who here still thinks we weren't lied to about entering iraq

[rdean]

....

The Republican party has been taken over by the extreme right wing. ... Anti science. ....

Without addressing the rest of the bullshit in your post, stop playing at knowing what you are talking about:

Here is a summary of the federal expenditures for scientific research and development during the time that president was in office*:

Eisenhower [R] –-- 177% increase in federal expenditures for scientific R&D

Kennedy [D] (during his tragically short time in office) –-- 25.9% increase

Johnson [D] –-- 18.9% increase

Nixon [R] –-- 17.1% decrease

Ford [R] –-- 1.41% increase

Carter [D] –-- 9.90% increase

Reagan [R] –-- 43.1% increase

GHW Bush [R] –-- 11.2% decrease

Clinton [D] –-- 5.82% decrease

GW Bush [R] –-- 23.8% increase

So, it appears that, regardless of the party in office, some cuts occurred and some fabulous increases occurred. No matter how much one may want to vilify one party, it doesn’t appear as if the facts will support it. My apologies for any dashed hopes of making this a partisan issue.




* Data obtained from here: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbri...17/figure3.xls

There's more.

2004 R&D Expenditures (to academia, for example; in millions of dollars)

DHHS --- 14,083.356
NSF --- 3,231.597
DoD --- 2,477.556
NASA --- 1,098.480
DOE --- 940.268
USDA --- 760.970

2005

DHHS --- 15,869.380
NSF --- 3,553.672
DoD --- 2,614.734
NASA --- 1,130.168
DOE --- 1,055.302
USDA --- 814.067

2006

DHHS --- 17,052.404
NSF --- 3,567.011
DoD --- 2,718.166
DOE --- 1,118.454
NASA --- 1,046.891
USDA --- 868.891

nsf.gov - SRS Federal R&D Funding Down in FY 2007 - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

This is the post-doubling period, too. There is plenty of data available from the NSF. There is not much partisan about the spending trends in the sciences.

Man, you are just too funny for words. You know how they say, "Liars figure and figures lie"? You are the example.

First off, Kennedy doesn't count because his budget was actually used for "science". The next three highest:

Eisenhower [R]
Reagan [R]
GW Bush [R]

These guys weren't spending for "science", they were spending on science to develop weapons. Yea, weapons of mass destruction. Like "Stars Wars" and other crap that doesn't work.

To call Bush a "friend of science" is laughable. There was an enormous exodus of scientists from the Bush administration because he tried to pressure them into changing their data to match administration policy. In other words, "to lie". This has been reported in every science and engineering magazine for his entire eight years. Get real. Stop fooling yourself. Get your head out of your...

USA Today Examines Relationship Between U.S. Scientists, Bush Administration

Scientists: Bush Distorts Science

The Bush administration has distorted scientific fact leading to policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry, a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement on Wednesday.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization, also issued a 37-page report, "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking," detailing the accusations. The statement and the report both accuse the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing findings that contradict administration policies, stacking panels with like-minded and underqualified scientists with ties to industry, and eliminating some advisory committees altogether.

The scientists listed various policy issues as being unfairly influenced by the administration, including those concerning climate change, mercury emissions, reproductive health, lead poisoning in children, workplace safety and nuclear weapons. New regulations and laws are necessary to fix the situation, the statement says.

Dan Froomkin - Bush v. Science - washingtonpost.com

Bush Says Creation 'Not Incompatible' With Evolution - Political News - FOXNews.com

 

[rdean]

....

The Republican party has been taken over by the extreme right wing. ... Anti science. ....

