Another Republican Goes Wingnutty
Texas Republican Pete Sessions, Chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, says Obama wants unemployment and stock numbers to be down.
In an interview, Mr. Sessions cited rising unemployment in asserting that the administration intended to “diminish employment and diminish stock prices” as part of a “divide and conquer” strategy to consolidate power.
Mr. Sessions, in his seventh term, said Mr. Obama’s agenda was “intended to inflict damage and hardship on the free enterprise system, if not to kill it.”
So, let me get this straight: According to the Republican House leadership, Obama wants America to fail. And the NRCC is backing Sessions, making an incomprehensible argument:
NRCC spokesperson Ken Spain stood by Sessions’ comment in an e-mail to the Plum Line’s Greg Sargent, claiming that he was “was simply reiterating what many members of the Democratic Party have echoed over the past several weeks, which is that one-party dominance in Washington has further damaged our economy and undercut our country’s free enterprise system.”
I’m curious to know what members of the Democratic Party are making that claim. Maybe Sessions is confusing Democrats with Rush Limbaugh, who fully agrees with him, who emphasizes that that Obama’s objective is to increase unemployment, food stamps, and the welfare state (h/t Think Progress).
LIMBAUGH: As the economy performs worse than expected, the deficit for the 2010 budget year beginning in October will worsen by $87 billion to $1.3 trillion. The deterioration reflects lower tax revenues and higher costs for bank failures, unemployment benefits and food stamps. But in the Oval Office of the White House none of this is a problem. This is the objective. The objective is unemployment. The objective is more food stamp benefits. The objective is more unemployment benefits. The objective is an expanding welfare state. And the objective is to take the nation’s wealth and return to it to the nation’s quote, “rightful owners.” Think reparations. Think forced reparations here if you want to understand what actually is going on.
To all my fellow American conservative brothers and sisters. Quit kissing his ass and any1 defending this man,is kissing his fat bottom and lovin it!
May 11th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Put a polo shirt on the ass end of a babboon and you get the spitting image — and audio– of Flush Limburger.
Since everything started going to hell under Bush Jr.’s watch, how’s unemployment and economic downturn Obama’s aim?
If anything, the markets have improved in the past 5 months. Fixing 8 years won’t happen quickly– it might take more than, say, two years even. But the break in fear-mongering alone has been worth it.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 11th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
SARAH,
The fear-mongering you refer to…came by way of the democratic party, yes?
TDro319 Reply:
May 11th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Nope. That is not fear-mongering by the democrats, Jared. They were the facts.
Now, fearmongering would be something like, “But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
or maybe, “We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge.”
average james Reply:
May 11th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Jared,
You can’t be serious man. That’s a tongue in cheek joke right ?
Sarah Reply:
May 11th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
“The fear-mongering you refer to…came by way of the democratic party, yes?”
Nope. I speak of the fear-mongering of the Republican Party.
“9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!”
“Iraq’s got WMD’s!”
“Better vote Republican or those terrorists will win!”
“Terrorist Alert: Orange!”
“The world is a more dangerous place ever since Obama was elected.”
“You’ll die if we get universal healthcare!”
“Social Security is bankrupt! Better privatize it!”
“Those immigrants are ruining EVERYTHING!”
“Obama’s a muslim!”
“Obama hangs out with terrorists!”
“Obama’s gonna take your guns!”
“Obama chases babies around delivery rooms with a hatchet, trying to kill ‘em!”
“Everyone’s taxes will go sky-high with Obama!”
“Our children will be destitute trying to pay for this debt!”
“This hurricane/flood/disease is a punishment from God!”
“Ew, gross! Keep gays away from my children!”
“If we approve gay marriage, polygamy and bestiality won’t be far behind!”
“Evolution takes God out of our schools!”
“WE NEED TO TAKE OUR FEARS SERIOUSLY!”
It was a democrat who said….
THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO FEAR, IS FEAR ITSELF.
Truer words never spoken for these times.
TDro319 Reply:
May 11th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
You’re right, Sarah. I forgot about Obama heing/hanging out with terrorists.
Of course my favorite is from the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this [9/11 attacks] happen.’”
Sarah Reply:
May 11th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Oh yeah, and don’t forget Katrina, when one of those neocons claimed New Orleans was being punished for its decadent ways.
If that were so, wonder why God left the French Quarter relatively unscathed.
RDM Reply:
May 11th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
The French Quarter is the highest ground in New Orleans. The Indians told the French where to build the city and also where not to build. But no one listened. For a city below sea level what could you expect. When the levees broke the French Quarter was naturally the safest place.
Sarah Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Neat, RDM. Thanks for the history lesson. I love that town.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 7:38 am
SARAH, et al,
huh…
“9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!”
What about 9/11 was fear mongering?
“Iraq’s got WMD’s!”
That’s what George Tenet said…didn’t he?
“Better vote Republican or those terrorists will win!”
I only heard this come from the left-wing spin machine…you must be so proud…
“Terrorist Alert: Orange!”
For good reason too…or did you not think an imminent attack was plausible considering the intelligence we had? Hmm…so you think YOU know better than our intelligence agencies? Interesting…
“You’ll die if we get universal healthcare!”
I’ve never heard this…who said this?
“Social Security is bankrupt! Better privatize it!”
No shit?! SS is bankrupt?? Well…it is…”innit”?
“Those immigrants are ruining EVERYTHING!”
Once again…I’ve never heard this.
“Obama hangs out with terrorists!”
Didn’t he? Or don’t you agree than Bill Ayers was a domestic terrorist?
“Obama’s gonna take your guns!”
Obama himself said he was a proponent for gun control. Or did you miss that one?
“Obama chases babies around delivery rooms with a hatchet, trying to kill ‘em!”
Obama advocates late-term abortion.
“Everyone’s taxes will go sky-high with Obama!”
True statement…cap and trade…look it up.
“Our children will be destitute trying to pay for this debt!”
With an almost $10T debt over the next decade…it’s easy to see how this comment can be formed.
“This hurricane/flood/disease is a punishment from God!”
