Democrats have nothing to offer Americans but division; race and class warfare

[sear]

"is it your position that America under obama is in better shape then the european socialist democracies both you and obama say we still need to make changes to be more like??
YES OR NO??" b6 #294

President Reagan, the Republican demigod, applied the "are you better off" standard.

When the younger President Bush took office, the nation was in fairly good shape, and at peace.
8 years later, the economy was in tatters, the nation at Wars, the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in history, etc.

Obama took over that smoldering crater, and has brought US back farther faster than the E.U.

"Are you better off ..." Reagan

Yes Mr. President. Substantially yes.

 

[Campbell]

"is it your position that America under obama is in better shape then the european socialist democracies both you and obama say we still need to make changes to be more like??
YES OR NO??" b6 #294

President Reagan, the Republican demigod, applied the "are you better off" standard.

When the younger President Bush took office, the nation was in fairly good shape, and at peace.
8 years later, the economy was in tatters, the nation at Wars, the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in history, etc.

Obama took over that smoldering crater, and has brought US back farther faster than the E.U.

"Are you better off ..." Reagan

Yes Mr. President. Substantially yes.

Everyone is at least as well off and most are better. It happens during nearly every Democrat white house. Keep an eye on roads and highways. They would be back to dirt before modern Republicans would spend any money on them.

Eisenhower initiated the Interstate highway system and totally changed the culture of America. Now there's a small community with most needed services located at nearly all the entrance/exit ramps.
I might mention that he tried to warn the nation about the perils of allowing a military/industrial complex but his party obviously wanted no part of that little warning......it's exactly what they support and stand for. The biggest problem with spending trillions on military is that they feel like they have to use it so every once in a while they invade another oil country.

 

[Campbell]

NAACP president: Black people worse off under Obama ...
www.washingtontimes.com/.../naacp-president-bl...

• Cached
• Similar

The Washington Times
Loading...
Jan 28, 2013 - NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Jealous said Sunday that black Americans “are doing a full point worse” than when President Obama ...

I wonder if the do nothing Republican congress had any effect on that?

 

[The Rabbi]

"is it your position that America under obama is in better shape then the european socialist democracies both you and obama say we still need to make changes to be more like??
YES OR NO??" b6 #294

President Reagan, the Republican demigod, applied the "are you better off" standard.

When the younger President Bush took office, the nation was in fairly good shape, and at peace.
8 years later, the economy was in tatters, the nation at Wars, the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in history, etc.

Obama took over that smoldering crater, and has brought US back farther faster than the E.U.

"Are you better off ..." Reagan

Yes Mr. President. Substantially yes.

Nice revisionism there.
When BUsh took over we were being targeted for 9/11. Terrorism was a problem Clinton refused to face. We were about to enter a recession thanks to Clinton's raising taxes.
The day Bush left household incomes were at a level not seen since.
Gov't debt had not risen by 80%
The Middle East was no aflame with Islamic radicals burning and destroying
Russia was not expanding into Ukraine and Syria
We are far worse off now.

 

[Campbell]

"is it your position that America under obama is in better shape then the european socialist democracies both you and obama say we still need to make changes to be more like??
YES OR NO??" b6 #294

President Reagan, the Republican demigod, applied the "are you better off" standard.

When the younger President Bush took office, the nation was in fairly good shape, and at peace.
8 years later, the economy was in tatters, the nation at Wars, the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in history, etc.

Obama took over that smoldering crater, and has brought US back farther faster than the E.U.

"Are you better off ..." Reagan

Yes Mr. President. Substantially yes.

Nice revisionism there.
When BUsh took over we were being targeted for 9/11. Terrorism was a problem Clinton refused to face. We were about to enter a recession thanks to Clinton's raising taxes.
The day Bush left household incomes were at a level not seen since.
Gov't debt had not risen by 80%
The Middle East was no aflame with Islamic radicals burning and destroying
Russia was not expanding into Ukraine and Syria
We are far worse off now.

