Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Tax expenditures are DOUBLE the cost of all the welfare programs.It seems like the democratic party runs on giving away things for free in life and it is hard to come up with an argument why someone shouldn't receive free shit life. It is impossible for a politician to run on rugged individualism because that would require people to actually be self-sufficient human beings who work for a living. It is much easier to tell people that for everything you can't afford the government will give to you for free. That sounds really f'n great to most people because you can't argue against free stuff. Companies give away free stuff all the time and no one will argue against it. I think a politician should just come out and say everything you want will be paid for by the government. End of story! That was we can move away from this losing argument and move on. Land of the FREE and home of the Occupy Anything movement.
Look in the mirror. There's your problem.
Fried or with mustard?possum would like...
... free balogna sammiches...
... on Tuesdays.
Tax expenditures are DOUBLE the cost of all the welfare programs.It seems like the democratic party runs on giving away things for free in life and it is hard to come up with an argument why someone shouldn't receive free shit life. It is impossible for a politician to run on rugged individualism because that would require people to actually be self-sufficient human beings who work for a living. It is much easier to tell people that for everything you can't afford the government will give to you for free. That sounds really f'n great to most people because you can't argue against free stuff. Companies give away free stuff all the time and no one will argue against it. I think a politician should just come out and say everything you want will be paid for by the government. End of story! That was we can move away from this losing argument and move on. Land of the FREE and home of the Occupy Anything movement.
Look in the mirror. There's your problem.
Every single time I have discussed banning all tax expenditures, I have said the result would be that we could lower tax rates for EVERYONE.Tax expenditures are DOUBLE the cost of all the welfare programs.It seems like the democratic party runs on giving away things for free in life and it is hard to come up with an argument why someone shouldn't receive free shit life. It is impossible for a politician to run on rugged individualism because that would require people to actually be self-sufficient human beings who work for a living. It is much easier to tell people that for everything you can't afford the government will give to you for free. That sounds really f'n great to most people because you can't argue against free stuff. Companies give away free stuff all the time and no one will argue against it. I think a politician should just come out and say everything you want will be paid for by the government. End of story! That was we can move away from this losing argument and move on. Land of the FREE and home of the Occupy Anything movement.
Look in the mirror. There's your problem.
I doubt your definition of "tax expenditures" is even close to being realistic. I wouldn't vote for ending them unless tax rates were reduced to make the total change revenue neutral. There's nothing to be gained by sending more money to Washington.
"Ban tax expenditures".
"$800 billion surplus".
"We could lower tax rates for EVERYONE".
"Serendipitous side effect of instant campaign finance reform".
Hello? Any of this ring a bell, rube?
How could anyone have missed me saying banning tax expenditures would allow us to lower tax rates for EVERYONE after all this time?
Seriously.
I said it THREE TIMES just in this topic and the blind mouse STILL didn't see it.
Amazing.
No, we don’t spend $1 trillion on welfare each yearTax expenditures are DOUBLE the cost of all the welfare programs.It seems like the democratic party runs on giving away things for free in life and it is hard to come up with an argument why someone shouldn't receive free shit life. It is impossible for a politician to run on rugged individualism because that would require people to actually be self-sufficient human beings who work for a living. It is much easier to tell people that for everything you can't afford the government will give to you for free. That sounds really f'n great to most people because you can't argue against free stuff. Companies give away free stuff all the time and no one will argue against it. I think a politician should just come out and say everything you want will be paid for by the government. End of story! That was we can move away from this losing argument and move on. Land of the FREE and home of the Occupy Anything movement.
Look in the mirror. There's your problem.
I am not sure how you would even attempt to justify that claim. Are you suggesting that Social Security isn't a "welfare" program? Because it is. So are all the other welfare programs.
If you get money from the government, for any purpose that you are not physically working to earn, it's a welfare program.
In other words, if you are entitled to money, that is taxed from some other persons paycheck.... it's a welfare program.
What is really funny about your post is.... you actually validated his entire position.
Every single time I have discussed banning all tax expenditures, I have said the result would be that we could lower tax rates for EVERYONE.Tax expenditures are DOUBLE the cost of all the welfare programs.It seems like the democratic party runs on giving away things for free in life and it is hard to come up with an argument why someone shouldn't receive free shit life. It is impossible for a politician to run on rugged individualism because that would require people to actually be self-sufficient human beings who work for a living. It is much easier to tell people that for everything you can't afford the government will give to you for free. That sounds really f'n great to most people because you can't argue against free stuff. Companies give away free stuff all the time and no one will argue against it. I think a politician should just come out and say everything you want will be paid for by the government. End of story! That was we can move away from this losing argument and move on. Land of the FREE and home of the Occupy Anything movement.
Look in the mirror. There's your problem.
I doubt your definition of "tax expenditures" is even close to being realistic. I wouldn't vote for ending them unless tax rates were reduced to make the total change revenue neutral. There's nothing to be gained by sending more money to Washington.
I almost always put EVERYONE in all caps.
See for yourself:
"Ban tax expenditures".
"$800 billion surplus".
"We could lower tax rates for EVERYONE".
"Serendipitous side effect of instant campaign finance reform".
Hello? Any of this ring a bell, rube?