Some people may think so…but it’s hardly indicative of the entire conservative movement.
“Ew, gross! Keep gays away from my children!”
People have a right to be concerned about who hangs around their children.
“If we approve gay marriage, polygamy and bestiality won’t be far behind!”
News flash…polygamy and beastiality are already here.
“Evolution takes God out of our schools!”
Doesn’t it?
“WE NEED TO TAKE OUR FEARS SERIOUSLY!”
Don’t we?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 7:46 am
SARAH,
Yes…let’s talk about Katrina and how those libs blamed the Bush machine for literally creating the hurricane and sending into New Orleans to kill black people.
Yeah…it’s only the conservatives who gin up fear.
Or how ’bout this:
“We need to pass this stimulus bill RIGHT NOW or ELSE!!!”
“If McCain-Palin get in, this will be the last true American election.”
Sarah Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 10:42 am
That all ya got?
TDro319 Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
“We need to pass this stimulus bill RIGHT NOW or ELSE!!!”
I forgot one – Hank Paulson during the Bush Administration that we better bail out the banks OR ELSE!!!!!!!!!!
TDro319 Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
“We need to pass this stimulus bill RIGHT NOW or ELSE!!!”
I forgot to mention, the economist (you know, the people who know a thing or two about the economy) told Obama that.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 8:13 am
SARAH,
Nice try…but no dice.
“9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!”
What’s wrong with learning from the past? What’s fear-mongering about 9/11?
“Iraq’s got WMD’s!”
That’s what George Tenet said…didn’t he?
“Better vote Republican or those terrorists will win!”
Nah…this was left-wing spin machine in overdrive.
“Terrorist Alert: Orange!”
Raising the threat level due to a perceived threat is fear-mongering? Huh…so, would increasing a weather warning level be fear-mongering? You prepare for the possibility of an occurrence before it happens…not during or after.
“You’ll die if we get universal healthcare!”
I’ve not heard this…did you just make it up?
“Social Security is bankrupt! Better privatize it!”
Well…isn’t it bankrupt?
“Obama hangs out with terrorists!”
Didn’t he? Or do you not consider Ayers a domestic terrorist?
“Obama’s gonna take your guns!”
Obama is an advocate of gun control…again…where’s the fear mongering?
“Obama chases babies around delivery rooms with a hatchet, trying to kill ‘em!”
Obama is an advocate of late-term abortion
“Everyone’s taxes will go sky-high with Obama!”
cap and trade…read up on it…
“Our children will be destitute trying to pay for this debt!”
considering we’re facing a $10TRILLION debt over the next decade…I’d say this is a good possibility.
“Ew, gross! Keep gays away from my children!”
And what’s wrong with limiting exposure to people you find unsavory?
“If we approve gay marriage, polygamy and bestiality won’t be far behind!”
News flash…polygamy and bestiality are already here.
“Evolution takes God out of our schools!”
Doesn’t it?
“WE NEED TO TAKE OUR FEARS SERIOUSLY!”
don’t we?
Sarah Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Thanks, Jared, for being the winning contestant of Neocon Fear Factor. You passed with flying colors! Yay!
You win a ticket to the grand opening of Bush’s anonymously-financed library, a lifetime supply of motor oil, a security system by Halliburton, and a case of Turtle Wax for your humvee. Congratulations!
:)
OldLefty Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 8:13 am
SARAH,
Nice try…but no dice.
< “9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!”
What’s wrong with learning from the past? What’s fear-mongering about 9/11?
………………………………………………………
How is that learning from the past?
“Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower
THAT would be learning from the past.
< “Iraq’s got WMD’s!”
That’s what George Tenet said…didn’t he?
…………………………………………..
That’s why he got the medal of freedom , then got the heck out of there
< “Better vote Republican or those terrorists will win!”
Nah…this was left-wing spin machine in overdrive.
…………………………………………..
That’s STRICTLY a matter of opinion…sounded an awful lot like:
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”
< “Terrorist Alert: Orange!”
Raising the threat level due to a perceived threat is fear-mongering? Huh…so, would increasing a weather warning level be fear-mongering? You prepare for the possibility of an occurrence before it happens…not during or after.
…………………………………………..
Tom Ridge admitted it was used for political reasons.
“You’ll die if we get universal healthcare!”
I’ve not heard this…did you just make it up?
…………………………………………..
Really have nothing to say.
< “Social Security is bankrupt! Better privatize it!”
Well…isn’t it bankrupt?
…………………………………………..
Social Security faces no immediate crisis but a serious, though manageable, long-term financing problem. According to Social Security Administration (SSA) actuaries, even with no changes, Social Security can pay full benefits through 2041. After that date, Social Security can pay 74 percent of promised benefits.
“Obama hangs out with terrorists!”
Didn’t he? Or do you not consider Ayers a domestic terrorist?
…………………………………………..
Obama and all the other Republicans who served on the board with Ayres.
Over the long haul, Bush’s long financial relationship with the bin Ladin family and Prince Bandar Bush,and their support of the BCCI probably deserves the accusations of hanging out with terrorists than Obama/Ayres
< “Obama’s gonna take your guns!”
Obama is an advocate of gun control…again…where’s the fear mongering?
…………………………………………..
Gun control in major cities, as per request of police does not equal “take your guns away” any more than wiretapping translates to rendering those speak against the government ….both are hysterical fear mongering.
< “Obama chases babies around delivery rooms with a hatchet, trying to kill ‘em!”
Obama is an advocate of late-term abortion
…………………………………………..
Obama believes The Supreme Court determined that “only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define what constitutes “health” and when a fetus is viable…and states cannot require additional physicians to confirm the physician’s judgment that the woman’s life or health is at risk.”
< “Everyone’s taxes will go sky-high with Obama!”
cap and trade…read up on it…
…………………………………………..
If it’s actually true, sometime a society decides that some thing ARE worth paying for. The GOP seemed to think that ALL private contractors who flocked to Iraq deserved taxpayer money.
< “Our children will be destitute trying to pay for this debt!”
considering we’re facing a $10TRILLION debt over the next decade…I’d say this is a good possibility.