Without addressing the rest of the bullshit in your post, stop playing at knowing what you are talking about:

Here is a summary of the federal expenditures for scientific research and development during the time that president was in office*:

Eisenhower [R] –-- 177% increase in federal expenditures for scientific R&D

Kennedy [D] (during his tragically short time in office) –-- 25.9% increase

Johnson [D] –-- 18.9% increase

Nixon [R] –-- 17.1% decrease

Ford [R] –-- 1.41% increase

Carter [D] –-- 9.90% increase

Reagan [R] –-- 43.1% increase

GHW Bush [R] –-- 11.2% decrease

Clinton [D] –-- 5.82% decrease

GW Bush [R] –-- 23.8% increase

So, it appears that, regardless of the party in office, some cuts occurred and some fabulous increases occurred. No matter how much one may want to vilify one party, it doesn’t appear as if the facts will support it. My apologies for any dashed hopes of making this a partisan issue.




* Data obtained from here: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbri...17/figure3.xls

There's more.

2004 R&D Expenditures (to academia, for example; in millions of dollars)

DHHS --- 14,083.356
NSF --- 3,231.597
DoD --- 2,477.556
NASA --- 1,098.480
DOE --- 940.268
USDA --- 760.970

2005

DHHS --- 15,869.380
NSF --- 3,553.672
DoD --- 2,614.734
NASA --- 1,130.168
DOE --- 1,055.302
USDA --- 814.067

2006

DHHS --- 17,052.404
NSF --- 3,567.011
DoD --- 2,718.166
DOE --- 1,118.454
NASA --- 1,046.891
USDA --- 868.891

nsf.gov - SRS Federal R&D Funding Down in FY 2007 - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

This is the post-doubling period, too. There is plenty of data available from the NSF. There is not much partisan about the spending trends in the sciences.

You have a lot of nerve posting such rational and objective data. How dare you.

Read my post. You could learn something.

 

[Si modo]

....

The Republican party has been taken over by the extreme right wing. ... Anti science. ....

Without addressing the rest of the bullshit in your post, stop playing at knowing what you are talking about:

Here is a summary of the federal expenditures for scientific research and development during the time that president was in office*:

Eisenhower [R] –-- 177% increase in federal expenditures for scientific R&D

Kennedy [D] (during his tragically short time in office) –-- 25.9% increase

Johnson [D] –-- 18.9% increase

Nixon [R] –-- 17.1% decrease

Ford [R] –-- 1.41% increase

Carter [D] –-- 9.90% increase

Reagan [R] –-- 43.1% increase

GHW Bush [R] –-- 11.2% decrease

Clinton [D] –-- 5.82% decrease

GW Bush [R] –-- 23.8% increase

So, it appears that, regardless of the party in office, some cuts occurred and some fabulous increases occurred. No matter how much one may want to vilify one party, it doesn’t appear as if the facts will support it. My apologies for any dashed hopes of making this a partisan issue.




* Data obtained from here: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbri...17/figure3.xls

There's more.

2004 R&D Expenditures (to academia, for example; in millions of dollars)

DHHS --- 14,083.356
NSF --- 3,231.597
DoD --- 2,477.556
NASA --- 1,098.480
DOE --- 940.268
USDA --- 760.970

2005

DHHS --- 15,869.380
NSF --- 3,553.672
DoD --- 2,614.734
NASA --- 1,130.168
DOE --- 1,055.302
USDA --- 814.067

2006

DHHS --- 17,052.404
NSF --- 3,567.011
DoD --- 2,718.166
DOE --- 1,118.454
NASA --- 1,046.891
USDA --- 868.891

nsf.gov - SRS Federal R&D Funding Down in FY 2007 - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

This is the post-doubling period, too. There is plenty of data available from the NSF. There is not much partisan about the spending trends in the sciences.

Man, you are just too funny for words. You know how they say, "Liars figure and figures lie"? You are the example.

First off, Kennedy doesn't count because his budget was actually used for "science". The next three highest:

Eisenhower [R]
Reagan [R]
GW Bush [R]

These guys weren't spending for "science", they were spending on science to develop weapons. Yea, weapons of mass destruction. Like "Stars Wars" and other crap that doesn't work.

To call Bush a "friend of science" is laughable. There was an enormous exodus of scientists from the Bush administration because he tried to pressure them into changing their data to match administration policy. In other words, "to lie". This has been reported in every science and engineering magazine for his entire eight years. Get real. Stop fooling yourself. Get your head out of your...