It's pretty obvious that you decide a position on everything based upon your politics. How in the hell you came up blaming Bill Clinton is a real puzzle. The FBI, the CIA and some military experts told Bush that an attack on our country using commercial aircraft was a distinct possibility. The hijackers actually trained on how to fly the planes but refused to learn landing procedures. Condoleezza Rice personally handed Bush a memo to that effect. George Bush was too busy working on his two tax cuts for the wealthy to pay attention to any kind of military warning.

Now....a little history for you:

The Barracks Bombings October 23, 1983 in Beruit Lebanon occurred when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing US and French military forces—killing 299 American and French servicemen. A then obscure group calling itself Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombings. Our U S marines had determined their location and had artillery weapons set to take them out. What did ol' movie star do? He pulled all our military out of the country. There's no way of knowing but chances are pretty good that if we had taken their asses all the way out then we wouldn't have had to put up with all the bull shit today. This letter to Bill Clinton will explain in detail what the Republicans were trying to do and it wasn't stop terrorism, quite the contrary:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

 

[rdean]

This has nothing to do with resenting successful people, these are facts that you are free to look at. Trickle down garbage doesn't work, never has.
"But starting in the mid- to late 1970s, the uppermost tier’s income share began rising dramatically, while that of the bottom 90% started to fall. The top 1% took heavy hits from the dot-com crash and the Great Recession but recovered fairly quickly: Saez’s preliminary estimates for 2012 (which will be updated next month) have that group receiving nearly 22.5% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90%’s share is below 50% for the first time ever (49.6%, to be precise)."
Suck on that.

You realize the problems you mention have accelerated under Obama and his policies? You know that right? Now you are saying the problem is a result of "trickle down" economics. Funny.....but that is a term from the 1980's.

Are you saying Obama's economic policies are "trickle down" economics? What exactly are you saying and why has the problem accelerated under Obama?

You do realize, that bush took office in 2008, almost right when bush dumped the recession on him. We are recovering better then most countries, Obama has tried to raise taxes to alleviate inequality, he has tried to help small businesses, conservatives aren't letting him, or forcing him to make ridiculous compromises. Conservatives don't want to bring home jobs, they don't want to help veterans. His policies aren't trickle down economics, but great job trying to spew idiocy.

Wow, blind much?
Household income was higher the day Bush left office than it is today after 8 years of Democrat policies. Teh debt is 80% higher today than the day Bush left office. Dependence on gov't programs is higher today than the day Bush left office. No, we arent recovering better than other countries. The opposite in fact.
There is no such thing as "trickle down economics." You couldnt even define it.

Bush left office right after the recession started, one of the worst since the Great Depression. Obama has made our recovery better then many countries who were affected.

good point idiot; i wish you people would remember what you just said the next time you're ranting about "trickle-down" or Republican "obstructionism" and bragging how great the European socialist democracies are. our economy recovered IN SPITE OF OBAMA NOT BECAUSE OF HIM; or people like you that see the "other countries who were affected" as having a better system than ours.

thanks for playing

Read it and weep mofos.

Serious Question for Progressives | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[The Rabbi]

"is it your position that America under obama is in better shape then the european socialist democracies both you and obama say we still need to make changes to be more like??
YES OR NO??" b6 #294

President Reagan, the Republican demigod, applied the "are you better off" standard.

When the younger President Bush took office, the nation was in fairly good shape, and at peace.
8 years later, the economy was in tatters, the nation at Wars, the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in history, etc.

Obama took over that smoldering crater, and has brought US back farther faster than the E.U.

"Are you better off ..." Reagan

Yes Mr. President. Substantially yes.

Nice revisionism there.
When BUsh took over we were being targeted for 9/11. Terrorism was a problem Clinton refused to face. We were about to enter a recession thanks to Clinton's raising taxes.
The day Bush left household incomes were at a level not seen since.
Gov't debt had not risen by 80%
The Middle East was no aflame with Islamic radicals burning and destroying
Russia was not expanding into Ukraine and Syria
We are far worse off now.

It's pretty obvious that you decide a position on everything based upon your politics. How in the hell you came up blaming Bill Clinton is a real puzzle. The FBI, the CIA and some military experts told Bush that an attack on our country using commercial aircraft was a distinct possibility. The hijackers actually trained on how to fly the planes but refused to learn landing procedures. Condoleezza Rice personally handed Bush a memo to that effect. George Bush was too busy working on his two tax cuts for the wealthy to pay attention to any kind of military warning.