…………………………………………..
We on the left have been complaining about that for 8 years, now it’s too late to complain about how expensive the damage is.
< “Ew, gross! Keep gays away from my children!”
And what’s wrong with limiting exposure to people you find unsavory?
…………………………………………..
I can’t protect my kids from the dad who used to come to the high school soccer games and say to anyone who would listen ,”We gotta go over there and kill all those A rabs, or the guy who walks around the street passing out flyers saying they will go to hell.
“If we approve gay marriage, polygamy and bestiality won’t be far behind!”
News flash…polygamy and bestiality are already here.
…………………………………………..
True , but always has been, and has nothing to do with gay marriage.
The far right guy who is running for governor of Georgia Mr Horsely, (you can’t make this stuff up,) told Alan Colmes he had sex with his mule.
< Evolution takes God out of our schools!”
Doesn’t it?
…………………………………………..
God belongs in your home and church, not school
< “WE NEED TO TAKE OUR FEARS SERIOUSLY!”
don’t we?
…………………………………………..
What evidence is there that they do?
flap Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Sarah, you aggravate me sometimes but that post was hilarious…I honestly laughed out loud. Very nice. :D
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
SARAH,
You laugh at me for responding to your post…but how easy was it for you to jump on the left-wing bandwagon, huh?
Pat yourself on the back for believing everything the left-wing machine tells you.
Here’s some more dem fear-mongering:
90% of all weapons in Mexico come from the US!
If we don’t fix the economy NOW, then the US will fall into another great depression!
“Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,”
“I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now,” Biden said when Matt Lauer asked whether he would advise family members to use public transportation.
Let me know if you need more…
flap Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
And I wasn’t casting aspersions at you, Jared…you made an excellent response to those quasi-strawman lines.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
OLD LEFTY,
Two things from your explanations/justifications:
< “Everyone’s taxes will go sky-high with Obama!”
cap and trade…read up on it…
…………………………………………..
If it’s actually true, sometime a society decides that some thing ARE worth paying for. The GOP seemed to think that ALL private contractors who flocked to Iraq deserved taxpayer money.
Unfortunately for you…”society” has not decided they’d want to pay an extra $3K/year in increased energy costs…it’s ONLY the democrats pushing this agenda. nevermind that 99% of Americans use non-renewable energy sources.
< “Our children will be destitute trying to pay for this debt!”
considering we’re facing a $10TRILLION debt over the next decade…I’d say this is a good possibility.
…………………………………………..
We on the left have been complaining about that for 8 years, now it’s too late to complain about how expensive the damage is.
This is weak…really weak. The difference in the deficit Obama got on 20 Jan 2009…and the deficit he’ll have 20 Jan 2010 is 4 TIMES Bush’s. You’re gonna sit there all day and point the finger at Bush’s administration for out of control spending…and not at all acknowledge the spending Obama is doing? C’mon!
And I’ve heard over and over again how Obama has to spend money to get out from under Bush’s policies…but no one wants to realize that the Democrats helped get us where we are. Period.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
FLAP,
No offense taken…I even chuckled a bit…
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 3:02 am
“I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this [9/11 attacks] happen.’”
—
considering that much of the reason that the middle east hates us is due to extreme secularization and the glorification of these life styles, it’s not an entirely retarded thing to say…just slightly retarded.
EricG Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
That’s such crazy horse poop, Guido. That’s not why the Middle East hates us. That’s why conservatives hate their fellow Americans. That’s why so-called religious people hate people in the community.
Also you are completely wrong if you think this society and this culture ‘glorifies’ paganism, abortion, homosexuality, etc.
More people are intolerant than not. People of many different experiences tell me of bigotry and hatred from their peers for simply into being straight, Christian, status-quo, etc.
Personally, I think what you said is retarded. Fully retarded.
We need to be realistic about why the Middle East hates us. It’s the troops, silly.
ACLU and all that Sessions spoke out against is what is good with America.
It is a shame that conservatives and Republicans want to take away the glory and the freedom of this nation.
EricG Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
“their peers for simply into being straight, Christian, status-quo, etc.”
*not being straight, Christian, etc
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 3:28 am
so why did they hate us before the troops were there???
We are “infidels” to them, our glorified abhorrent lifestyle (to them) is a massive reason why they hate us…look into it a bit, do a google search.
Have you ever watched Bravo? E!? TV Guide Channel, ever walked through a grocery store checkout stand? We glorify these things on a daily basis…look from their perspective, from their beliefs…they see us as morally depraved infidels.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 3:40 am
GUIDO,
didn’t you know it’s Bush and the Republicans that have single-handedly “created” the muslim threat to the US and its interests?
How short-term our memories seem to be…but then again…it’s much easier to point a finger than to do your homework.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 3:46 am
yes…all problems were created in January of 2000…before then, we had no problems.
Daddio Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 7:34 am
Eric, you continue to show how ignorant you can be. The Muslims hate us because our troops are there? HOW REDICULOUS A STATEMENT!!!!
They basically hate anything that isn’t of the Muslim faith. They have called us “infidels” for years. They hate us for our lifestyle. They hate us because we are an ally with Israel. They hate us simply because we are Americans.
I know you think they just started hating us on January 20, 2001, but that is just not so.
OldLefty Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 7:55 am
GuidoVanHorn said, so why did they hate us before the troops were there???
Osama bin Ladin, specifically has hated us ever since the “infidel, Saddam invaded Kuwait, bin Ladin offered to repeal him with his Mujahideen, (Army of God), which we trained and armed in Afganistan, and was patted on the head by the Saudi royals, and told, “That’s OK, we’ve got the Americans here”….It’s in his fatwa.
Those like Ayman al-Zawahiri, hate us because ,(again, as we supported the Muslin brotherhood over secular leaders, and helped to strengthen the jihadists), they see us as standing in the way of their coming to rule in their countries.
The Arab street hates the US government for overthrowing democracies,(like Mossadegh in 1953) and supporting dictators.
Back in the eighties, Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan complained that we were “feeding this jihadist Frankenstein”.
