Would ANY Bush Basher care to refute these statements???

[jknowgood]

So if W is a liar, and Democrats said the same thing, it doesn't matter, they are both liars.

W pulled the trigger 3 months after he was given authorization to go to war if HE felt it necessary

The UN begged for more time.......Bush told them to fuck themselves

The UN was right

The UN "begged" for more time? You are FOS

UN weapons inspector Hans Blix informed Bush that he was finding no WMDs and that if given more time, he could prove it

Bush invaded before his excuse was gone

Bush gave Saddam plenty of time, you're an idiot.

What would have happened if he gave him two more years? ten more years?

6000 Americans would be alive today

Saddam was no threat

At one time neither was laden at one point.

 

[JimH52]

Bush, being a recovering alcoholic and having a Vice-President who had dollar signs in his eyes, had decided long before the inspections ever started that he was going to invade Iraq. And he would be a hero for his MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Are you making an excuse for a coke head saying he decimated Al-Qaida before the 2012 elections? Even though they were behind bengazi?

Has anyone called the recovering alcoholic to tell him Bin Laden is dead yet? He might still be looking on his ranch for him.....

He knows, it was his intelligence that what was needed to get laden. Thanks president Bush.

Of Course it was! You Sheeple just Crack me Up!

Bush spent nearly seven years looking for him and couldn't find him and after Obama has him killed, it was Bush's intelligence that did it? Bush and Intelligence are an oxymoron.

 

[jknowgood]

Bush, being a recovering alcoholic and having a Vice-President who had dollar signs in his eyes, had decided long before the inspections ever started that he was going to invade Iraq. And he would be a hero for his MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Are you making an excuse for a coke head saying he decimated Al-Qaida before the 2012 elections? Even though they were behind bengazi?

Has anyone called the recovering alcoholic to tell him Bin Laden is dead yet? He might still be looking on his ranch for him.....

He knows, it was his intelligence that what was needed to get laden. Thanks president Bush.

Of Course it was! You Sheeple just Crack me Up!

Bush spent nearly seven years looking for him and couldn't find him and after Obama has him killed, it was Bush's intelligence that did it? Bush and Intelligence are an oxymoron.

You dumb ass Leon Panetta said water boarding was used in gathering the intelligence to get laden. Obama swore his administration never used water boarding. So once again, thank you president Bush.

 

[healthmyths]

Bush, being a recovering alcoholic and having a Vice-President who had dollar signs in his eyes, had decided long before the inspections ever started that he was going to invade Iraq. And he would be a hero for his MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Are you making an excuse for a coke head saying he decimated Al-Qaida before the 2012 elections? Even though they were behind bengazi?

Has anyone called the recovering alcoholic to tell him Bin Laden is dead yet? He might still be looking on his ranch for him.....

He knows, it was his intelligence that what was needed to get laden. Thanks president Bush.

Of Course it was! You Sheeple just Crack me Up!

Bush spent nearly seven years looking for him and couldn't find him and after Obama has him killed, it was Bush's intelligence that did it? Bush and Intelligence are an oxymoron.

Now for the FACTS....which of course idiots like you will NOT acknowledge because:

A) you can't read something more then 30 words..
B) If you do read you won't understand most of the below because it requires a Gunning Fog index :13.11 i.e. 1 year of college reading level! But again something obviously WAY over your head!
Tests Document Readability

But [Obama's'] administration never would have had the opportunity to do the right thing had it not been for some extraordinary work during the George W. Bush administration.
Much of that work has been denigrated by Obama as unproductive and contrary to American principles.
[Obama] He is wrong on both counts.
The truth is that getting bin Laden was the top counterterrorism objective for U.S. intelligence since well before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. This administration built on work painstakingly pursued for many years before Obama was elected — and without this work, Obama administration officials never would have been in a position to authorize the strike on Abbottabad, Pakistan, that resulted in bin Laden’s overdue death.

In 2004, an al-Qaeda terrorist was captured trying to communicate with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of the terror organization’s operations in Iraq. That captured terrorist was taken to a secret CIA prison — or “black site” — where, initially, he was uncooperative. After being subjected to some “enhanced interrogation techniques” — techniques authorized by officials at the most senior levels of the U.S. government and that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel confirmed were consistent with U.S. law — the detainee became compliant. He was not one of the three al-Qaeda operatives who underwent waterboarding, the harshest of the hard measures.