Now....a little history for you:

The Barracks Bombings October 23, 1983 in Beruit Lebanon occurred when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing US and French military forces—killing 299 American and French servicemen. A then obscure group calling itself Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombings. Our U S marines had determined their location and had artillery weapons set to take them out. What did ol' movie star do? He pulled all our military out of the country. There's no way of knowing but chances are pretty good that if we had taken their asses all the way out then we wouldn't have had to put up with all the bull shit today. This letter to Bill Clinton will explain in detail what the Republicans were trying to do and it wasn't stop terrorism, quite the contrary:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Geezus are you fucking stupid.
The US suffered attacks on the USS Cole, at embassies in Nairobi and Daar es Salaam in Aftrica, an attack on the WTC, and others. And Clinton looked severe and promised to bring the attackers to justice and then shit canned it. Then he sent troops to Somalia and cut and run when things got tough. Osama watched all that and knew the US wouldnt respond effectively and started the 9/11 operation well before Bush ever became president.
Bush was warned about an attack. Wow! What the fuck was he supposed to do? Shut own every airport in America? He was warned about a suitcase nuke too. There was no actionable intelligence there.
As usual Democrats fucked up, Republicans cleaned up, and Democrats deny responsibility and try to blame the GOP.

 

[Campbell]

"is it your position that America under obama is in better shape then the european socialist democracies both you and obama say we still need to make changes to be more like??
YES OR NO??" b6 #294

President Reagan, the Republican demigod, applied the "are you better off" standard.

When the younger President Bush took office, the nation was in fairly good shape, and at peace.
8 years later, the economy was in tatters, the nation at Wars, the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in history, etc.

Obama took over that smoldering crater, and has brought US back farther faster than the E.U.

"Are you better off ..." Reagan

Yes Mr. President. Substantially yes.

Nice revisionism there.
When BUsh took over we were being targeted for 9/11. Terrorism was a problem Clinton refused to face. We were about to enter a recession thanks to Clinton's raising taxes.
The day Bush left household incomes were at a level not seen since.
Gov't debt had not risen by 80%
The Middle East was no aflame with Islamic radicals burning and destroying
Russia was not expanding into Ukraine and Syria
We are far worse off now.

It's pretty obvious that you decide a position on everything based upon your politics. How in the hell you came up blaming Bill Clinton is a real puzzle. The FBI, the CIA and some military experts told Bush that an attack on our country using commercial aircraft was a distinct possibility. The hijackers actually trained on how to fly the planes but refused to learn landing procedures. Condoleezza Rice personally handed Bush a memo to that effect. George Bush was too busy working on his two tax cuts for the wealthy to pay attention to any kind of military warning.

Now....a little history for you:

The Barracks Bombings October 23, 1983 in Beruit Lebanon occurred when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing US and French military forces—killing 299 American and French servicemen. A then obscure group calling itself Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombings. Our U S marines had determined their location and had artillery weapons set to take them out. What did ol' movie star do? He pulled all our military out of the country. There's no way of knowing but chances are pretty good that if we had taken their asses all the way out then we wouldn't have had to put up with all the bull shit today. This letter to Bill Clinton will explain in detail what the Republicans were trying to do and it wasn't stop terrorism, quite the contrary:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Geezus are you fucking stupid.
The US suffered attacks on the USS Cole, at embassies in Nairobi and Daar es Salaam in Aftrica, an attack on the WTC, and others. And Clinton looked severe and promised to bring the attackers to justice and then shit canned it. Then he sent troops to Somalia and cut and run when things got tough. Osama watched all that and knew the US wouldnt respond effectively and started the 9/11 operation well before Bush ever became president.
Bush was warned about an attack. Wow! What the fuck was he supposed to do? Shut own every airport in America? He was warned about a suitcase nuke too. There was no actionable intelligence there.
As usual Democrats fucked up, Republicans cleaned up, and Democrats deny responsibility and try to blame the GOP.