Sometimes it requires looking more that the first layer of the onion.
And before we get the “blame America first” response…..That’s a great tool to keep citizens from taking responsibility for what is done by their government in their name.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 8:00 am
are you also denying that YOUR lifestyle isn’t part of the reason that Arab Muslims hate us.
All of those things are part of the equation, but to deny that the infidel morally depraved sentiment doesn’t exist is lying to everyone and yourself.
May 11th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
More fun than a barrel of hopped up monkeys!
Sarah Reply:
May 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Spider monkeys hopped up on Mountain Dew!
OldLefty Reply:
May 11th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
“Spider monkeys”…Wow.
Did any see the video of the Orangutan Short-Circuits Wires, Builds Ladder In Zoo Escape?
Daddio Reply:
May 11th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Whose relative would that be Lefty?
craig7120 Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 10:30 am
lol yeah those damn disgusting apes, wheres my gun?!
something Charleton Heston would say.
Sarah Reply:
May 11th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Didn’t see it, but I have a friend whose wife worked at a zoo. Apparently, it’s major stuff when the ‘tans escape.
May 11th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
This is no surprise. The sane republicans will be either retiring in 2010 or running for the hills. The leftovers might start their own party, “The brown shirts for America”.
May 11th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
“…one-party dominance in Washington has…damaged our economy and undercut our country’s free enterprise system.”
Correct.
And the republicans did that because, like Machiavelli, they believe that the best government enacts laws to keep it’s citizens impoverished.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 7:49 am
ROCKY,
they believe that the best government enacts laws to keep it’s citizens impoverished.
And what laws did the republicans pass to keep its citizens in the poor house? Oh yeah? Made that up, did ya?
EricG Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
The Bush Tax Cuts and Trickle Down Economy would be two examples. Let the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That seems the Republican Plan for America considering they hate social programs and offer no solutions.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
ERIC,
for the love of God, man…Bush spent more on social programs than did Clinton…just so you know…as a matter of fact…all presidents have outspent their predecessors in funding for social programs.
do your own research instead of regurgitating what you hear on TV, my friend. You’ll be surprised at what you find.
Sarah Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Maybe Rocky meant to say “acts.” Republican acts.
Like, Gramm-Bililey-Leach. NAFTA. Contract on America. Fighting minimum wage increases. Fighting reforms in health care. Preventing cheaper overseas prescriptions. Serving only those who are rich enough to bribe, er, lobbby them.
Increasing spending, but cutting taxes, so that eventually, Democrats have to do the dirty work and raise taxes to pay for the Republican tab (not, mind you, that the Democrats aren’t guilty of wild spending, either).
That kinda stuff.
May 11th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
LIMBAUGH as quoted by Limbaugh: As the economy performs worse than expected, the deficit for the 2010 budget year beginning in October will worsen by $87 billion to $1.3 trillion.
From McClatchy WASHINGTON — The White House on Monday projected 2009 and 2010 federal budget deficits far higher than it forecast just two and a half months ago, even as it continued to defy most experts and predict that the economy is headed for a strong comeback starting late this year.
Economists scoffed at the latest administration predictions.
“If they keep playing this game, they’re going to have real credibility problems,” predicted Brian Bethune, the chief U.S. financial economist at IHS Global Insight, an economic research firm.
The new administration budget said that the fiscal 2009 deficit would reach $1.84 trillion, or $89 billion more than forecast in February, while the 2010 figure now is estimated at $1.26 trillion, or $87 billion above the previous number. The fiscal 2008 deficit was $459 billion.
The new figures dwarf the $17 billion in budget reductions and program terminations that President Barack Obama proposed with a flourish last week, reductions that Congress is unlikely to approve in full.
Kregg Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 10:07 am
LIMBAUGH as quoted by Limbaugh
K: Well, I guess we could try to get the quote straight – Limbaugh as quoted by Alan…
EricG Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
This kind of sums up what Limbaugh does on the air. He throws out some real facts on politics and the economy and then shortly thereafter he throws a bunch of red meat out there by claiming the Republican Party is made of God’s Tears from Heaven and the Democratic Party is made of animal droppings. It’s partisan lies following political science numbers … very easy trick to pull off. He is a master of changing the topic and keeping the true discussion from happening.
Kregg Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
So, you don’t refute that he relies on facts? Good.
Now we can get on to the important part of your response – you claim that the democrat party is made of animal droppings. Can’t help you there…sorry.
May 12th, 2009 at 10:06 am
I can’t help it,everytime I hear Limbaugh,I think of that kid with the banjo in the movie,Deliverance?DataDing.DataDing.DataDing.ding,ding,ding.”Boy you sure play a mean banjo”
May 12th, 2009 at 10:50 am
JaredfromTexas,
Unfortunately for you…”society” has not decided they’d want to pay an extra $3K/year in increased energy costs…it’s ONLY the democrats pushing this agenda. nevermind that 99% of Americans use non-renewable energy sources.
…………………………………………………
Obama talked about this in the campaign , and the people voted for him.
< “Our children will be destitute trying to pay for this debt!”
considering we’re facing a $10TRILLION debt over the next decade…I’d say this is a good possibility.
…………………………………………..
We on the left have been complaining about that for 8 years, now it’s too late to complain about how expensive the damage is.
This is weak…really weak. The difference in the deficit Obama got on 20 Jan 2009…and the deficit he’ll have 20 Jan 2010 is 4 TIMES Bush’s. You’re gonna sit there all day and point the finger at Bush’s administration for out of control spending…and not at all acknowledge the spending Obama is doing? C’mon!
And I’ve heard over and over again how Obama has to spend money to get out from under Bush’s policies…but no one wants to realize that the Democrats helped get us where we are. Period.
The Left has been railing for 8 years , not just about Bush’s deficit but about the damage. Damage done by years of deregulation, as economist Simon Johnson said, “But major commercial and investment banks—and the hedge funds that ran alongside them—were the big beneficiaries of the twin housing and equity-market bubbles of this decade, their profits fed by an ever-increasing volume of transactions founded on a relatively small base of actual physical assets. Each time a loan was sold, packaged, securitized, and resold, banks took their transaction fees, and the hedge funds buying those securities reaped ever-larger fees as their holdings grew.