Once this terrorist decided that non-cooperation was a non-starter, he told us many things — including that bin Laden had given up communicating via telephone, radio or Internet, and depended solely on a single courier who went by “Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti.” At the time, I was chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center. The fact that bin Laden was relying on a lone courier was a revelation that told me bin Laden had given up day-to-day control of his organization. You can’t run an operation as large, complex and ambitious as al-Qaeda by communicating only every few months. It also told me that capturing him would be even harder than we had thought.
The path to Osama bin Laden s death didn t start with Obama - The Washington Post

 

[kaz]

After 9-11, one of Bush's first priorities was to find a way to pin it on Saddam Hussein

I still can't get an answer to a basic question. What did Bush mean when he said Iraq was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. He said it in his State of the Union Address immediately following 9/11. Why hasn't any evidence ever been presented that this was a true statement? Why is it wrong to call his statement a lie?

Um, the State of the Union is delivered in January, not right after 9/11.

I searched the text of the 2002 State of the Union speech.

He used the word al Qaeda once, and it was in regard to the shoe bomber, not Iraq.

He used the word Iraq two times, in consecutive sentences. It was about Iraq and their general support of terrorism and WMDs.

So, what are you talking about?

You are correct. The lie was made in the 2003 address

www.thisnation.com/library/sotu/2003gwb.html

Paragraph 14 up from bottom of page.

youtube.com/watch?v=jTpZYH2x9-k

So a year and a half was "immediately following 9/11?"

Here's what he said, "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."

He didn't say anything about Saddam being involved in 9/11. He didn't even say Iraq helped al Qaeda. He said Iraq met with Al Qaeda and they "could" provide weapons to terrorists. What about that is remotely a "lie?"

I admitted I had my State of the Union Address's mixed up, but the fact remains, Bush said Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. Giving aid and protection means some level of collusion. Absolutely no evidence of collusion, aiding or protecting has ever been provided.

You used that to back up this claim of yours, "After 9-11, one of Bush's first priorities was to find a way to pin it on Saddam Hussein." Even when you figured out the right State of the Union, W didn't say that. He said Hussein "could" help al Qaeda commit terrorism. He made no link to 9/11 in that statement or even claimed Hussein had helped them. He said what you did in neither speech.

 

[kaz]

After 9-11, one of Bush's first priorities was to find a way to pin it on Saddam Hussein

And one of the Democrat's first priorities was to find a way to pin their actions on W. You're still doing it.

W pulled the trigger

So if W is a liar, and Democrats said the same thing, it doesn't matter, they are both liars.

W pulled the trigger 3 months after he was given authorization to go to war if HE felt it necessary

The UN begged for more time.......Bush told them to fuck themselves

The UN was right

Link?

RW doesn't respond to questions or provide links, he only demands them

 

[JimH52]

Bush and Cheney's impatience caused the death of thousands of Americans and an untold number of Iraqis. And we are paying for the war he couldn't ever pay for, even today. The world disagreed with W and DICK, but they pushed their war agenda with lies and fabrications. Everyone knows that.

Stop trying to defend Bush and figure out who, if anyone, can defeat Hillary in 2016. That is where your priorities should be.

 

[healthmyths]

Bush and Cheney's impatience caused the death of thousands of Americans and an untold number of Iraqis. And we are paying for the war he couldn't ever pay for, even today. The world disagreed with W and DICK, but they pushed their war agenda with lies and fabrications. Everyone knows that.

Stop trying to defend Bush and figure out who, if anyone, can defeat Hillary in 2016. That is where your priorities should be.

AND stop denying the FACTS!

Bush NEVER started the Liberation of Iraq!

The 1998 Liberation of Iraq, SIGNED by CLINTON, and the Congress passed Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)
"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
What part of "Authorization for USE of Military Force Against Iraq" do YOU NOT comprehend?