How could anyone have missed me saying banning tax expenditures would allow us to lower tax rates for EVERYONE after all this time?
Seriously.
I said it THREE TIMES just in this topic and the blind mouse STILL didn't see it.
Amazing.
I've tried it every which way.Every single time I have discussed banning all tax expenditures, I have said the result would be that we could lower tax rates for EVERYONE.Tax expenditures are DOUBLE the cost of all the welfare programs.It seems like the democratic party runs on giving away things for free in life and it is hard to come up with an argument why someone shouldn't receive free shit life. It is impossible for a politician to run on rugged individualism because that would require people to actually be self-sufficient human beings who work for a living. It is much easier to tell people that for everything you can't afford the government will give to you for free. That sounds really f'n great to most people because you can't argue against free stuff. Companies give away free stuff all the time and no one will argue against it. I think a politician should just come out and say everything you want will be paid for by the government. End of story! That was we can move away from this losing argument and move on. Land of the FREE and home of the Occupy Anything movement.
Look in the mirror. There's your problem.
I doubt your definition of "tax expenditures" is even close to being realistic. I wouldn't vote for ending them unless tax rates were reduced to make the total change revenue neutral. There's nothing to be gained by sending more money to Washington.
I almost always put EVERYONE in all caps.
See for yourself:
"Ban tax expenditures".
"$800 billion surplus".
"We could lower tax rates for EVERYONE".
"Serendipitous side effect of instant campaign finance reform".
Hello? Any of this ring a bell, rube?
How could anyone have missed me saying banning tax expenditures would allow us to lower tax rates for EVERYONE after all this time?
Seriously.
I said it THREE TIMES just in this topic and the blind mouse STILL didn't see it.
Amazing.
Try 'splaining it with crayons. Or maybe Photoshops.
You're wrong now and you would be wrong if this were the moment you watched - if you did - C. Powell's ridiculous presentation before the world on live TV.
That said you are not alone, yet I cannot imagine why someone today would defend this war of choice today knowing how thousands of people lost their lives, have life long wounds and the harm it did to our nation's image around the world.
I didn't see C. Powell's presentation.
What I did see, was the intelligence briefing by the CIA, which was investigated by the Democrats, and published the Rockefeller report.... in which, they said that nearly everything.... as in almost EVERYTHING, was supported by the intelligence data available at the time.
Now, if *YOU* were in charge, and you were given the information that Bush was given, and YOU had to determine what to do in that situation, being told what you were told... and you knew that if you did nothing, and Saddam did give WMDs, dirty bombs, or chemical or biological weapons to terrorist groups, which is exactly what the evidence and intelligence information AT THAT TIME SAID...... What would you do?
Hard question, given that if a chemical weapons goes off in a New York subway, and tens of thousands, or upward of a million people end up gassed.....
Pretty easy to sit on your high horse, from your arrogant position of zero responsibility, and clean "oh I would have know it was wrong, and not done anything".
Tad bit different when inaction on your part results in deaths.
Knowing what we know RIGHT NOW..... That would be different. But Bush didn't know in 2003, what we know in 2015.
It was the right move, given the information we had, at that time.
Maybe if Clinton had not reduced CIA spending, and put in place asinine rules that hindered information gathering.
Maybe if Bush Sr, had finished the job in 1991.
Maybe if we had never made an alliance with Kuwait.
But if you were in the office, in 2001, you had no control over the prior 20 years. You had the information that you had, and you had to make a decision.
Again, the Rockefeller report (which I have right here on my computer) makes it undeniably clear, that the information that Bush used, was the information that the intelligence community had at the time. PERIOD.
If you think that's wrong, then take up with your democrats who must have all being lying.
Gee, all of what you suggest is plausible, yet we didn't invade N. Korea which has nuclear capacity, but no oil.
I understand that nuclear weapons leave a signature, and that a dirty bomb can be forensically traced to a source. Maybe Kim da Krazy might try that, but the response to a nuclear attack on the US would result in the destruction of any nation which did so.
None of which changes the intelligence information that Bush had at that time.
Are you saying that if you were given tons of information, that all suggested that an enemy nation, which had already invaded one of your allies, and had been openly thwarting the UN inspections for over a decade..... That you would just assume "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything"?
That would just make you a pathetically bad leader.... or Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was warned over and over... Al Qaida is growing, they are planning to attack us.... you should do something. And Billy boy Clinton, did not believe the information, and said they wouldn't do anything.
He was warned in 1996. He was warned in 1998. In 2001, we found out the "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything" was wrong. Bill Clinton was a bad president.
If you take the same 'head-in-the-sand' approach, that would make you a bad president.
Bush did something, because he wasn't going to follow Clinton's incompetence.
And by the way, we found WMDs in Iraq. Contrary to the left-wing claim. He did have them. We have soldiers that had to be treated for chemical weapon exposures. And we also know the Russians removed a bunch.
So... who was really right in the end?
Bush & Co. engaged in fear mongering, the evidence of WMD's was weak, and the presentation by Powell was weaker. IMO, and I'm far from alone, Bush needed a war because he was the Commander-in-Chief when the most lethal attack on America occurred.
Cheney and the Neo Cons wanted a war with Iraq in the early 90's, when Bush I chose not to invade Iraq, and the PNAC statement of principles published in 1997 confirms such an agenda.