LMAO!! Bush couldn't wipe his ass and he proved it. The invasion of Iraq just because he wanted to take out Saddam Hussein was the biggest screw up in American history. The only real reason Bush attacked Saddam Hussein was that Saddam tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar in 1993. The entire Republican caucus was hell bent to kill Saddam from then on. Oh well.....only cost the lives of 4500 young Americans, got 35,000 seriously wounded and monetarily cost a trillion dollars. Saddam Hussein had never done anything to the United States and it hadn't been that long since we were kissing his ass:

 

[The Rabbi]

"is it your position that America under obama is in better shape then the european socialist democracies both you and obama say we still need to make changes to be more like??
YES OR NO??" b6 #294

President Reagan, the Republican demigod, applied the "are you better off" standard.

When the younger President Bush took office, the nation was in fairly good shape, and at peace.
8 years later, the economy was in tatters, the nation at Wars, the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in history, etc.

Obama took over that smoldering crater, and has brought US back farther faster than the E.U.

"Are you better off ..." Reagan

Yes Mr. President. Substantially yes.

Nice revisionism there.
When BUsh took over we were being targeted for 9/11. Terrorism was a problem Clinton refused to face. We were about to enter a recession thanks to Clinton's raising taxes.
The day Bush left household incomes were at a level not seen since.
Gov't debt had not risen by 80%
The Middle East was no aflame with Islamic radicals burning and destroying
Russia was not expanding into Ukraine and Syria
We are far worse off now.

It's pretty obvious that you decide a position on everything based upon your politics. How in the hell you came up blaming Bill Clinton is a real puzzle. The FBI, the CIA and some military experts told Bush that an attack on our country using commercial aircraft was a distinct possibility. The hijackers actually trained on how to fly the planes but refused to learn landing procedures. Condoleezza Rice personally handed Bush a memo to that effect. George Bush was too busy working on his two tax cuts for the wealthy to pay attention to any kind of military warning.

Now....a little history for you:

The Barracks Bombings October 23, 1983 in Beruit Lebanon occurred when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing US and French military forces—killing 299 American and French servicemen. A then obscure group calling itself Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombings. Our U S marines had determined their location and had artillery weapons set to take them out. What did ol' movie star do? He pulled all our military out of the country. There's no way of knowing but chances are pretty good that if we had taken their asses all the way out then we wouldn't have had to put up with all the bull shit today. This letter to Bill Clinton will explain in detail what the Republicans were trying to do and it wasn't stop terrorism, quite the contrary:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Geezus are you fucking stupid.
The US suffered attacks on the USS Cole, at embassies in Nairobi and Daar es Salaam in Aftrica, an attack on the WTC, and others. And Clinton looked severe and promised to bring the attackers to justice and then shit canned it. Then he sent troops to Somalia and cut and run when things got tough. Osama watched all that and knew the US wouldnt respond effectively and started the 9/11 operation well before Bush ever became president.
Bush was warned about an attack. Wow! What the fuck was he supposed to do? Shut own every airport in America? He was warned about a suitcase nuke too. There was no actionable intelligence there.
As usual Democrats fucked up, Republicans cleaned up, and Democrats deny responsibility and try to blame the GOP.

LMAO!! Bush couldn't wipe his ass and he proved it. The invasion of Iraq just because he wanted to take out Saddam Hussein was the biggest screw up in American history. The only real reason Bush attacked Saddam Hussein was that Saddam tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar in 1993. The entire Republican caucus was hell bent to kill Saddam from then on. Oh well.....only cost the lives of 4500 young Americans, got 35,000 seriously wounded and monetarily cost a trillion dollars. Saddam Hussein had never done anything to the United States and it hadn't been that long since we were kissing his ass:

Every word a lie. Need me to repost Sen Al Gore complaining Saddam was working on aWMD program and Bush was doing nothing about it?

 

[Correll]

"is it your position that America under obama is in better shape then the european socialist democracies both you and obama say we still need to make changes to be more like??
YES OR NO??" b6 #294

President Reagan, the Republican demigod, applied the "are you better off" standard.