Because everyone was getting richer, and the health of the national economy depended so heavily on growth in real estate and finance, no one in Washington had any incentive to question what was going on. Instead, Fed Chairman Greenspan and President Bush insisted metronomically that the economy was fundamentally sound and that the tremendous growth in complex securities and credit-default swaps was evidence of a healthy economy where risk was distributed safely.
In the summer of 2007, signs of strain started appearing. The boom had produced so much debt that even a small economic stumble could cause major problems, and rising delinquencies in subprime mortgages proved the stumbling block. Ever since, the financial sector and the federal government have been behaving exactly the way one would expect them to, in light of past emerging-market crises.
Ravi Batra , author of Greenspan’s Fraud has been predicting for years that derivatives were going to come crashing down.
This, and the war, and the was profiteering has cost us so much, it’s like a house you did $500,000, worth of damage when you could not afford even $ 1000.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
OLD LEFTY,
Obama talked about this in the campaign , and the people voted for him.
I don’t remember this being a topic of discussion much past his interview with the SF chronicle…do you?
Democrats can rail against deregulation all they wanted for 8 years…but with what result? If they were serious enough about the impending impact of deregulation (crystal ball syndrome again)…why didn’t they press the issue? Because EVERYONE was getting rich…and prominent deomocrats were getting sweetheart mortgage deals. No wonder why this only became an issue after-the-fact.
and rising delinquencies in subprime mortgages proved the stumbling block.
That the democrats pushed for…sub-prime mortgages was their baby, right? Housing for all…even those who don’t qualify!
May 12th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
the democrats pushed for
Agreed. Fan and Fred anyone?
OldLefty Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
And again, Bush wanted to get those with “bad credit histories to qualify for homeownership loans”, because,you don’t have to have a lousy home for first-time home buyers. If you put your mind to it, the first-time home buyer, **the low-income home buyer can have just as nice a house as anybody else.
May 12th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Bush wanted
There is little doubt that Repub actions contributed to this; I am sure of it. The larger point, putting away partisan issues, is that the GOVERNMENT was involved. And THAT is the problem.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Agreed…however, it’d be like pulling teeth for any democrat or liberal to acknowledge they were part of the problem.
I’d like to think they would…but I just don’t see it happening. It would be political suicide to admit aiding and abetting republican policies that facilitated the downward economic spiral. Barney Frank comes to mind…
May 12th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
admit aiding and abetting republican policies that facilitated the downward economic spiral
Don’t get me wrong. I still feel that the policies as a whole are rooted in the liberal belief that freedom and equality flows from the government. Just that here, in some cases, there were republicans who were complicit.
OldLefty Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Jared and Pino,
Where do we see YOU acknowledging that you were part of the problem?
I’ve said over and over again that yes, Clinton signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley, But Greenspan called him the best Republican president.
I have always said, Democrats were complicit, (even though they haven’t been in power much over the last 25 years,)
Don’t get me wrong, ‘I still feel that the policies as a whole are rooted in the conservative belief that people need to be regulated, not corporations, and that order comes from a weak middle class.
They have come a long way from Teddy Roosevelt: “”We must drive the special interests out of politics. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have themselves called into being. There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains.”
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
OLD LEFTY,
I have said Republicans had the lion’s share of the blame on many occasions.
May 12th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Where do we see YOU acknowledging that you were part of the problem?
the conservative belief
Is maximum individual liberty.
OldLefty Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Pino said that the “the conservative belief Is maximum individual liberty”
I think that conservative believe in paying lip service to maximum individual liberty, while ACTUALLY believing in maximum liberty only for HUGE multinational corporations.
To quote a very well written letter to the editor:
“Both moderate and hard-right Republicans have called for a return to the party’s core values. Individual liberties and limited government are principles repeatedly mentioned by all types of Republicans.
Yet the remnant Republicans have an overwhelming history of supporting the most intrusive kind of government — a government that dictates how a woman manages reproduction, that meddles in end-of-life decisions, interferes in domestic and contractual relations between consenting adults, and wiretaps its citizens.
A large share of the party’s problem is stunning intellectual dishonesty”
This rhetoric of individual liberty is really just pablum for the masses.
Actually, so many of the young people whose exposure to conservatives is the Bush administration, think that conservatives believe in blind obedience to authoritarian rule, and then follow that authoritarian right over the cliff.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 8:04 am
my name is oldlefty…I hate corporations… I think we should still barter for goods…I think we should be allowed to indiscriminately kill the unborn…(say it with the old man voice that Adam Sandler uses.)
OldLefty Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 9:41 am
GuidoVanHorn,
This has gone beyond any reasonable argument.
There is nothing that I said above that implies a hatred of corporations.
To assume that opposing corporations having influence over foreign policy and the ENORMOUS conflict of interest that presents, translates to “I hate corporations”, is like the 12 year old child who complains ,”If you don’t let me overnight unsupervised, with the parents away….You HATE me!!!”
As for “I think we should be allowed to indiscriminately kill the unborn”, the classic conservative change the subject tactic.
I guess, I should respond with…
“I’m a neo con, I think we should be allowed to indiscriminately kill brown people with “Shock and Awe” and cluster bombs, so we can kick their ass and steal their gas”,….but I would expect that from a middle schooler
VegasLib Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Guido,
OldLefty is better than you. Smarter than you. Fairer than you. She slaps you across the face with the Truth and you deny it. (;
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 3:38 am
do you really think I’m a neo-con???
intentionally there was a middle-school vibe to my post (else why would I not direct you on which voice to say it with) quite frankly I’m tired of the diatribe against corporations, she has a Kreggesque talent of bringing up her pet subject matter in any and all posts, no matter the original topic. I can’t recollect any positive statement you’ve ever made for corporations, and an overwhelming majority of pro-choicers are for the indiscriminate killing of unborns, otherwise why would they oppose any and all regulations against it? I’ve witnessed nothing from Lefty to change my opinion that she is otherwise.
as for being smarter…maybe she is…but I think I could stand toe to toe in a match of jeapordy, as for being more fair, the employees I supervise think I’m fair, as I tend to give the benefit of doubt and do my homework before I discuss any potential disciplinary action.
