It's about time it was said

[Missourian]

Reposted for the cheap seats:

Is Biden lying?

Of course he's lying. The U.N. Weapons Inspectors (every one of them) repeatedly and persistently reported that there were no such weapons in Iraq. They were ignored by the Bush Administration.

Biden is lying to support his boss's wish to protect his predecessor. Why Obama is doing that I don't know, but whatever his reason it is unacceptable and dismally corrupt.

Read what the Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix, has to say about the WMD lies. Former UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal

Sorry Mike, the interview was in 2007...before the election while Biden was running for President.

No one to cover for and no reason to cover-up.

 

[maineman]

I, for one, have vowed to never vote for a democrat who voted for the war in Iraq unless he or she has publicly apologized for that vote.

An apology won't bring 4,000 dead American soldiers back to life.

nope...but it MIGHT win my vote. I voted for Kerry, only because he publicly expressed regret for his vote... I haven't voted for any other candidate in any election that voted for the use of force resolution.

 

[maineman]

Reposted for the cheap seats:

Is Biden lying?

Of course he's lying. The U.N. Weapons Inspectors (every one of them) repeatedly and persistently reported that there were no such weapons in Iraq. They were ignored by the Bush Administration.

Biden is lying to support his boss's wish to protect his predecessor. Why Obama is doing that I don't know, but whatever his reason it is unacceptable and dismally corrupt.

Read what the Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix, has to say about the WMD lies. Former UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal

Sorry Mike, the interview was in 2007...before the election while Biden was running for President.

No one to cover for and no reason to cover-up.

so.. are you saying that Hans Blix was lying?

 

[Missourian]

Of course he's lying. The U.N. Weapons Inspectors (every one of them) repeatedly and persistently reported that there were no such weapons in Iraq. They were ignored by the Bush Administration.

Biden is lying to support his boss's wish to protect his predecessor. Why Obama is doing that I don't know, but whatever his reason it is unacceptable and dismally corrupt.

Read what the Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix, has to say about the WMD lies. Former UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal

Sorry Mike, the interview was in 2007...before the election while Biden was running for President.

No one to cover for and no reason to cover-up.

so.. are you saying that Hans Blix was lying?

I can't say, since the article says nothing about Blix claiming there were no WMD's.

Nor do I know what cataloging Biden is referring to.

 

[txlonghorn]

we borrowed the money to run bush's pretend war of choice...

which led to our economic meltdown...

i think the president was more than nice to his predecessor.

WOW! That's the spin? $700 Billion borrowed over 7 years led to our economic meltdown? Ok, so riddle me this:

How did doubling that amount in one year work out?

you know very well it was spending like a drunken sailor on an unnecessary war and cutting taxes for rich people at the same time that was a massive part of the problem.

and it is ABSOLUTELY the reason we can't do the things we need to do now.

again, you can play stupid or you can acknowledge those facts. and i know you're not stupid.

God forbid you should mention Barney Franks lying ass and the push to lend to homebuyers who couldn't pay.

And I love how you dodged the 800 pd gorilla...what about the one year double down by Obama?

For the record, Bush didn't spend a dime without dems votes during the last 2 years of his term or for ALL the funding of war activity. So you can blame the "drunken sailor" all you want, but he had a ship full of drunken sailors walking in step...

 

[antagon]

After that classless speech by Obama, he makes Bush look good. I didn't think that was humanly possible. See something new every day.

Wow, are Democrats screwed in November.

yeah because this guy knows what class is all about.

 

[antagon]

we borrowed the money to run bush's pretend war of choice...

which led to our economic meltdown...

i think the president was more than nice to his predecessor.

I'm sorry......
What was that, again?