See the link below pay attention to those who signed the document and the place they held in Bush II's Administration:
http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement of principles.pdf
And yet according to the Rockefeller report, the evidence was all supported by the intelligence available at the time.
You can say whatever you want, and post whatever links you want... but the Rockefeller report, was an official congressional investigation into the intelligence information that led to the Iraq war.
Nothing have said, and nothing you have posted, changes those facts. You want to resort to insults? Fine. But that just proves that despite your claims, you are the one who can't respond to the facts.
No, we don’t spend $1 trillion on welfare each yearTax expenditures are DOUBLE the cost of all the welfare programs.It seems like the democratic party runs on giving away things for free in life and it is hard to come up with an argument why someone shouldn't receive free shit life. It is impossible for a politician to run on rugged individualism because that would require people to actually be self-sufficient human beings who work for a living. It is much easier to tell people that for everything you can't afford the government will give to you for free. That sounds really f'n great to most people because you can't argue against free stuff. Companies give away free stuff all the time and no one will argue against it. I think a politician should just come out and say everything you want will be paid for by the government. End of story! That was we can move away from this losing argument and move on. Land of the FREE and home of the Occupy Anything movement.
Look in the mirror. There's your problem.
I am not sure how you would even attempt to justify that claim. Are you suggesting that Social Security isn't a "welfare" program? Because it is. So are all the other welfare programs.
If you get money from the government, for any purpose that you are not physically working to earn, it's a welfare program.
In other words, if you are entitled to money, that is taxed from some other persons paycheck.... it's a welfare program.
What is really funny about your post is.... you actually validated his entire position.
We spend about $600 billion on welfare.
We spend $1.2 trillion on tax expenditures. Literally twice as much as we spend on welfare.
I didn't see C. Powell's presentation.
What I did see, was the intelligence briefing by the CIA, which was investigated by the Democrats, and published the Rockefeller report.... in which, they said that nearly everything.... as in almost EVERYTHING, was supported by the intelligence data available at the time.
Now, if *YOU* were in charge, and you were given the information that Bush was given, and YOU had to determine what to do in that situation, being told what you were told... and you knew that if you did nothing, and Saddam did give WMDs, dirty bombs, or chemical or biological weapons to terrorist groups, which is exactly what the evidence and intelligence information AT THAT TIME SAID...... What would you do?
Hard question, given that if a chemical weapons goes off in a New York subway, and tens of thousands, or upward of a million people end up gassed.....
Pretty easy to sit on your high horse, from your arrogant position of zero responsibility, and clean "oh I would have know it was wrong, and not done anything".
Tad bit different when inaction on your part results in deaths.
Knowing what we know RIGHT NOW..... That would be different. But Bush didn't know in 2003, what we know in 2015.
It was the right move, given the information we had, at that time.
Maybe if Clinton had not reduced CIA spending, and put in place asinine rules that hindered information gathering.
Maybe if Bush Sr, had finished the job in 1991.
Maybe if we had never made an alliance with Kuwait.
But if you were in the office, in 2001, you had no control over the prior 20 years. You had the information that you had, and you had to make a decision.
Again, the Rockefeller report (which I have right here on my computer) makes it undeniably clear, that the information that Bush used, was the information that the intelligence community had at the time. PERIOD.
If you think that's wrong, then take up with your democrats who must have all being lying.
Gee, all of what you suggest is plausible, yet we didn't invade N. Korea which has nuclear capacity, but no oil.
I understand that nuclear weapons leave a signature, and that a dirty bomb can be forensically traced to a source. Maybe Kim da Krazy might try that, but the response to a nuclear attack on the US would result in the destruction of any nation which did so.
None of which changes the intelligence information that Bush had at that time.
Are you saying that if you were given tons of information, that all suggested that an enemy nation, which had already invaded one of your allies, and had been openly thwarting the UN inspections for over a decade..... That you would just assume "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything"?
That would just make you a pathetically bad leader.... or Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was warned over and over... Al Qaida is growing, they are planning to attack us.... you should do something. And Billy boy Clinton, did not believe the information, and said they wouldn't do anything.
He was warned in 1996. He was warned in 1998. In 2001, we found out the "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything" was wrong. Bill Clinton was a bad president.
If you take the same 'head-in-the-sand' approach, that would make you a bad president.
Bush did something, because he wasn't going to follow Clinton's incompetence.
And by the way, we found WMDs in Iraq. Contrary to the left-wing claim. He did have them. We have soldiers that had to be treated for chemical weapon exposures. And we also know the Russians removed a bunch.
So... who was really right in the end?
Bush & Co. engaged in fear mongering, the evidence of WMD's was weak, and the presentation by Powell was weaker. IMO, and I'm far from alone, Bush needed a war because he was the Commander-in-Chief when the most lethal attack on America occurred.
Cheney and the Neo Cons wanted a war with Iraq in the early 90's, when Bush I chose not to invade Iraq, and the PNAC statement of principles published in 1997 confirms such an agenda.
See the link below pay attention to those who signed the document and the place they held in Bush II's Administration:
http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement of principles.pdf
And yet according to the Rockefeller report, the evidence was all supported by the intelligence available at the time.