When the younger President Bush took office, the nation was in fairly good shape, and at peace.
8 years later, the economy was in tatters, the nation at Wars, the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in history, etc.

Obama took over that smoldering crater, and has brought US back farther faster than the E.U.

"Are you better off ..." Reagan

Yes Mr. President. Substantially yes.

Nice revisionism there.
When BUsh took over we were being targeted for 9/11. Terrorism was a problem Clinton refused to face. We were about to enter a recession thanks to Clinton's raising taxes.
The day Bush left household incomes were at a level not seen since.
Gov't debt had not risen by 80%
The Middle East was no aflame with Islamic radicals burning and destroying
Russia was not expanding into Ukraine and Syria
We are far worse off now.

It's pretty obvious that you decide a position on everything based upon your politics. How in the hell you came up blaming Bill Clinton is a real puzzle. The FBI, the CIA and some military experts told Bush that an attack on our country using commercial aircraft was a distinct possibility. The hijackers actually trained on how to fly the planes but refused to learn landing procedures. Condoleezza Rice personally handed Bush a memo to that effect. George Bush was too busy working on his two tax cuts for the wealthy to pay attention to any kind of military warning.

Now....a little history for you:

The Barracks Bombings October 23, 1983 in Beruit Lebanon occurred when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing US and French military forces—killing 299 American and French servicemen. A then obscure group calling itself Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombings. Our U S marines had determined their location and had artillery weapons set to take them out. What did ol' movie star do? He pulled all our military out of the country. There's no way of knowing but chances are pretty good that if we had taken their asses all the way out then we wouldn't have had to put up with all the bull shit today. This letter to Bill Clinton will explain in detail what the Republicans were trying to do and it wasn't stop terrorism, quite the contrary:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Geezus are you fucking stupid.
The US suffered attacks on the USS Cole, at embassies in Nairobi and Daar es Salaam in Aftrica, an attack on the WTC, and others. And Clinton looked severe and promised to bring the attackers to justice and then shit canned it. Then he sent troops to Somalia and cut and run when things got tough. Osama watched all that and knew the US wouldnt respond effectively and started the 9/11 operation well before Bush ever became president.
Bush was warned about an attack. Wow! What the fuck was he supposed to do? Shut own every airport in America? He was warned about a suitcase nuke too. There was no actionable intelligence there.
As usual Democrats fucked up, Republicans cleaned up, and Democrats deny responsibility and try to blame the GOP.

LMAO!! Bush couldn't wipe his ass and he proved it. The invasion of Iraq just because he wanted to take out Saddam Hussein was the biggest screw up in American history. The only real reason Bush attacked Saddam Hussein was that Saddam tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar in 1993. The entire Republican caucus was hell bent to kill Saddam from then on. Oh well.....only cost the lives of 4500 young Americans, got 35,000 seriously wounded and monetarily cost a trillion dollars. Saddam Hussein had never done anything to the United States and it hadn't been that long since we were kissing his ass:

Crazy talk.

 

[Campbell]

"is it your position that America under obama is in better shape then the european socialist democracies both you and obama say we still need to make changes to be more like??
YES OR NO??" b6 #294

President Reagan, the Republican demigod, applied the "are you better off" standard.

When the younger President Bush took office, the nation was in fairly good shape, and at peace.
8 years later, the economy was in tatters, the nation at Wars, the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in history, etc.

Obama took over that smoldering crater, and has brought US back farther faster than the E.U.
Yes Mr. President. Substantially yes.

Nice revisionism there.
When BUsh took over we were being targeted for 9/11. Terrorism was a problem Clinton refused to face. We were about to enter a recession thanks to Clinton's raising taxes.
The day Bush left household incomes were at a level not seen since.
Gov't debt had not risen by 80%
The Middle East was no aflame with Islamic radicals burning and destroying
Russia was not expanding into Ukraine and Syria
We are far worse off now.