<>you think that the war budget is the only contribution being at war makes to federal expenditure in ratio to revenue?</>

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yellowcake Uranium Found In Iraq, Bush Was Right! Well, Not So Much | Crooks and Liars

July 05, 2008 08:30 PM
Yellowcake Uranium Found In Iraq, Bush Was Right! Well, Not So Much
By Logan Murphy


This article from the AP was posted yesterday, reporting the sale and transport of 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada. Some of the leading right wing blogs were quick to hail the find as a significant victory for the Bush administration and proof of Saddam's WMD program, but as Daniel De Groot at Open Left Points out, their celebrations may be a bit premature, if not dishonest:

I noted last night that a supply of uranium from Iraq had been successfully moved to Montreal in secrecy.

If you check into this, you'll quickly find that the uranium a) was not weapons grade and b) was well known to the UN and IAEA and was being stored legally by Saddam's government. It was legally in Iraq according to international law.

I wondered if the right wing echo chamber would use this as "proof" that the WMD claims were true after all. I got even better than I hoped, as not only do they use it that way, but they reveal how dishonest they are by the way they have done this.

I understand your mentally challenged and all and I really hate to take advantage of that fact. But huh... there were WMDS found in Iraq back in '03 and '04. I posted the links once already. Here's a website I believe you idiots use, so I'll use it.


Saddam's WMD have been found. New evidence unveils chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic arms.

The idiots that use it are conservatives!!! You big dope. In fact they are the people that claimed President Obama's birth certificate was a forgery!!! Are you nuts???? No self respecting liberal would frequent that rag.

This is what I don't understand about you left wing loons. You dismiss the article because of the website it was taken from and not once addressing the content of the article. Read the damn article and then produce an intelligent argument based on what you've read. I know it's not an easy thing for you idiot liberals to do, but please try.

 

[hortysir]

we borrowed the money to run bush's pretend war of choice...

which led to our economic meltdown...

i think the president was more than nice to his predecessor.

I'm sorry......
What was that, again?

<>you think that the war budget is the only contribution being at war makes to federal expenditure in ratio to revenue?</>

So you quote the CBO only when it suits your agenda?
Got it...

Then why, according to your dismissal, did the yellow segment not effect the red area until Obama took the helm?

 

[antagon]

WOW! That's the spin? $700 Billion borrowed over 7 years led to our economic meltdown? Ok, so riddle me this:

How did doubling that amount in one year work out?

you know very well it was spending like a drunken sailor on an unnecessary war and cutting taxes for rich people at the same time that was a massive part of the problem.

and it is ABSOLUTELY the reason we can't do the things we need to do now.

again, you can play stupid or you can acknowledge those facts. and i know you're not stupid.

God forbid you should mention Barney Franks lying ass and the push to lend to homebuyers who couldn't pay.

And I love how you dodged the 800 pd gorilla...what about the one year double down by Obama?

For the record, Bush didn't spend a dime without dems votes during the last 2 years of his term or for ALL the funding of war activity. So you can blame the "drunken sailor" all you want, but he had a ship full of drunken sailors walking in step...

some people dont care which party's to blame. for us, the defenses propped up by folks trying to protect any scrutiny of their party heroes looks stupid as dirt.

it is quite similar to the image portrayed by folks who think that the impact of deficit spending is the same at any point in the business cycle, or who fail to recognize that rates of interest at signing was the biggest factor in qualifying at-risk borrowers. the rates a few years later were the biggest contributors to their default.

partisans are too dense to see the correlation between this timeline and the timeline covering the majority of borrowing in the public sector to finance the war and a tax-cut based economic crest. they're too obstinate or ignorant to acknowledge the relationship between rates of interest on mortgages, particularly ARMs, and the velocity of treasury specie.

 

[antagon]

I'm sorry......
What was that, again?

<>you think that the war budget is the only contribution being at war makes to federal expenditure in ratio to revenue?</>

So you quote the CBO only when it suits your agenda?
Got it...

Then why, according to your dismissal, did the yellow segment not effect the red area until Obama took the helm?

because of the financial crisis and the fact that 'deficit' refers to budgets and the funding for the iraq war was off budget.

your bullshit graph indicates the iraq war spending superimposing the budget deficit in FY07, which was just short of $250billion whereas in that year the WoT budget is above and beyond that figure. after the bush admin, this was all incorporated in the general budget. following the steepest and deepest economic downturn since the great depression, if you were under a rock, the government has shelled out over a trillion in stimulus and economic recovery efforts recovery efforts.