You can say whatever you want, and post whatever links you want... but the Rockefeller report, was an official congressional investigation into the intelligence information that led to the Iraq war.
Nothing have said, and nothing you have posted, changes those facts. You want to resort to insults? Fine. But that just proves that despite your claims, you are the one who can't respond to the facts.
Did you read the link?
Was the intelligence correct?
Did Iraq have anything to do with 911
Fear mongering is what I heard, nothing which supported our nation for the first time in her history going to war when we were not first attacked.
For the record:
http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement of principles.pdf
and,
Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gee, all of what you suggest is plausible, yet we didn't invade N. Korea which has nuclear capacity, but no oil.
I understand that nuclear weapons leave a signature, and that a dirty bomb can be forensically traced to a source. Maybe Kim da Krazy might try that, but the response to a nuclear attack on the US would result in the destruction of any nation which did so.
None of which changes the intelligence information that Bush had at that time.
Are you saying that if you were given tons of information, that all suggested that an enemy nation, which had already invaded one of your allies, and had been openly thwarting the UN inspections for over a decade..... That you would just assume "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything"?
That would just make you a pathetically bad leader.... or Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was warned over and over... Al Qaida is growing, they are planning to attack us.... you should do something. And Billy boy Clinton, did not believe the information, and said they wouldn't do anything.
He was warned in 1996. He was warned in 1998. In 2001, we found out the "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything" was wrong. Bill Clinton was a bad president.
If you take the same 'head-in-the-sand' approach, that would make you a bad president.
Bush did something, because he wasn't going to follow Clinton's incompetence.
And by the way, we found WMDs in Iraq. Contrary to the left-wing claim. He did have them. We have soldiers that had to be treated for chemical weapon exposures. And we also know the Russians removed a bunch.
So... who was really right in the end?
Bush & Co. engaged in fear mongering, the evidence of WMD's was weak, and the presentation by Powell was weaker. IMO, and I'm far from alone, Bush needed a war because he was the Commander-in-Chief when the most lethal attack on America occurred.
Cheney and the Neo Cons wanted a war with Iraq in the early 90's, when Bush I chose not to invade Iraq, and the PNAC statement of principles published in 1997 confirms such an agenda.
See the link below pay attention to those who signed the document and the place they held in Bush II's Administration:
http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement of principles.pdf
And yet according to the Rockefeller report, the evidence was all supported by the intelligence available at the time.
You can say whatever you want, and post whatever links you want... but the Rockefeller report, was an official congressional investigation into the intelligence information that led to the Iraq war.
Nothing have said, and nothing you have posted, changes those facts. You want to resort to insults? Fine. But that just proves that despite your claims, you are the one who can't respond to the facts.
Did you read the link?
Was the intelligence correct?
Did Iraq have anything to do with 911
Fear mongering is what I heard, nothing which supported our nation for the first time in her history going to war when we were not first attacked.
For the record:
http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement of principles.pdf
and,
Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ok.... and according to *YOUR LINK*..... This came from *YOUR* link........ Read it carefully.......
“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."
-Jay Rockefeller (DEMOCRAT)
There is no question, and never was a question, that the intelligence they relied on, was in fact flawed.
No one EVER SAID that it wasn't flawed. Or that there were no error, in retrospect.
But the fact is, they did not know that at the time. There is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.
Bush, and the Congress, did not lie. They did not know it was not accurate information.
If you were in Bush's spot, and they told you this information, and you assumed it was true, LIKE EVERYONE DID.... INCLUDING YOUR DEMOCRAPS.....
Then not doing anything, would make you as incompetent as Bill Clinton who ignored Al Qaeda, until we had 9/11.
Now since I've proved my entire point FROM YOUR LINK... YOUR CITATION... give it up. You are wrong. You proved YOURSELF wrong, by providing evidence that made my point. You lose.
Well yeah. I still believe it was the correct move, and if given the chance to do it all over again, I would vote to go into Iraq all over again. Granted I would plan for occupation, and I would disband the military, and I wouldn't try to de-bathification..
But yeah, you want to blame me for the Iraq war, Sure I'll own that. It was the right choice. We should have done better, but it was in fact the correct option.
You're wrong now and you would be wrong if this were the moment you watched - if you did - C. Powell's ridiculous presentation before the world on live TV.
That said you are not alone, yet I cannot imagine why someone today would defend this war of choice today knowing how thousands of people lost their lives, have life long wounds and the harm it did to our nation's image around the world.
I didn't see C. Powell's presentation.
What I did see, was the intelligence briefing by the CIA, which was investigated by the Democrats, and published the Rockefeller report.... in which, they said that nearly everything.... as in almost EVERYTHING, was supported by the intelligence data available at the time.
Now, if *YOU* were in charge, and you were given the information that Bush was given, and YOU had to determine what to do in that situation, being told what you were told... and you knew that if you did nothing, and Saddam did give WMDs, dirty bombs, or chemical or biological weapons to terrorist groups, which is exactly what the evidence and intelligence information AT THAT TIME SAID...... What would you do?
Hard question, given that if a chemical weapons goes off in a New York subway, and tens of thousands, or upward of a million people end up gassed.....