USA Today Examines Relationship Between U.S. Scientists, Bush Administration

Scientists: Bush Distorts Science

The Bush administration has distorted scientific fact leading to policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry, a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement on Wednesday.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization, also issued a 37-page report, "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking," detailing the accusations. The statement and the report both accuse the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing findings that contradict administration policies, stacking panels with like-minded and underqualified scientists with ties to industry, and eliminating some advisory committees altogether.

The scientists listed various policy issues as being unfairly influenced by the administration, including those concerning climate change, mercury emissions, reproductive health, lead poisoning in children, workplace safety and nuclear weapons. New regulations and laws are necessary to fix the situation, the statement says.

Dan Froomkin - Bush v. Science - washingtonpost.com

Bush Says Creation 'Not Incompatible' With Evolution - Political News - FOXNews.com

LMAO. Don't play at shit you don't know a thing about. It's cringeworthy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bush, Cheney, et al were operating from a dark mindset from the get go, even before 9-11. Driven by adventurist political philosophy, the bingo gang were looking for a reason to extend American military influence into the Middle East in such a way to guarantee our energy sources there and to terrify our enemies. "Democracy" and "freedom" were follow on arguments because WMDs were not found.

This has been the worst American foreign policy disaster in our history. BHO is slowly healing it. The progress on Iran and the probablility eventually of meaningful sanctions are the proof in the pudding.

 

[rdean]

Without addressing the rest of the bullshit in your post, stop playing at knowing what you are talking about:

Here is a summary of the federal expenditures for scientific research and development during the time that president was in office*:

Eisenhower [R] –-- 177% increase in federal expenditures for scientific R&D

Kennedy [D] (during his tragically short time in office) –-- 25.9% increase

Johnson [D] –-- 18.9% increase

Nixon [R] –-- 17.1% decrease

Ford [R] –-- 1.41% increase

Carter [D] –-- 9.90% increase

Reagan [R] –-- 43.1% increase

GHW Bush [R] –-- 11.2% decrease

Clinton [D] –-- 5.82% decrease

GW Bush [R] –-- 23.8% increase

So, it appears that, regardless of the party in office, some cuts occurred and some fabulous increases occurred. No matter how much one may want to vilify one party, it doesn’t appear as if the facts will support it. My apologies for any dashed hopes of making this a partisan issue.




* Data obtained from here: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbri...17/figure3.xls

There's more.

2004 R&D Expenditures (to academia, for example; in millions of dollars)

DHHS --- 14,083.356
NSF --- 3,231.597
DoD --- 2,477.556
NASA --- 1,098.480
DOE --- 940.268
USDA --- 760.970

2005

DHHS --- 15,869.380
NSF --- 3,553.672
DoD --- 2,614.734
NASA --- 1,130.168
DOE --- 1,055.302
USDA --- 814.067

2006

DHHS --- 17,052.404
NSF --- 3,567.011
DoD --- 2,718.166
DOE --- 1,118.454
NASA --- 1,046.891
USDA --- 868.891

nsf.gov - SRS Federal R&D Funding Down in FY 2007 - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

This is the post-doubling period, too. There is plenty of data available from the NSF. There is not much partisan about the spending trends in the sciences.

Man, you are just too funny for words. You know how they say, "Liars figure and figures lie"? You are the example.

First off, Kennedy doesn't count because his budget was actually used for "science". The next three highest:

Eisenhower [R]
Reagan [R]
GW Bush [R]

These guys weren't spending for "science", they were spending on science to develop weapons. Yea, weapons of mass destruction. Like "Stars Wars" and other crap that doesn't work.

To call Bush a "friend of science" is laughable. There was an enormous exodus of scientists from the Bush administration because he tried to pressure them into changing their data to match administration policy. In other words, "to lie". This has been reported in every science and engineering magazine for his entire eight years. Get real. Stop fooling yourself. Get your head out of your...