It's pretty obvious that you decide a position on everything based upon your politics. How in the hell you came up blaming Bill Clinton is a real puzzle. The FBI, the CIA and some military experts told Bush that an attack on our country using commercial aircraft was a distinct possibility. The hijackers actually trained on how to fly the planes but refused to learn landing procedures. Condoleezza Rice personally handed Bush a memo to that effect. George Bush was too busy working on his two tax cuts for the wealthy to pay attention to any kind of military warning.

Now....a little history for you:

The Barracks Bombings October 23, 1983 in Beruit Lebanon occurred when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing US and French military forces—killing 299 American and French servicemen. A then obscure group calling itself Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombings. Our U S marines had determined their location and had artillery weapons set to take them out. What did ol' movie star do? He pulled all our military out of the country. There's no way of knowing but chances are pretty good that if we had taken their asses all the way out then we wouldn't have had to put up with all the bull shit today. This letter to Bill Clinton will explain in detail what the Republicans were trying to do and it wasn't stop terrorism, quite the contrary:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Geezus are you fucking stupid.
The US suffered attacks on the USS Cole, at embassies in Nairobi and Daar es Salaam in Aftrica, an attack on the WTC, and others. And Clinton looked severe and promised to bring the attackers to justice and then shit canned it. Then he sent troops to Somalia and cut and run when things got tough. Osama watched all that and knew the US wouldnt respond effectively and started the 9/11 operation well before Bush ever became president.
Bush was warned about an attack. Wow! What the fuck was he supposed to do? Shut own every airport in America? He was warned about a suitcase nuke too. There was no actionable intelligence there.
As usual Democrats fucked up, Republicans cleaned up, and Democrats deny responsibility and try to blame the GOP.

LMAO!! Bush couldn't wipe his ass and he proved it. The invasion of Iraq just because he wanted to take out Saddam Hussein was the biggest screw up in American history. The only real reason Bush attacked Saddam Hussein was that Saddam tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar in 1993. The entire Republican caucus was hell bent to kill Saddam from then on. Oh well.....only cost the lives of 4500 young Americans, got 35,000 seriously wounded and monetarily cost a trillion dollars. Saddam Hussein had never done anything to the United States and it hadn't been that long since we were kissing his ass:

Every word a lie. Need me to repost Sen Al Gore complaining Saddam was working on aWMD program and Bush was doing nothing about it?

Source Please!! I think you pulled that out of your ass

 

[Campbell]

Obama economy: Welfare dependency peaks as rich get ...
www.washingtontimes.com/.../obama-economy-...

• Cached
• Similar

The Washington Times
Loading...
Jan 4, 2015 - “They get their masters degrees in useless areas, and they're still ... that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer during the Obama economic ...

Maybe if you had gotten an education and ditched that lunatic religion of yours, you wouldn't have to whine about people who have education.

Face it cletus, the jobs you used to have like the jobs at goobers rubber band factory are gone and not coming back

LOL!!! Right On!!

 

[The Rabbi]

Nice revisionism there.
When BUsh took over we were being targeted for 9/11. Terrorism was a problem Clinton refused to face. We were about to enter a recession thanks to Clinton's raising taxes.
The day Bush left household incomes were at a level not seen since.
Gov't debt had not risen by 80%
The Middle East was no aflame with Islamic radicals burning and destroying
Russia was not expanding into Ukraine and Syria
We are far worse off now.

It's pretty obvious that you decide a position on everything based upon your politics. How in the hell you came up blaming Bill Clinton is a real puzzle. The FBI, the CIA and some military experts told Bush that an attack on our country using commercial aircraft was a distinct possibility. The hijackers actually trained on how to fly the planes but refused to learn landing procedures. Condoleezza Rice personally handed Bush a memo to that effect. George Bush was too busy working on his two tax cuts for the wealthy to pay attention to any kind of military warning.