Pretty easy to sit on your high horse, from your arrogant position of zero responsibility, and clean "oh I would have know it was wrong, and not done anything".
Tad bit different when inaction on your part results in deaths.
Knowing what we know RIGHT NOW..... That would be different. But Bush didn't know in 2003, what we know in 2015.
It was the right move, given the information we had, at that time.
Maybe if Clinton had not reduced CIA spending, and put in place asinine rules that hindered information gathering.
Maybe if Bush Sr, had finished the job in 1991.
Maybe if we had never made an alliance with Kuwait.
But if you were in the office, in 2001, you had no control over the prior 20 years. You had the information that you had, and you had to make a decision.
Again, the Rockefeller report (which I have right here on my computer) makes it undeniably clear, that the information that Bush used, was the information that the intelligence community had at the time. PERIOD.
If you think that's wrong, then take up with your democrats who must have all being lying.
Gee, all of what you suggest is plausible, yet we didn't invade N. Korea which has nuclear capacity, but no oil.
I understand that nuclear weapons leave a signature, and that a dirty bomb can be forensically traced to a source. Maybe Kim da Krazy might try that, but the response to a nuclear attack on the US would result in the destruction of any nation which did so.
None of which changes the intelligence information that Bush had at that time.
Are you saying that if you were given tons of information, that all suggested that an enemy nation, which had already invaded one of your allies, and had been openly thwarting the UN inspections for over a decade..... That you would just assume "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything"?
That would just make you a pathetically bad leader.... or Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was warned over and over... Al Qaida is growing, they are planning to attack us.... you should do something. And Billy boy Clinton, did not believe the information, and said they wouldn't do anything.
He was warned in 1996. He was warned in 1998. In 2001, we found out the "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything" was wrong. Bill Clinton was a bad president.
If you take the same 'head-in-the-sand' approach, that would make you a bad president.
Bush did something, because he wasn't going to follow Clinton's incompetence.
And by the way, we found WMDs in Iraq. Contrary to the left-wing claim. He did have them. We have soldiers that had to be treated for chemical weapon exposures. And we also know the Russians removed a bunch.
So... who was really right in the end?
Bush & Co. engaged in fear mongering, the evidence of WMD's was weak, and the presentation by Powell was weaker. IMO, and I'm far from alone, Bush needed a war because he was the Commander-in-Chief when the most lethal attack on America occurred.
Cheney and the Neo Cons wanted a war with Iraq in the early 90's, when Bush I chose not to invade Iraq, and the PNAC statement of principles published in 1997 confirms such an agenda.
See the link below pay attention to those who signed the document and the place they held in Bush II's Administration:
http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement of principles.pdf
None of which changes the intelligence information that Bush had at that time.
Are you saying that if you were given tons of information, that all suggested that an enemy nation, which had already invaded one of your allies, and had been openly thwarting the UN inspections for over a decade..... That you would just assume "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything"?
That would just make you a pathetically bad leader.... or Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was warned over and over... Al Qaida is growing, they are planning to attack us.... you should do something. And Billy boy Clinton, did not believe the information, and said they wouldn't do anything.
He was warned in 1996. He was warned in 1998. In 2001, we found out the "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything" was wrong. Bill Clinton was a bad president.
If you take the same 'head-in-the-sand' approach, that would make you a bad president.
Bush did something, because he wasn't going to follow Clinton's incompetence.
And by the way, we found WMDs in Iraq. Contrary to the left-wing claim. He did have them. We have soldiers that had to be treated for chemical weapon exposures. And we also know the Russians removed a bunch.
So... who was really right in the end?
Bush & Co. engaged in fear mongering, the evidence of WMD's was weak, and the presentation by Powell was weaker. IMO, and I'm far from alone, Bush needed a war because he was the Commander-in-Chief when the most lethal attack on America occurred.
Cheney and the Neo Cons wanted a war with Iraq in the early 90's, when Bush I chose not to invade Iraq, and the PNAC statement of principles published in 1997 confirms such an agenda.
See the link below pay attention to those who signed the document and the place they held in Bush II's Administration:
http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement of principles.pdf
And yet according to the Rockefeller report, the evidence was all supported by the intelligence available at the time.
You can say whatever you want, and post whatever links you want... but the Rockefeller report, was an official congressional investigation into the intelligence information that led to the Iraq war.
Nothing have said, and nothing you have posted, changes those facts. You want to resort to insults? Fine. But that just proves that despite your claims, you are the one who can't respond to the facts.
Did you read the link?
Was the intelligence correct?
Did Iraq have anything to do with 911
Fear mongering is what I heard, nothing which supported our nation for the first time in her history going to war when we were not first attacked.
For the record:
http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement of principles.pdf
and,
Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ok.... and according to *YOUR LINK*..... This came from *YOUR* link........ Read it carefully.......
“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."
-Jay Rockefeller (DEMOCRAT)
There is no question, and never was a question, that the intelligence they relied on, was in fact flawed.
No one EVER SAID that it wasn't flawed. Or that there were no error, in retrospect.
But the fact is, they did not know that at the time. There is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.
Bush, and the Congress, did not lie. They did not know it was not accurate information.
If you were in Bush's spot, and they told you this information, and you assumed it was true, LIKE EVERYONE DID.... INCLUDING YOUR DEMOCRAPS.....