The WORLD didn't disagree... Democrats who FIRST pushed for removing Saddam..all before GWB did as well as the totally biased MSM!
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998

Then when ABC,CBS,NBC all ran daily body counts that was REALLY supportive.

PLEASE PLEASE REFUTE this study that showed people like you and the traitors below HELPED kill those troops by calling our troops "terrorists" cold blooded killers!

Finally I don't comprehend how people don't understand that when these statements are made...they HELPED prolong the war and no one yet here including YOU
have YET refuted this Harvard study that showed when statements like the below were made, violence INCREASED in iraq!

The Harvard Study asked: THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The resounding answer WAS YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent following what the researchers call "high-mention weeks," like the two just before the November 2006 election.
And these statements which idiots like YOU most likely agreed with did everything in the world to encourage recruit and reward the terrorists to continue.

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
NOTE: You are not that naive to think the terrorists didn't find Kerry calling OUR TROOPS terrorists absolutely EMBOLDENING???

Remember Kerry EARLIER wanted Bush to: "Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ....
to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ....
"Kerry , JanS. 23. 2003

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

 

[jknowgood]

Bush and Cheney's impatience caused the death of thousands of Americans and an untold number of Iraqis. And we are paying for the war he couldn't ever pay for, even today. The world disagreed with W and DICK, but they pushed their war agenda with lies and fabrications. Everyone knows that.

Stop trying to defend Bush and figure out who, if anyone, can defeat Hillary in 2016. That is where your priorities should be.

We couldn't afford to pay for the war? Well your guy has outspent all presidents combined. Where is your outrage?

 

[healthmyths]

Bush and Cheney's impatience caused the death of thousands of Americans and an untold number of Iraqis. And we are paying for the war he couldn't ever pay for, even today. The world disagreed with W and DICK, but they pushed their war agenda with lies and fabrications. Everyone knows that.

Stop trying to defend Bush and figure out who, if anyone, can defeat Hillary in 2016. That is where your priorities should be.

We couldn't afford to pay for the war? Well your guy has outspent all presidents combined. Where is your outrage?

FACTS to support your comment!
What major cataclysmic event has occurred during Obama that EQUALS the 4 gigantic events that touched EVERYONE in the USA? NOTHING to compare with
A) Dot.com bust... B) Recession... C) 9/11 3,000 deaths, worse then Pearl Harbor...D) Worst hurricane SEASONS....not just hurricanes! NOTHING of the equivalence!

Which President had the largest contributions to national debt due to deficits even after the above events???
Federal deficit falling to lowest in Obama presidency
Total deficits Obama will have $6,356,000,000,000 ($6.3 trillion)
Total Deficits BUSH had $3.294 trillion! Obama will have increased DEFICITS by 207%!!!

 

[jknowgood]

Bush and Cheney's impatience caused the death of thousands of Americans and an untold number of Iraqis. And we are paying for the war he couldn't ever pay for, even today. The world disagreed with W and DICK, but they pushed their war agenda with lies and fabrications. Everyone knows that.

Stop trying to defend Bush and figure out who, if anyone, can defeat Hillary in 2016. That is where your priorities should be.

We couldn't afford to pay for the war? Well your guy has outspent all presidents combined. Where is your outrage?

FACTS to support your comment!
What major cataclysmic event has occurred during Obama that EQUALS the 4 gigantic events that touched EVERYONE in the USA? NOTHING to compare with
A) Dot.com bust... B) Recession... C) 9/11 3,000 deaths, worse then Pearl Harbor...D) Worst hurricane SEASONS....not just hurricanes! NOTHING of the equivalence!

Which President had the largest contributions to national debt due to deficits even after the above events???
Federal deficit falling to lowest in Obama presidency
Total deficits Obama will have $6,356,000,000,000 ($6.3 trillion)
Total Deficits BUSH had $3.294 trillion! Obama will have increased DEFICITS by 207%!!!

You gonna send jim off to media matters for new talking points. Dang those facts! Lol

 

[JimH52]

Here are the facts. The recovering alcoholic screwed us for years to come.

http://www.newsweek.com/iraq-war-bushs-biggest-blunder-294411

The main premise for the war was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that these were at risk of falling into the hands of terrorists. In the end, however, there were no such weapons, and Saddam’s links to al Qaeda were unproven. This robbed the invasion of legitimacy.