USA Today Examines Relationship Between U.S. Scientists, Bush Administration

Scientists: Bush Distorts Science

The Bush administration has distorted scientific fact leading to policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry, a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement on Wednesday.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization, also issued a 37-page report, "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking," detailing the accusations. The statement and the report both accuse the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing findings that contradict administration policies, stacking panels with like-minded and underqualified scientists with ties to industry, and eliminating some advisory committees altogether.
The scientists listed various policy issues as being unfairly influenced by the administration, including those concerning climate change, mercury emissions, reproductive health, lead poisoning in children, workplace safety and nuclear weapons. New regulations and laws are necessary to fix the situation, the statement says.

Dan Froomkin - Bush v. Science - washingtonpost.com

Bush Says Creation 'Not Incompatible' With Evolution - Political News - FOXNews.com

LMAO. Don't play at shit you don't know a thing about. It's cringeworthy.

That's you that hasn't a clue. You didn't even read anything. Scientists complained about Bush for his entire 8 years. Bush even wanted to push "magical creation".

 

[Si modo]

Bush, Cheney, et al were operating from a dark mindset from the get go, even before 9-11. Driven by adventurist political philosophy, the bingo gang were looking for a reason to extend American military influence into the Middle East in such a way to guarantee our energy sources there and to terrify our enemies. "Democracy" and "freedom" were follow on arguments because WMDs were not found.

This has been the worst American foreign policy disaster in our history. BHO is slowly healing it. The progress on Iran and the probablility eventually of meaningful sanctions are the proof in the pudding.

Worst? Not in my opinion, but your first paragraph is reasonable and applies to the Clinton administration as well.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Man, you are just too funny for words. You know how they say, "Liars figure and figures lie"? You are the example.

First off, Kennedy doesn't count because his budget was actually used for "science". The next three highest:

Eisenhower [R]
Reagan [R]
GW Bush [R]

These guys weren't spending for "science", they were spending on science to develop weapons. Yea, weapons of mass destruction. Like "Stars Wars" and other crap that doesn't work.

To call Bush a "friend of science" is laughable. There was an enormous exodus of scientists from the Bush administration because he tried to pressure them into changing their data to match administration policy. In other words, "to lie". This has been reported in every science and engineering magazine for his entire eight years. Get real. Stop fooling yourself. Get your head out of your...

USA Today Examines Relationship Between U.S. Scientists, Bush Administration

Scientists: Bush Distorts Science

The Bush administration has distorted scientific fact leading to policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry, a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement on Wednesday.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization, also issued a 37-page report, "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking," detailing the accusations. The statement and the report both accuse the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing findings that contradict administration policies, stacking panels with like-minded and underqualified scientists with ties to industry, and eliminating some advisory committees altogether.

The scientists listed various policy issues as being unfairly influenced by the administration, including those concerning climate change, mercury emissions, reproductive health, lead poisoning in children, workplace safety and nuclear weapons. New regulations and laws are necessary to fix the situation, the statement says.

Dan Froomkin - Bush v. Science - washingtonpost.com

Bush Says Creation 'Not Incompatible' With Evolution - Political News - FOXNews.com

LMAO. Don't play at shit you don't know a thing about. It's cringeworthy.

That's you that hasn't a clue. You didn't even read anything. Scientists complained about Bush for his entire 8 years. Bush even wanted to push "magical creation".

What does former President Bush's belief in creation have to do with the issue of war? Nothing. More deflection.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Rdead, word of advice:

Stop.

Yer embarrassing yerself.




(b-b-b-b-b-but they didn't spend money on the right KIND of science.....lol).

 

[Si modo]

Man, you are just too funny for words. You know how they say, "Liars figure and figures lie"? You are the example.

First off, Kennedy doesn't count because his budget was actually used for "science". The next three highest:

Eisenhower [R]
Reagan [R]
GW Bush [R]

These guys weren't spending for "science", they were spending on science to develop weapons. Yea, weapons of mass destruction. Like "Stars Wars" and other crap that doesn't work.