May 12th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Jared:
1.The measures Obama is taking are exactly what he promised when he got elected.
2.For 7 years during the Bush administration, there were a sizeable number of taxpayers including me, who did NOT want to pay tax dollars chasing an enemy who didnt exist(in Iraq), losing my countrymen’s lives, my money, and worse, knowing some cronies of the administration actually will profit from it, and thats probably what (I suspect) all along motivated the Iraq war.
Guess what,I could do nothing about that belief other than whine away, and pay my taxes.
Likewise, I suggest you whine away, and pay your taxes. There isnt much else you can do. You arent getting my support till you agree that Bush had no business spending my tax dollars on a war I didnt support. And I doubt you will get the support of the liberals OR independents on this website, but keep trying, maybe you will shake up the thinking of so many liberals and independents that unlike me, you can avoid paying your tax dollars for spending on things you dont support.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
KARTHIK,
I don’t remember you being here recently. If you had been, you would’ve seen my posts saying the war was waged based on bad intelligence and that the costs involved (both in lives and money) were not worth it.
However, I do believe that Bush and Congress acted on the intelligence on hand, as did Britain, Israel and the CIA – that Iraq had WMDs. We only found they didn’t after we had gone in.
Obama is NOT doing what he’d promised as a candidate. He promised no new taxes for 95% of americans…he’s failed on that.
He promised to not hire lobbyists…then he did.
he promised to end income taxes on senior citizens making less than $50K – broken
He promised to allow five days of public viewing of all proposed bills before signing into law – broken
and on and on and on…
May 12th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Posted by karthiks030977
May 12th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
See; this is what I am talking about.
Obama MAY suck, but SO did Bush!! Dammit, so did Bush!
How silly.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Jared:
“However, I do believe that Bush and Congress acted on the intelligence on hand, as did Britain, Israel and the CIA – that Iraq had WMDs. We only found they didn’t after we had gone in.”
That is your belief.
I believe that Bush INSTRUCTED,DICTATED to the CIA intelligence, to cook up reports that said exactly what they said. I believe Bush Instructed them to do so because his administration wanted to invade Iraq ANYWAY.
Therefore,I refuse to buy your argument, and until I am compensated for my tax dollars being funneled to a war I didnt support, I refuse to support your cause. And I exhort other like minded people to refuse to support your cause, until you prove my belief wrong.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 4:01 am
KARTHIK,
You’re entitled to your opinion…but that’s all it is. My opinion is based on facts…while yours is based on left-wing spin-a-rooney.
Prove you wrong? Really? The ICC, CIA, UNSC and the SIS were all wrong, huh? Because all of them said Iraq had WMDs.
Prove you wrong? hehe…prove yourself right…(this outta be good)
May 13th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Pino
“See; this is what I am talking about.
Obama MAY suck, but SO did Bush!! Dammit, so did Bush!
How silly.”
My post didnt say that. My post said, I dont care if Obama sucks. All I care is, the case you’re making to say Obama sucks is specious,hypocritical, and until I see a case made that lacks the hypocrisy I identified, I refuse to lend any credence to the case you make. Am happy to discuss Obama’s performance once you clarify for me your rationalization of the hypocrisy I perceive in your argument.
VegasLib Reply:
May 13th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Yea Karthik! You tell em!
May 13th, 2009 at 11:49 am
“That is your belief.
I believe that Bush INSTRUCTED,DICTATED to the CIA intelligence, to cook up reports that said exactly what they said. I believe Bush Instructed them to do so because his administration wanted to invade Iraq ANYWAY”
Jared, am again drawing attention to what I requested you to do, with focus on the above belief of mine.
This belief is not borne out of thin air. There has been ample evidence in the form of news reports, documentaries, on how:
1.Bush asked for intel on Saddam, WMD after he took over, and in the light of 9/11
2.The Intelligence community came back with a report that he was looking to get WMDs, but hadnt yet got them.
3.Bush was FURIOUS at those reports, and told them to come back only when they had credible reports that showed Saddam had WMDs.
4.After 1,2 and 3, the Intel agencies came back with reports that Saddam had WMDs.
It was NOT a case of wrong Intel, but concocted Intel made to justify a President’s desire to start an illegal, immoral, baseless war. Had he kept his eye on the ball, and focused on Al Qaeda, Taleban, the world and US would have been a much safer place to live in by now. In fact, the only reason I feel less secure today is that the Taleban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan got away.Thanks to Bush.
And here I have to bow to Obama’s judgement. Even before he got elected, he said exactly this, that the real war was in Afghanistan, and thats where he would focus. And thats where he seems to be focusing, on the evidence of what I’ve seen so far.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 4:09 am
KARTHIK,
You’re an idiot if you think for one minute I’m gonna fall for your weak intel argument.
Bush asked for intel on Iraq and WMDs because Sadam wasn’t complying with UN inspections. Get off the liberal bandwagon, my friend. Once again…CIA, ICC, SIS, and the UNSC all got it wrong, huh? Bush doctored the foreign intelligence too? I can’t wait for you to explain this one…
I feel less secure today is that the Taleban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan got away.Thanks to Bush.
Once again showing your liberally slanted idiocy here. CLINTON let Al Queda go…would there have been a 9/11 without Bin Laden? Cuz Clinton missed him…4 TIMES!
Afghanistan is where the Taliban and Al Queda were…no doubt…
Correct me if I’m wrong, though…we had a sheet load of troops in Afghanistan…didn’t we?
Lee Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 5:16 am
Jared,
Its not a liberal ‘bandwagon’. There are real facts that back this up. Also if there is any ’spin’ here it is that Saddam ‘wasnt complying with UN inspections’. The fact is that Bush summarily forced the UN inspectors out, but if you read Hans Blix report, there was no substantial evidence of WMD’s and although there were a few minor issues, the Iraqi’s had been very cooperative particularly compared to previous inspection timelines (e.g 1991-1998).