Then not doing anything, would make you as incompetent as Bill Clinton who ignored Al Qaeda, until we had 9/11.
Now since I've proved my entire point FROM YOUR LINK... YOUR CITATION... give it up. You are wrong. You proved YOURSELF wrong, by providing evidence that made my point. You lose.
Unlike you I watched Powell's dog and pony show.
At the time I was in a Hotel, released from a LE Mangers Conference to watch his presentation. The 30 or so other managers from around CA and I spent that afternoon discussing the evidence presented by Powell. Most, but not all, felt that he did not present the necessary or sufficient credible evidence to go to a court to request a warrant.
You're wrong now and you would be wrong if this were the moment you watched - if you did - C. Powell's ridiculous presentation before the world on live TV.
That said you are not alone, yet I cannot imagine why someone today would defend this war of choice today knowing how thousands of people lost their lives, have life long wounds and the harm it did to our nation's image around the world.
I didn't see C. Powell's presentation.
What I did see, was the intelligence briefing by the CIA, which was investigated by the Democrats, and published the Rockefeller report.... in which, they said that nearly everything.... as in almost EVERYTHING, was supported by the intelligence data available at the time.
Now, if *YOU* were in charge, and you were given the information that Bush was given, and YOU had to determine what to do in that situation, being told what you were told... and you knew that if you did nothing, and Saddam did give WMDs, dirty bombs, or chemical or biological weapons to terrorist groups, which is exactly what the evidence and intelligence information AT THAT TIME SAID...... What would you do?
Hard question, given that if a chemical weapons goes off in a New York subway, and tens of thousands, or upward of a million people end up gassed.....
Pretty easy to sit on your high horse, from your arrogant position of zero responsibility, and clean "oh I would have know it was wrong, and not done anything".
Tad bit different when inaction on your part results in deaths.
Knowing what we know RIGHT NOW..... That would be different. But Bush didn't know in 2003, what we know in 2015.
It was the right move, given the information we had, at that time.
Maybe if Clinton had not reduced CIA spending, and put in place asinine rules that hindered information gathering.
Maybe if Bush Sr, had finished the job in 1991.
Maybe if we had never made an alliance with Kuwait.
But if you were in the office, in 2001, you had no control over the prior 20 years. You had the information that you had, and you had to make a decision.
Again, the Rockefeller report (which I have right here on my computer) makes it undeniably clear, that the information that Bush used, was the information that the intelligence community had at the time. PERIOD.
If you think that's wrong, then take up with your democrats who must have all being lying.
Gee, all of what you suggest is plausible, yet we didn't invade N. Korea which has nuclear capacity, but no oil.
I understand that nuclear weapons leave a signature, and that a dirty bomb can be forensically traced to a source. Maybe Kim da Krazy might try that, but the response to a nuclear attack on the US would result in the destruction of any nation which did so.
None of which changes the intelligence information that Bush had at that time.
Are you saying that if you were given tons of information, that all suggested that an enemy nation, which had already invaded one of your allies, and had been openly thwarting the UN inspections for over a decade..... That you would just assume "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything"?
That would just make you a pathetically bad leader.... or Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was warned over and over... Al Qaida is growing, they are planning to attack us.... you should do something. And Billy boy Clinton, did not believe the information, and said they wouldn't do anything.
He was warned in 1996. He was warned in 1998. In 2001, we found out the "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything" was wrong. Bill Clinton was a bad president.
If you take the same 'head-in-the-sand' approach, that would make you a bad president.
Bush did something, because he wasn't going to follow Clinton's incompetence.
And by the way, we found WMDs in Iraq. Contrary to the left-wing claim. He did have them. We have soldiers that had to be treated for chemical weapon exposures. And we also know the Russians removed a bunch.
So... who was really right in the end?
Bush & Co. engaged in fear mongering, the evidence of WMD's was weak, and the presentation by Powell was weaker. IMO, and I'm far from alone, Bush needed a war because he was the Commander-in-Chief when the most lethal attack on America occurred.
Cheney and the Neo Cons wanted a war with Iraq in the early 90's, when Bush I chose not to invade Iraq, and the PNAC statement of principles published in 1997 confirms such an agenda.
See the link below pay attention to those who signed the document and the place they held in Bush II's Administration:
http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement of principles.pdf
Yeah, and I can make up the motivations of other too. That would make me a biased opinionated left-wing judgmental prick.
I don't care about your PNAC. I don't care about your tin foil hat conspiracy theory.
The Democrats, and Congress had a congressional investigation specifically into dealing with the statements made to the press, by the Bush White House. They concluded, along with most everyone, that based on the intelligence data at the time, the statements and claims made in justification for dealing with Iraq were supported by the intel we had at that time.
You can keep banging your head against that brick wall until you die. I don't care! Stay ignorant. Stay biased. Stay foolish and living in your fantasy. Whatever works for you buddy.
The facts are still the facts, and they don't change because you are a left-winger and want to blame everything on Bush.
Sorry. Reality doesn't change to meet your specific ideological demands.
Bush & Co. engaged in fear mongering, the evidence of WMD's was weak, and the presentation by Powell was weaker. IMO, and I'm far from alone, Bush needed a war because he was the Commander-in-Chief when the most lethal attack on America occurred.