<> when a lil' chart you found on the 'net claims that is a representation of the CBO's figures and 'US statisical abstract', that doesn't make it accurate.</>

 

[Samson]

<>you think that the war budget is the only contribution being at war makes to federal expenditure in ratio to revenue?</>

So you quote the CBO only when it suits your agenda?
Got it...

Then why, according to your dismissal, did the yellow segment not effect the red area until Obama took the helm?

because of the financial crisis and the fact that 'deficit' refers to budgets and the funding for the iraq war was off budget.

your bullshit graph indicates the iraq war spending superimposing the budget deficit in FY07, which was just short of $250billion whereas in that year the WoT budget is above and beyond that figure. after the bush admin, this was all incorporated in the general budget. following the steepest and deepest economic downturn since the great depression, if you were under a rock, the government has shelled out over a trillion in stimulus and economic recovery efforts recovery efforts.

<> when a lil' chart you found on the 'net claims that is a representation of the CBO's figures and 'US statisical abstract', that doesn't make it accurate.</>

Where's YOUR graph?

 

[Samson]

I, for one, have vowed to never vote for a democrat who voted for the war in Iraq unless he or she has publicly apologized for that vote.

An apology won't bring 4,000 dead American soldiers back to life.

nope...but it MIGHT win my vote. I voted for Kerry, only because he publicly expressed regret for his vote... I haven't voted for any other candidate in any election that voted for the use of force resolution.

So, you disagree that there was any democratic complicity with the war?

They've controlled congress for the past 6 years, and couldn't have ended it sooner?

Was Bush paying for it out of his own pocket?

 

[Cuyo]

we borrowed the money to run bush's pretend war of choice...

which led to our economic meltdown...

i think the president was more than nice to his predecessor.

I'm pretty sure that the soldiers coming home in body bags and their families don't think there is anything at all pretend about it.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to a poor choice of words.

when i say pretend war of choice, i'm referring to the reasons given for starting it... all of which were pretend.

Occupation of choice. Calling it a "War" grants too much legitimacy, too much innuendo that it might have been in any way necessary. Declaring "War on Terror" is no less ridiculous than if Harry Truman had declared "War on U-boat attacks."

 

[antagon]

So you quote the CBO only when it suits your agenda?
Got it...

Then why, according to your dismissal, did the yellow segment not effect the red area until Obama took the helm?

because of the financial crisis and the fact that 'deficit' refers to budgets and the funding for the iraq war was off budget.

your bullshit graph indicates the iraq war spending superimposing the budget deficit in FY07, which was just short of $250billion whereas in that year the WoT budget is above and beyond that figure. after the bush admin, this was all incorporated in the general budget. following the steepest and deepest economic downturn since the great depression, if you were under a rock, the government has shelled out over a trillion in stimulus and economic recovery efforts recovery efforts.

<> when a lil' chart you found on the 'net claims that is a representation of the CBO's figures and 'US statisical abstract', that doesn't make it accurate.</>

Where's YOUR graph?

sorry, samson, i know a pretty picture would be more readily digestible for ya, but i dont have a partisan spin-blog like the one i suspect horty sourced his bogus chart from. just imagine one which doesn't subtract discretionary and emergency discretionary expenditure from the budget deficit in the way this one undoubtedly does. it would be one that adds discretionary funding on top of the deficit, similarly to how it effects the debt and the real world.

 

[MikeK]

Sorry Mike, the interview was in 2007...before the election while Biden was running for President.