Now....a little history for you:

The Barracks Bombings October 23, 1983 in Beruit Lebanon occurred when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing US and French military forces—killing 299 American and French servicemen. A then obscure group calling itself Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombings. Our U S marines had determined their location and had artillery weapons set to take them out. What did ol' movie star do? He pulled all our military out of the country. There's no way of knowing but chances are pretty good that if we had taken their asses all the way out then we wouldn't have had to put up with all the bull shit today. This letter to Bill Clinton will explain in detail what the Republicans were trying to do and it wasn't stop terrorism, quite the contrary:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Geezus are you fucking stupid.
The US suffered attacks on the USS Cole, at embassies in Nairobi and Daar es Salaam in Aftrica, an attack on the WTC, and others. And Clinton looked severe and promised to bring the attackers to justice and then shit canned it. Then he sent troops to Somalia and cut and run when things got tough. Osama watched all that and knew the US wouldnt respond effectively and started the 9/11 operation well before Bush ever became president.
Bush was warned about an attack. Wow! What the fuck was he supposed to do? Shut own every airport in America? He was warned about a suitcase nuke too. There was no actionable intelligence there.
As usual Democrats fucked up, Republicans cleaned up, and Democrats deny responsibility and try to blame the GOP.

LMAO!! Bush couldn't wipe his ass and he proved it. The invasion of Iraq just because he wanted to take out Saddam Hussein was the biggest screw up in American history. The only real reason Bush attacked Saddam Hussein was that Saddam tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar in 1993. The entire Republican caucus was hell bent to kill Saddam from then on. Oh well.....only cost the lives of 4500 young Americans, got 35,000 seriously wounded and monetarily cost a trillion dollars. Saddam Hussein had never done anything to the United States and it hadn't been that long since we were kissing his ass:

Every word a lie. Need me to repost Sen Al Gore complaining Saddam was working on aWMD program and Bush was doing nothing about it?

Source Please!! I think you pulled that out of your ass

Check teh sig line, asshole.

 

[Campbell]

You do realize, that bush took office in 2008, almost right when bush dumped the recession on him. We are recovering better then most countries, Obama has tried to raise taxes to alleviate inequality, he has tried to help small businesses, conservatives aren't letting him, or forcing him to make ridiculous compromises. Conservatives don't want to bring home jobs, they don't want to help veterans. His policies aren't trickle down economics, but great job trying to spew idiocy.

In other words.....Obama and his policies have completely failed and the problem mentioned in the OP has greatly accelerated under Obama's watch.

Got it.

How can you judge Obama based on policies republicans wouldn't let him pass? Fucking idiot,

So Obama has spent nearly 8 years in the White House doing nothing?
It is hysterical: When people point out that Dem policies have failed libs scream they were blocked by the gOP. When people point out Obama and the Dems havent been effective libs point to a laundy list of laws and policies enacted by Dems.
Cant have it both ways.

Oh, he's done plenty, it's why we haven't tripled our debt like Ronnie Reagan.

it's so boring reminding you Democrats voted for every one of Reagan's polices;; W Bush's too!

lmao

God Damn and Hell Fire! I was a Republican for the first 30 years I voted. I voted for Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon three times...even Reagan once. When I saw Reagan's agenda of massive tax cuts for the richest people in America, continuing to spend like a drunk sailor then quadrupling the national debt I went twenty years and didn't even show up at the polls. I've only voted for a Democrat in a national election three times but you can bet your ass I'll never vote for another Republican. They have destroyed the middle class in America. What they want is a Lord/Serf society. It's why you'll never have another Republican president. Get Used To It! Practice saying Madame President.

 

[Campbell]

"is it your position that America under obama is in better shape then the european socialist democracies both you and obama say we still need to make changes to be more like??
YES OR NO??" b6 #294

President Reagan, the Republican demigod, applied the "are you better off" standard.

When the younger President Bush took office, the nation was in fairly good shape, and at peace.
8 years later, the economy was in tatters, the nation at Wars, the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in history, etc.

Obama took over that smoldering crater, and has brought US back farther faster than the E.U.
Yes Mr. President. Substantially yes.

Nice revisionism there.
When BUsh took over we were being targeted for 9/11. Terrorism was a problem Clinton refused to face. We were about to enter a recession thanks to Clinton's raising taxes.
The day Bush left household incomes were at a level not seen since.
Gov't debt had not risen by 80%
The Middle East was no aflame with Islamic radicals burning and destroying
Russia was not expanding into Ukraine and Syria
We are far worse off now.