Furthermore, there is ample evidence that Pres. Bush had an agenda to attack.. for example this came from the chief of the British Intelligence agency Richard Dearlove.
(July 23 2002 from Downing Street Memo)
“Dearlove said, “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
or
“At an Oval Office meeting on Jan. 31, 2003, Bush and Blair discussed their determination to invade Iraq, though Bush still hoped that he might provoke the Iraqis into some violent act that would serve as political cover, according to minutes written by Blair’s top foreign policy aide David Manning.”
So there is more than just ‘liberal’/anti-Bush paranoia that drives these claims..
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 6:24 am
LEE,
Ok…I’ll give you quotes then:
Carnegie Endowment report: Iraq focused on preserving a latent, dual-use chemical and probably biological weapons capability – 2003
Bill Clinton: “We want to diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s WMD program” 1998
Sen Bob Graham: “There is no doubt that Saddam has reinvigorated his weapons program” 2001
Al Gore: “We know that Saddam has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout the country.” 2002
Ted Kennedy: “We’ve known for several years that Saddam has been developing WMDs” 2002 (This to me, means Congress had access to intel reports before Bush took office…right? So, is Clinton responsible for doctoring intel reports as well?)
Al Gore: “Iraq’s search for WMDs has been impossible to deter…” 2002
Robert Byrd: “We are confident Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDs throughout Iraq” 2002
Jay Rockefeller: “We have underestimated Iraq’s progress in making WMDs” 2002
Henry Waxman: “He has systematically violated every significant UN resolution that has demanded he disarm and destroy all WMDs . This he has refused to do.” 2002
Hillary Clinton: “Saddam has worked to rebuild his WMD capability…” 2002
The only difference between your “facts” and mine is the date. Don’t you find it at all interesting how many people are coming out of the wordwork after the fact claiming “Bush lied! Bush lied!”
Do you honestly think that Bush was able to dictate the content of intelligence reports without Congress knowing? Do you also honestly believe that every member of Congress who voted for the war resolution was duped into the notion that Iraq had WMDs? Do you also honestly believe that Bush was able to influence the intelligence information not only from the CIA, but also the ICC, SIS and UNSC?
Are you also suggesting that Congress knew the intel was bad…but went with it anyway?
If this were the case…why aren’t we holding every single member of congress responsible? Why are we pointing fingers at Bush and not every-single-member of Congress that voted for the Iraq War Resolution?
Answer me this…
Lee Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Jared,
Firstly, before I start refuting and explaining the difference between your quotes and mine, you need to put in perspective that noone stated Iraq never ‘had’ WMD’s or a WMD program. In fact they spent considerable effort destroying them all as evidenced by the Blix report (which I’m guessing you have not read) for one..
So anyway, for Bill Clintons quote, see above, for virtually all of the other quotes, these are pretty worthless comments since they are not only inaccurate (as we now know) but are not primary sources. To support your argument, you need to quote either CIA, UN inspectors etc or quotes from these reports.
Now, to be fair, noone is disputing that such reports didn’t exist, but people like myself argue that not only were they very weak and generally lacking in hard evidence (referring to the Intelligence supporting this assumption) but moreover it was only there to give Pres. Bush his Casus Belli against Saddam that he was actively looking for.
As for Congress, I’m not aware that any of them had a specific agenda to attack Iraq (unlike Bush and his fellow neocons). If you have any evidence to suggest otherwise then please share..
However, rightly or wrongly there was evidence to suggest Saddam may have WMD’s. It would have been a politically brave member of congress to go out on a limb and protest, even just asking for more clarification.
So again, although in hindsight we were let down by many members of the congress for not doing more scrutiny, there is nowhere near the culpability of the executive branch, given the evidence that the Intel/UN were used to support a policy versus the other way round.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
JaredfromTexas said,
If this were the case…why aren’t we holding every single member of congress responsible? Why are we pointing fingers at Bush and not every-single-member of Congress that voted for the Iraq War Resolution?
Answer me this…
…………………….
For the same reason we don’t apply the same standard to the parent who enabled the child abuse as we do to the parent who committed the abuse.
None of these people quoted were calling a bombing and invasion.
It should go down as one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people, like the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, and those in congress who caved into the popular hysteria at election should pay some price.
It would have taken INCREDIBLE courage to withstand the tsunami of pro war festivities, which were geared to come right at an election, and yet House Democrats wound up voting against the war (126 to 81 ).
One small example of the HUGE Sisyphysian task of resisting the hoopla:
c-span covered a live press conference by the same house Democrats, who were giving out the toll free number for congress, while imploring people to call.
I had access to the TV the whole day, and NOBODY but c-span covered it…..it was as though it never happened.
But Answer ME this….
If this “grave danger” was so well known, why didn’t Bush/Cheney run on it, instead of “no nation building?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
OLD LEFTY,
We sure as hell hold the “enabler” accountable…turning to look the other way while a crime is being committed is a crime itself.
“No nation building” was a call for war? Hmmm…I didn’t know that.
The ability of an enemy to launch biological weapons against US allies and US interests…now that’s a call for war.
OldLefty Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
JaredfromTexas,
Bush ran in 2000, on “I don’t believe in nation building”
“The ability of an enemy to launch biological weapons against US allies and US interests…now that’s a call for war.”
Again, if they actually believed that , why didn’t they campaign on it?
And what do you tell those who said he picked Cheney, “they will go into Iraq.”?
Then, after 9/11, with the axis of evil, more people started saying uh oh, they really DO want to go into Iraq.
Cheney pulled the wmd stuff in the 70s.
And spare me the quotes of Democrats who said he had something….Nobody thought it was a threat that rose to the level of war: attack, invasion and occupation….and we’ve all been round and round.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
OLD LEFTY,
They didn’t believe it was a threat enough to go to war…but then they vote for the war resolution…shows a lot about their character…doesn’t it?