No one to cover for and no reason to cover-up.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Samson]

because of the financial crisis and the fact that 'deficit' refers to budgets and the funding for the iraq war was off budget.

your bullshit graph indicates the iraq war spending superimposing the budget deficit in FY07, which was just short of $250billion whereas in that year the WoT budget is above and beyond that figure. after the bush admin, this was all incorporated in the general budget. following the steepest and deepest economic downturn since the great depression, if you were under a rock, the government has shelled out over a trillion in stimulus and economic recovery efforts recovery efforts.

<> when a lil' chart you found on the 'net claims that is a representation of the CBO's figures and 'US statisical abstract', that doesn't make it accurate.</>

Where's YOUR graph?

sorry, samson, i know a pretty picture would be more readily digestible for ya, but i dont have a partisan spin-blog like the one i suspect horty sourced his bogus chart from. just imagine one which doesn't subtract discretionary and emergency discretionary expenditure from the budget deficit in the way this one undoubtedly does. it would be one that adds discretionary funding on top of the deficit, similarly to how it effects the debt and the real world.

Well, that IS the purpose of Any graph: to more clearly describe numerical functions and comparisons.

My guess is Your graph doesn't exist because:

1. you don't have the numbers you claim, or

2. because the socialist pinheads that suscribe to Nevell Chaimberlain's Fanclub never made it past Algebra I.

 

[Barb]

Its always easy to borrow $1 Trillion for a trumped up war that killed 4400 soldiers and injured tens of thousands.

Ask for money to provide healthcare for American Citizens and the rightwing screams poverty

The Democrat party could have voted no to any part of the war.....no to use of force...no to funding it....
Yeh it is about time it was said.....

And it is this very simple point that scares the shit out of them.

And it should.

HOW does it "scare the shit" out of us when many of us have pointed out that the democrats at the national level were craven pussies looking after nothing but their future employment? HOW???

 

[hortysir]

<>you think that the war budget is the only contribution being at war makes to federal expenditure in ratio to revenue?</>

So you quote the CBO only when it suits your agenda?
Got it...

Then why, according to your dismissal, did the yellow segment not effect the red area until Obama took the helm?

because of the financial crisis and the fact that 'deficit' refers to budgets and the funding for the iraq war was off budget.

your bullshit graph indicates the iraq war spending superimposing the budget deficit in FY07, which was just short of $250billion whereas in that year the WoT budget is above and beyond that figure. after the bush admin, this was all incorporated in the general budget. following the steepest and deepest economic downturn since the great depression, if you were under a rock, the government has shelled out over a trillion in stimulus and economic recovery efforts recovery efforts.

<> when a lil' chart you found on the 'net claims that is a representation of the CBO's figures and 'US statisical abstract', that doesn't make it accurate.</>

******
In 2009, debt held by the public jumped from $5.8 trillion to $7.5 trillion. CBO projects that by the end of 2010, that figure will rise to $8.8 trillion—at 60 percent of GDP, the highest level since 1952. Under the assumptions of the baseline, federal debt is projected to continue its upward climb, reaching $15 trillion (67 percent of GDP) by the end of 2020. With such a large increase in debt, plus an expected rise in interest rates as the economic recovery strengthens, interest payments on the debt are likely to skyrocket. CBO projects that the government’s annual net interest spending will more than triple between 2010 and 2020 in nominal terms (from $207 billion a year to $723 billion) and will more than double as a share of GDP (from 1.4 percent to 3.2 percent).2
**********************
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Chapter1.shtml

Face it. Your hero, Barack, is (not so) gradually making shit worse.

Do a search for "cbo federal deficits with and without iraq war" and you'll find another thread, in this forum, about it with collaborating links.

 

[Oddball]

I'm pretty sure that the soldiers coming home in body bags and their families don't think there is anything at all pretend about it.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to a poor choice of words.

when i say pretend war of choice, i'm referring to the reasons given for starting it... all of which were pretend.

Occupation of choice. Calling it a "War" grants too much legitimacy, too much innuendo that it might have been in any way necessary. Declaring "War on Terror" is no less ridiculous than if Harry Truman had declared "War on U-boat attacks."

Or if LBJ had declared an equally ridiculous "war on poverty", ne'est pas? .