Bush, the Cowboy from New England, is and was an idiot.

 

[healthmyths]

Here are the facts. The recovering alcoholic screwed us for years to come.

http://www.newsweek.com/iraq-war-bushs-biggest-blunder-294411

The main premise for the war was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that these were at risk of falling into the hands of terrorists. In the end, however, there were no such weapons, and Saddam’s links to al Qaeda were unproven. This robbed the invasion of legitimacy.

Bush, the Cowboy from New England, is and was an idiot.

But YOU are ignoring the point and FACTS!
Saddam for nearly five years let 576,000 children starve!
FACT:
The study also found steeply rising malnutrition among the young, suggesting that more children will be at risk in the coming years. The results of the survey will appear on Friday in The Lancet, the journal of the British Medical Association.
The sanctions were imposed by the Security Council after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Led by the United States, the Council has rejected many Iraqi appeals to lift the restrictions, which have crippled the economy, until Iraq accounts for all its weapons of mass destruction and United Nations inspectors can certify that they have been destroyed in accordance with several Council resolutions.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com
FACT: Blix et.al. were NOT ABLE to find WMDs in the areas Iraq allowed them to search!
FACT: All Saddam had to do was AGREE AND CERTIFY with Blix et.al. that WMDS had been destroyed and
1) The sanctions would be lifted and children wouldn't starve.
2) Saddam would most likely be alive today!
ALL Saddam need do is CERTIFY WMDs destroyed.
I am going to yell because YOU ALL don't seem to comprehend !!!
SADDAM did NOT certify! Therefore if the very person who would KNOW could prevent his capture and ultimate death i.e. SADDAM why in the
f...k did he not simply agree with Blix, et.al. and CERTIFY WMDs were destroyed?

CAN YOU answer that simple question?

 

[healthmyths]

It really isn't a complicated question!
If Saddam wanted to save his life and 576,000 children from starvation WHY didn't he simply agree that Iraq destroyed the WMDs?

 

[healthmyths]

I am waiting for someone to answer that simple question.
There are NO other arguments involved. NO one disputes Blix et.al. said they found no WMDs.
Then as Occam's razor --The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
Why would Saddam choose to be captured and hung when all he had to do was simply agree with Blix et.al. and CERTIFY the WMDs were destroyed?
Given the simple choice I can not understand why all these yelling about Bush lied,etc. is involved!
Saddam would rather die then agree the WMDs were destroyed!
THAT SIMPLE

 

[healthmyths]

By:
Tom Nichols is a professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College and an adjunct professor in the Harvard Extension School. He also taught at Dartmouth College, Georgetown University (where he also received his PhD), and other schools and lecture programs.

What follows is adapted from my 2008 book on preventive war, Eve of Destruction. Let’s be clear: if I knew this in 2006 and 2007 when the book was undergoing edits at a top university press, then it wasn’t a secret.
The fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton laid out the connection between Iraq, VX weapons, and Al Qaeda in 1998, and Clinton himself provided such a strong rationale for going to war against Hussein that the far left was ape shit distressed at his turn toward war mongering.

If you really want to know why we didn’t have a major (or major enough) debate on going to war in 2003, you might consider the degree to which senior members of the Democratic Party over 15 years ago had already sold their souls to support Clinton’s bellicose rhetoric, and thus were going to have a hard time explaining why they were then retreating on their own death-to-Saddam stuff only five years later without looking nakedly partisan.
So, Clinton lied?

No. Clinton and his people, including career diplomats and intelligence officers made their best guess. But in any case, the next time you hear the claim that Bush dreamed up the Iraq-WMD-Al Qaeda connection, you can correct the record and note that it was none other than the best and the brightest working for Bill Clinton who came up with that one, not Bush or Cheney. It doesn’t mean Bush doesn’t own the war, but it does point out that there was a lot greater unanimity in the view of Saddam’s Iraq as a threat to the U.S., even before 9/11.