To call Bush a "friend of science" is laughable. There was an enormous exodus of scientists from the Bush administration because he tried to pressure them into changing their data to match administration policy. In other words, "to lie". This has been reported in every science and engineering magazine for his entire eight years. Get real. Stop fooling yourself. Get your head out of your...

USA Today Examines Relationship Between U.S. Scientists, Bush Administration

Scientists: Bush Distorts Science

The Bush administration has distorted scientific fact leading to policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry, a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement on Wednesday.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization, also issued a 37-page report, "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking," detailing the accusations. The statement and the report both accuse the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing findings that contradict administration policies, stacking panels with like-minded and underqualified scientists with ties to industry, and eliminating some advisory committees altogether.
The scientists listed various policy issues as being unfairly influenced by the administration, including those concerning climate change, mercury emissions, reproductive health, lead poisoning in children, workplace safety and nuclear weapons. New regulations and laws are necessary to fix the situation, the statement says.

Dan Froomkin - Bush v. Science - washingtonpost.com

Bush Says Creation 'Not Incompatible' With Evolution - Political News - FOXNews.com

LMAO. Don't play at shit you don't know a thing about. It's cringeworthy.

That's you that hasn't a clue. You didn't even read anything. Scientists complained about Bush for his entire 8 years. Bush even wanted to push "magical creation".

Your assumptions about what I've read or not are idiotic. I've seen all that you've presented on government spending in the sciences before and far, far more. I've discussed this topic with far brighter and better informed partisans than you. I've presented data from the sources themselves as I prefer to think for myself. You prefer to have others think for you. That's lazy.

This has nothing to do with the intel in Iraq. You brought up your irrelevant off-topic emotional idiocy; I presented facts - not someone else's thoughts. Now, make a post that actually addresses the topic of the thread and do try to focus on that topic. I'd be oh so pleased to continue this conversation about governement spending in the sciences with you elsewhere. I am not convinced that you could even focus on that, but it would be my pleasure to do so.

 

[mudwhistle]

Being lied to and deceived are not necessarily the same thing.

So were we lied to? No.

Deceived? Yup.

Yes but whom was the deceiver?

That is debatable.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Being lied to and deceived are not necessarily the same thing.

So were we lied to? No.

Deceived? Yup.

Yes but whom was the deceiver?

That is debatable.

Damn near everyone involved. All after their own personal agenda.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.

There were no claims of Iraq and 9/11. Further there were no claims that Iraq was an imminent threat. We invaded because, and this has been proven, Iraq was a threat in the future. France, Russia and China were working to lift sanctions and Saddam Hussein was poised to resume Chemical and Biological mass production as well as nuclear research for the bomb.

 

[rubberhead]

I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.

There were no claims of Iraq and 9/11. Further there were no claims that Iraq was an imminent threat. We invaded because, and this has been proven, Iraq was a threat in the future. France, Russia and China were working to lift sanctions and Saddam Hussein was poised to resume Chemical and Biological mass production as well as nuclear research for the bomb.

Here is an example of the lunatic fringe that I was talking about. Yes, some people still believe that this war made sense. What does one say to someone who is so deluded. There are many nations who may be a threat in the future. This is why we must return our forces to our borders and start enforcing our immigration policy and actually defend our country for a change.

 

[Si modo]

I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.

There were no claims of Iraq and 9/11. Further there were no claims that Iraq was an imminent threat. We invaded because, and this has been proven, Iraq was a threat in the future. France, Russia and China were working to lift sanctions and Saddam Hussein was poised to resume Chemical and Biological mass production as well as nuclear research for the bomb.

Here is an example of the lunatic fringe that I was talking about. Yes, some people still believe that this war made sense. What does one say to someone who is so deluded. There are many nations who may be a threat in the future. This is why we must return our forces to our borders and start enforcing our immigration policy and actually defend our country for a change.