Cheney and the Neo Cons wanted a war with Iraq in the early 90's, when Bush I chose not to invade Iraq, and the PNAC statement of principles published in 1997 confirms such an agenda.
See the link below pay attention to those who signed the document and the place they held in Bush II's Administration:
http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement of principles.pdf
And yet according to the Rockefeller report, the evidence was all supported by the intelligence available at the time.
You can say whatever you want, and post whatever links you want... but the Rockefeller report, was an official congressional investigation into the intelligence information that led to the Iraq war.
Nothing have said, and nothing you have posted, changes those facts. You want to resort to insults? Fine. But that just proves that despite your claims, you are the one who can't respond to the facts.
Did you read the link?
Was the intelligence correct?
Did Iraq have anything to do with 911
Fear mongering is what I heard, nothing which supported our nation for the first time in her history going to war when we were not first attacked.
For the record:
http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement of principles.pdf
and,
Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ok.... and according to *YOUR LINK*..... This came from *YOUR* link........ Read it carefully.......
“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."
-Jay Rockefeller (DEMOCRAT)
There is no question, and never was a question, that the intelligence they relied on, was in fact flawed.
No one EVER SAID that it wasn't flawed. Or that there were no error, in retrospect.
But the fact is, they did not know that at the time. There is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.
Bush, and the Congress, did not lie. They did not know it was not accurate information.
If you were in Bush's spot, and they told you this information, and you assumed it was true, LIKE EVERYONE DID.... INCLUDING YOUR DEMOCRAPS.....
Then not doing anything, would make you as incompetent as Bill Clinton who ignored Al Qaeda, until we had 9/11.
Now since I've proved my entire point FROM YOUR LINK... YOUR CITATION... give it up. You are wrong. You proved YOURSELF wrong, by providing evidence that made my point. You lose.
Unlike you I watched Powell's dog and pony show.
At the time I was in a Hotel, released from a LE Mangers Conference to watch his presentation. The 30 or so other managers from around CA and I spent that afternoon discussing the evidence presented by Powell. Most, but not all, felt that he did not present the necessary or sufficient credible evidence to go to a court to request a warrant.
Don't care. Why do you think that your anecdote determines reality?
1. The entire basis for going into Iraq, was not built on just the comments by Colin Powell.
2. We had an investigation. They sided with us, not you.
3. Another arm-chair, beer, potatoe-chip quarter back, thinks he and his Monday night football buddies, knows best what play should have been called in the 4th quarter.
Pretty easy to say others made the wrong call when no dirty bombs go off in the NY subway because of your incompetence. Can I second guess every choice you've made in your life? You'd be feaking out if I did that. "How dare you judge me! Christians are not allowed to judge" And whatever nonsense, right? But you... it's ok for you to do that to everyone... right?
I didn't see C. Powell's presentation.
What I did see, was the intelligence briefing by the CIA, which was investigated by the Democrats, and published the Rockefeller report.... in which, they said that nearly everything.... as in almost EVERYTHING, was supported by the intelligence data available at the time.
Now, if *YOU* were in charge, and you were given the information that Bush was given, and YOU had to determine what to do in that situation, being told what you were told... and you knew that if you did nothing, and Saddam did give WMDs, dirty bombs, or chemical or biological weapons to terrorist groups, which is exactly what the evidence and intelligence information AT THAT TIME SAID...... What would you do?
Hard question, given that if a chemical weapons goes off in a New York subway, and tens of thousands, or upward of a million people end up gassed.....
Pretty easy to sit on your high horse, from your arrogant position of zero responsibility, and clean "oh I would have know it was wrong, and not done anything".
Tad bit different when inaction on your part results in deaths.
Knowing what we know RIGHT NOW..... That would be different. But Bush didn't know in 2003, what we know in 2015.
It was the right move, given the information we had, at that time.
Maybe if Clinton had not reduced CIA spending, and put in place asinine rules that hindered information gathering.
Maybe if Bush Sr, had finished the job in 1991.
Maybe if we had never made an alliance with Kuwait.
But if you were in the office, in 2001, you had no control over the prior 20 years. You had the information that you had, and you had to make a decision.
Again, the Rockefeller report (which I have right here on my computer) makes it undeniably clear, that the information that Bush used, was the information that the intelligence community had at the time. PERIOD.
If you think that's wrong, then take up with your democrats who must have all being lying.
Gee, all of what you suggest is plausible, yet we didn't invade N. Korea which has nuclear capacity, but no oil.
I understand that nuclear weapons leave a signature, and that a dirty bomb can be forensically traced to a source. Maybe Kim da Krazy might try that, but the response to a nuclear attack on the US would result in the destruction of any nation which did so.
None of which changes the intelligence information that Bush had at that time.
Are you saying that if you were given tons of information, that all suggested that an enemy nation, which had already invaded one of your allies, and had been openly thwarting the UN inspections for over a decade..... That you would just assume "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything"?
That would just make you a pathetically bad leader.... or Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was warned over and over... Al Qaida is growing, they are planning to attack us.... you should do something. And Billy boy Clinton, did not believe the information, and said they wouldn't do anything.