May 14th, 2009 at 7:56 am
“The only difference between your “facts” and mine is the date. Don’t you find it at all interesting how many people are coming out of the wordwork after the fact claiming “Bush lied! Bush lied!””
Jared:
1.As someone else has pointed out, most/ALL of your quotes are from Politicians, who were also involved in negotiations with other parties to put political,diplomatic pressure on Saddam. It is perfectly acceptable for me that a politician lies for applying political pressure, IF they dont act on those lies KNOWING they are lies, and along the way trying to con the people of their country into believing those lies are truth. That is the difference between Bush and ALL those people you quoted. NONE of them ever came close to ordering an invasion of Iraq, because they all knew they were lies repeated for the purpose of negotiations with other countries,allies.
2.I havent heard you directly address the single piece of evidence I had for my theory: There have been ample documentaries, and news reports, on the period BETWEEN 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, where it WAS reported that Bush asked for accurate Intel, accurate Intel reports said it was UNLIKELY that Saddam had WMDs, and Bush sent them back instructing them to get reports that said the opposite.
3.I was in the country, so were you, when the Iraq was resolution was passed. Many Americans were in fear thanks to 9/11, and there wasnt a popular resistance, even though many people suspected it was probably a red herring being chased. As far as Congress goes, I believe there was news propaganda out to paint every opponent of the Iraq war as unpatriotic. Nobody opposed it, and Congress voted for it as a consequence of these. I do NOT hold Congress, INCLUDING Republicans AND Democrats responsible for pushing through a declaration of war generated on the basis of concocted intel. The Prime Responsibility rests with the Bush Administration, because THEY were the ones who Issued orders to Concoct Intel.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
KARTHIK,
NONE of them ever came close to ordering an invasion of Iraq, because they all knew they were lies
Huh? Not one of those people I quoted above voted for the war resolution? NOT ONE??? IF they voted for the war resolution, they sure as hell did “order the invasion of Iraq.”
C’mon, man…try accepting that your precious democrats were part of the problem here.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
LEE,
Ok…here are some more quotes…hopefully you won’t dismiss these as inaccurate:
CIA: Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
Iraq largely has rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.
Baghdad has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX.
Aljezeera – 2003
There are weapons of mass destruction all over Iraq and they were used this year.
Blix, Powell and the UN: 2003
UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Blix and IAEA Director General ElBaradei reported five times to the U.N. Security Council between December 19, 2002 andMarch 7, 2003, as did Secretary of State Colin Powell, on Iraq’s efforts to evade disarmament.
Israel – 2002
In 2002, the former head of the Mossad intelligence agency, Efraim Halevy, told a closed meeting of Nato that there were “clear indications” that Iraq had renewed its efforts to build WMD after the UN weapons inspections were halted in 1998. He also said Iraq had preserved elements of its ability to manufacture chemical and biological weapons.
Britain – 2002
“Iraq may retain some stocks of chemical agents … Iraq could produce significant quantities of mustard [gas] within weeks, significant quantities of Sarin and VX within months, and, in the case of VX may already have done so.”
The Iraq Survey Group found that Saddam “intended to resume a CW [chemical weapons] effort once [UN] sanctions were lifted”.
Did Hans Blix support the WMD theory out of political expediency then? Did Colin Powell? Did Tony Blair?
My point is, it’s really easy to look back at the intelligence after the fact and say it was full of holes…but where was the scrutiny BEFORE the war started?
I’m not saying the intel was bad…because it was…I just have a very hard time believing it was “cooked” from so many different intelligence agencies in order to support some crazy CPAC conspiracy theory.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
“Huh? Not one of those people I quoted above voted for the war resolution? NOT ONE??? IF they voted for the war resolution, they sure as hell did “order the invasion of Iraq.””
Jared:
If you read my previous post carefully:I clearly stated my belief:
Even though congress DID vote for the war, the vote was based on concocted Intel reports. The order to concoct those Intel reports was NOT given by those voters from congress, but by the President and his administration,office. Therefore, I hold ONLY the President responsible.
You are trying hard to make this a Republican vs Democrat issue. There were MANY Republicans in Congress who voted for the war. I do NOT hold them responsible for the war, just because they voted for it.
You are parroting exactly what Fox News, Rush Limbaugh etc tell everyone(Since Democrats ALSO voted for the war, you cant hold Republicans alone responsible.DUH!!! I NEVER held “Republicans” responsible. I held BUSH and his administration responsible.Stop Changing my argument on my behalf!!!). Its their job to obfuscate issues by such arguments.
Its my job as a citizen to sift through all the obfuscations and obtain clarity. I dont know where you stand, and it doesnt matter to me. But I am discussing with you assuming you’re a citizen.
Daddio Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 8:35 am
I really am tiring of all these conspiracy theories that Bush concocted information about going to war with Iraq. We are in this together as a country. Whatever you think of the Iraqi war, we are there, we are finishing up business there, we have basically won and we will be coming home soon.
Once our country gets involved in some conflict or war with another country it is our duty to get behind our country and support our mission and troops in order to defeat our enemies and bring our soldiers home to their families. We must fight our battles with all the force we can muster in order to bring our enemies to their knees begging to surrender.
That is what we should do as a united country.
OldLefty Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Daddio said,
“I really am tiring of all these conspiracy theories that Bush concocted information about going to war with Iraq.”
…………………………
You guys SURE loved the conspiracy theories against Clinton, didn’t you?
The reason there are so many about Iraq, is that in the 90s the neo cons, Had an organization called Project For A New American Century (PNAC), outlining what they wanted to do, and actually DID do in Iraq:
They wrote a letter to Clinton asking him to invade Iraq in 1998.
The American people not only did not vote for this, when they voted for the guy who didn’t believe in nation building, but because the media gave it such short shrift, few even knew about it.
In the PNAC paper, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century (2000), states on pp 51
“Further,the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.”)
Many people think they used 9/11, as that “new Pearl Harbor” to pursue their pre 9/11 plans.
steve Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Plans based on lies of WMD,s and a ecomondy gone amok as well.
Conspiracy is more like reality.
May 15th, 2009 at 8:21 am