I'm wondering if you've even read any of the analyses of the IC, domestic and international, leading up to the invasion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bush, Cheney, et al were operating from a dark mindset from the get go, even before 9-11. Driven by adventurist political philosophy, the bingo gang were looking for a reason to extend American military influence into the Middle East in such a way to guarantee our energy sources there and to terrify our enemies. "Democracy" and "freedom" were follow on arguments because WMDs were not found.

This has been the worst American foreign policy disaster in our history. BHO is slowly healing it. The progress on Iran and the probablility eventually of meaningful sanctions are the proof in the pudding.

Worst? Not in my opinion, but your first paragraph is reasonable and applies to the Clinton administration as well.

Both paragraphs are dead on, and Clinton's admin was far more successful than Bush's with foreign policy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.

There were no claims of Iraq and 9/11. Further there were no claims that Iraq was an imminent threat. We invaded because, and this has been proven, Iraq was a threat in the future. France, Russia and China were working to lift sanctions and Saddam Hussein was poised to resume Chemical and Biological mass production as well as nuclear research for the bomb.

Retired is revising history, not accurately recounting it. Let's move on.

 

[Si modo]

Bush, Cheney, et al were operating from a dark mindset from the get go, even before 9-11. Driven by adventurist political philosophy, the bingo gang were looking for a reason to extend American military influence into the Middle East in such a way to guarantee our energy sources there and to terrify our enemies. "Democracy" and "freedom" were follow on arguments because WMDs were not found.

This has been the worst American foreign policy disaster in our history. BHO is slowly healing it. The progress on Iran and the probablility eventually of meaningful sanctions are the proof in the pudding.

Worst? Not in my opinion, but your first paragraph is reasonable and applies to the Clinton administration as well.

Both paragraphs are dead on, and Clinton's admin was far more successful than Bush's with foreign policy.

Hmmm. As 'worst' is purely subjective, there is no such thing as 'dead on'. But if that makes you feel better, I'm all for the emotional feeling good. And, I find it interesting that you assume that my post implied that the Clinton admin was worse at foreign policy than that of GWB's.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

 

[rdean]

LMAO. Don't play at shit you don't know a thing about. It's cringeworthy.

That's you that hasn't a clue. You didn't even read anything. Scientists complained about Bush for his entire 8 years. Bush even wanted to push "magical creation".

What does former President Bush's belief in creation have to do with the issue of war? Nothing. More deflection.

I made the statement:

My feeling is that it's hard to point blame. America voted Bush into office. He was under qualified for the job. It was way over his head. The Republican party has been taken over by the extreme right wing. Anti education. Anti science. This was the "perfect storm". Can it really be someones "fault" if they were stupid to begin with?

Then it was someone else who laughably suggested Bush was "pro science".

So what could be the connection? If you are so stupid that you believe in "mystical creation", then it's extremely possible that you could be misled into attacking another country without provocation and without understanding the consequences.

Besides, what we did to Iraq wasn't "war". We leveled a country. It takes two sides for a war.

War: a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

There was no war "between" us.

 

[Si modo]

That's you that hasn't a clue. You didn't even read anything. Scientists complained about Bush for his entire 8 years. Bush even wanted to push "magical creation".

What does former President Bush's belief in creation have to do with the issue of war? Nothing. More deflection.

I made the statement:

My feeling is that it's hard to point blame. America voted Bush into office. He was under qualified for the job. It was way over his head. The Republican party has been taken over by the extreme right wing. Anti education. Anti science. This was the "perfect storm". Can it really be someones "fault" if they were stupid to begin with?

Then it was someone else who laughably suggested Bush was "pro science".

So what could be the connection? If you are so stupid that you believe in "mystical creation", then it's extremely possible that you could be misled into attacking another country without provocation and without understanding the consequences.

Besides, what we did to Iraq wasn't "war". We leveled a country. It takes two sides for a war.

War: a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

There was no war "between" us.

Too afraid to start your own thread on government spencing on the sciences? Focus on the fucking topic at hand. I realize most concepts challenge you, but I am hoping the simplicity of this one will actually appeal to one of your two brain cells.