He was warned in 1996. He was warned in 1998. In 2001, we found out the "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything" was wrong. Bill Clinton was a bad president.
If you take the same 'head-in-the-sand' approach, that would make you a bad president.
Bush did something, because he wasn't going to follow Clinton's incompetence.
And by the way, we found WMDs in Iraq. Contrary to the left-wing claim. He did have them. We have soldiers that had to be treated for chemical weapon exposures. And we also know the Russians removed a bunch.
So... who was really right in the end?
Bush & Co. engaged in fear mongering, the evidence of WMD's was weak, and the presentation by Powell was weaker. IMO, and I'm far from alone, Bush needed a war because he was the Commander-in-Chief when the most lethal attack on America occurred.
Cheney and the Neo Cons wanted a war with Iraq in the early 90's, when Bush I chose not to invade Iraq, and the PNAC statement of principles published in 1997 confirms such an agenda.
See the link below pay attention to those who signed the document and the place they held in Bush II's Administration:
http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement of principles.pdf
Yeah, and I can make up the motivations of other too. That would make me a biased opinionated left-wing judgmental prick.
I don't care about your PNAC. I don't care about your tin foil hat conspiracy theory.
The Democrats, and Congress had a congressional investigation specifically into dealing with the statements made to the press, by the Bush White House. They concluded, along with most everyone, that based on the intelligence data at the time, the statements and claims made in justification for dealing with Iraq were supported by the intel we had at that time.
You can keep banging your head against that brick wall until you die. I don't care! Stay ignorant. Stay biased. Stay foolish and living in your fantasy. Whatever works for you buddy.
The facts are still the facts, and they don't change because you are a left-winger and want to blame everything on Bush.
Sorry. Reality doesn't change to meet your specific ideological demands.
Well I'm convinced you're an ignorant asshole & totally brainwashed. I tried being civil but punks like yuo try my patience.
I'd once thought that you are one of the willfully ignorant, and thus dishonest. Which may still be true, but your rhetoric is more in line with fools, and those who engage in brinkmanship while hiding behind a keyboard.
Gee, all of what you suggest is plausible, yet we didn't invade N. Korea which has nuclear capacity, but no oil.
I understand that nuclear weapons leave a signature, and that a dirty bomb can be forensically traced to a source. Maybe Kim da Krazy might try that, but the response to a nuclear attack on the US would result in the destruction of any nation which did so.
None of which changes the intelligence information that Bush had at that time.
Are you saying that if you were given tons of information, that all suggested that an enemy nation, which had already invaded one of your allies, and had been openly thwarting the UN inspections for over a decade..... That you would just assume "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything"?
That would just make you a pathetically bad leader.... or Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was warned over and over... Al Qaida is growing, they are planning to attack us.... you should do something. And Billy boy Clinton, did not believe the information, and said they wouldn't do anything.
He was warned in 1996. He was warned in 1998. In 2001, we found out the "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything" was wrong. Bill Clinton was a bad president.
If you take the same 'head-in-the-sand' approach, that would make you a bad president.
Bush did something, because he wasn't going to follow Clinton's incompetence.
And by the way, we found WMDs in Iraq. Contrary to the left-wing claim. He did have them. We have soldiers that had to be treated for chemical weapon exposures. And we also know the Russians removed a bunch.
So... who was really right in the end?
Bush & Co. engaged in fear mongering, the evidence of WMD's was weak, and the presentation by Powell was weaker. IMO, and I'm far from alone, Bush needed a war because he was the Commander-in-Chief when the most lethal attack on America occurred.
Cheney and the Neo Cons wanted a war with Iraq in the early 90's, when Bush I chose not to invade Iraq, and the PNAC statement of principles published in 1997 confirms such an agenda.
See the link below pay attention to those who signed the document and the place they held in Bush II's Administration:
http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement of principles.pdf
Yeah, and I can make up the motivations of other too. That would make me a biased opinionated left-wing judgmental prick.
I don't care about your PNAC. I don't care about your tin foil hat conspiracy theory.
The Democrats, and Congress had a congressional investigation specifically into dealing with the statements made to the press, by the Bush White House. They concluded, along with most everyone, that based on the intelligence data at the time, the statements and claims made in justification for dealing with Iraq were supported by the intel we had at that time.
You can keep banging your head against that brick wall until you die. I don't care! Stay ignorant. Stay biased. Stay foolish and living in your fantasy. Whatever works for you buddy.
The facts are still the facts, and they don't change because you are a left-winger and want to blame everything on Bush.
Sorry. Reality doesn't change to meet your specific ideological demands.
Well I'm convinced you're an ignorant asshole & totally brainwashed. I tried being civil but punks like yuo try my patience.
I'd once thought that you are one of the willfully ignorant, and thus dishonest. Which may still be true, but your rhetoric is more in line with fools, and those who engage in brinkmanship while hiding behind a keyboard.
Oddly, the evidence was pretty conclusive that you are willfully ignorant and intentionally dishonest this entire thread. I had always assumed you were a brainwashed jerkoff since we started talking, and you've only made that more an established fact as we've gone along.
Well good bye little lemming of your overlords. Run back to your world of myths and ideology. I'm sure your unicorns are waiting. Ta ta!