Who started that story about Iraq WMDs and Al Qaeda That 8217 s right Bill Clinton. The War Room

 

[healthmyths]

I'm waiting for the Bush Bashers to refute or will it be a cold day in hell????
These Bush bashers are like rats in a cellar. When the LIGHT of FACTS turns on they scurry and scatter afraid of the truth and the light!

 

[Bfgrn]

Bush and Bush alone ordered the invasion. At the time, the UN was asking for more time to prove there were no WMDs
Bush attacked before his phony WMDS story could fall apart

The UN SANCTIONS put in place by the UN simply asked Saddam "please certify you don't have WMDs" continued while Saddam let 576,000 children starve!
In five years 576,000 children starved BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
The sanctions were imposed by the Security Council after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Led by the United States, the Council has rejected many Iraqi appeals to lift the restrictions, which have crippled the economy, until Iraq accounts for all its weapons of mass destruction and United Nations inspectors can certify that they have been destroyed in accordance with several Council resolutions.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

NOW you idiots tell me IF Saddam refused to CERTIFY and he obviously didn't care about the starving kids... would you believe he HAD WMDs?
Would you believe his son in law?
A) Saddam was not ready to say he had NO WMDs and willing to let 576,000 kids starve.
B) Saddam WAS proven by the Democrats to having used WMDs on his own people.
C) Saddam was proven to pay $25,000 for suicide terrorists.
D) Ask Saddam's son-in-law...oh wait you can't Saddam killed him when he went back to Iraq... good guy your buddy Saddam!
E) And of course you probably don't agree after 9/11 there was NO need to think Saddam was involved right?
F) Were you aware that Seven days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, anonymous letters laced with deadly anthrax spores began arriving at media companies and congressional offices. Over the ensuing months, five people died from inhaling anthrax and 17 others were infected after exposure. And of course you knew that your buddy Saddam HAD nothing to do with it...even Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.
And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

Oddly, Republicans claimed to invade because of UN sanctions

Yet, when that same UN asked them to hold off the invasion until more evidence came in........they ignored them

They invaded because of WMDs. No wait, it was oil. Um...it was UN sanctions. When you decide the reason they invaded, let me know...

OIL...says who?

Are you paying attention??? The plans to invade Iraq were already being discussed 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

What we NOW know from G.W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary, the invasion of Iraq was discussed 10 days into the administration.

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq

Going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq - CBS News

How utterly ignorant you are about what goes on at the Pentagon. I could find at least one document detailing the invasion and occupation of Canada and/or Mexico. That is what they do. Plan for contingencies that they hope they will never have to implement.[/QUOTE]

Hey pea brain...when those plans are distributed at a White House National Security Council meeting, it is no longer a 'contingency' plan.

The White House National Security Council (NSC) is the principal forum used by the President of the United States for considering national security and foreign policy matters with his senior national security advisors and Cabinet officials and is part of the Executive Office of the President of the United States.

 

[Bfgrn]

Maybe we should investigate how many has died under obamacare because they couldn't afford the deductible. I'm sure it would be more than one. Thanks for playing.

We could even say they paid for their obamacare and still died. Thanks Obama! See how that works dipshit?

Amazing they let retards post here.

Oh, so paul says it's all about freedom, taking your own risks. Then a staffer dies without insurance. It's Paul's fault?

On the other side, Obama forces someone to pay for insurance. Even though they can't afford the deductible they have to pay for it. Or get taxed at the end of the year. If they get sick, and cannot afford the deductible. Then dies? Nothing to see here, right? Hypocrite.

First of all, as a liberal I would have much preferred 'single payer' like most civilized industrial nations have for their citizens. My second choice would be a 'public option', where I could BUY into Medicare before the age of 65. Instead, we got the 1993-94 Republican healthcare plan, right down to the 'individual mandate'

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010
Republican Origins of Democratic Health Care Provision

'Instead, we got the 1993-94 Republican healthcare plan, right down to the 'individual mandate.'
If we did, we got it without a single Republican vote. LOL

Educate yourself. This former George W. Bush speechwriter was fired by a right wing think tank for revealing the truth...

Waterloo
David Frum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

 

[healthmyths]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question:
Why would Saddam resist certifying his WMDs were destroyed if it would save his control over Iraq and 100,000 starving children a year?