post

SPLAT...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your graph does not prove your contention, in fact all it proves is that others OVER SAMPLE Democrats and that would be why his numbers are better with them. Thanks for proving it for us.

Okay you can avoid answering the same question Frank won't answer.

What are the CORRECT percentages of Democrats vs. Republicans in this country, and in regards to the number you give me,

how do you know that is the correct number?

You haven't provided us with any.

Frank and you are claiming Rasmussens' numbers are right and everyone else's are wrong. So prove it.