It's pretty obvious that you decide a position on everything based upon your politics. How in the hell you came up blaming Bill Clinton is a real puzzle. The FBI, the CIA and some military experts told Bush that an attack on our country using commercial aircraft was a distinct possibility. The hijackers actually trained on how to fly the planes but refused to learn landing procedures. Condoleezza Rice personally handed Bush a memo to that effect. George Bush was too busy working on his two tax cuts for the wealthy to pay attention to any kind of military warning.

Now....a little history for you:

The Barracks Bombings October 23, 1983 in Beruit Lebanon occurred when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing US and French military forces—killing 299 American and French servicemen. A then obscure group calling itself Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombings. Our U S marines had determined their location and had artillery weapons set to take them out. What did ol' movie star do? He pulled all our military out of the country. There's no way of knowing but chances are pretty good that if we had taken their asses all the way out then we wouldn't have had to put up with all the bull shit today. This letter to Bill Clinton will explain in detail what the Republicans were trying to do and it wasn't stop terrorism, quite the contrary:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Geezus are you fucking stupid.
The US suffered attacks on the USS Cole, at embassies in Nairobi and Daar es Salaam in Aftrica, an attack on the WTC, and others. And Clinton looked severe and promised to bring the attackers to justice and then shit canned it. Then he sent troops to Somalia and cut and run when things got tough. Osama watched all that and knew the US wouldnt respond effectively and started the 9/11 operation well before Bush ever became president.
Bush was warned about an attack. Wow! What the fuck was he supposed to do? Shut own every airport in America? He was warned about a suitcase nuke too. There was no actionable intelligence there.
As usual Democrats fucked up, Republicans cleaned up, and Democrats deny responsibility and try to blame the GOP.

LMAO!! Bush couldn't wipe his ass and he proved it. The invasion of Iraq just because he wanted to take out Saddam Hussein was the biggest screw up in American history. The only real reason Bush attacked Saddam Hussein was that Saddam tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar in 1993. The entire Republican caucus was hell bent to kill Saddam from then on. Oh well.....only cost the lives of 4500 young Americans, got 35,000 seriously wounded and monetarily cost a trillion dollars. Saddam Hussein had never done anything to the United States and it hadn't been that long since we were kissing his ass:

Every word a lie. Need me to repost Sen Al Gore complaining Saddam was working on aWMD program and Bush was doing nothing about it?

Source Please.......you people watch too much Faux News

 

[ScienceRocks]

In other words.....Obama and his policies have completely failed and the problem mentioned in the OP has greatly accelerated under Obama's watch.

Got it.

How can you judge Obama based on policies republicans wouldn't let him pass? Fucking idiot,

So Obama has spent nearly 8 years in the White House doing nothing?
It is hysterical: When people point out that Dem policies have failed libs scream they were blocked by the gOP. When people point out Obama and the Dems havent been effective libs point to a laundy list of laws and policies enacted by Dems.
Cant have it both ways.

Oh, he's done plenty, it's why we haven't tripled our debt like Ronnie Reagan.

it's so boring reminding you Democrats voted for every one of Reagan's polices;; W Bush's too!

lmao

God Damn and Hell Fire! I was a Republican for the first 30 years I voted. I voted for Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon three times...even Reagan once. When I saw Reagan's agenda of massive tax cuts for the richest people in America, continuing to spend like a drunk sailor then quadrupling the national debt I went twenty years and didn't even show up at the polls. I've only voted for a Democrat in a national election three times but you can bet your ass I'll never vote for another Republican. They have destroyed the middle class in America. What they want is a Lord/Serf society. It's why you'll never have another Republican president. Get Used To It! Practice saying Madame President.

I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney...The tea party woke me to the same reality of their greed and lust to do away with all workers rights, our science institutions and pretty much hand everything to the super rich is extremely bad for the 99% of America that aren't rich.. Fuck that and so I woke up.

I pray that there's enough of us to keep these assholes out of the white house.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nice revisionism there.
When BUsh took over we were being targeted for 9/11. Terrorism was a problem Clinton refused to face. We were about to enter a recession thanks to Clinton's raising taxes.
The day Bush left household incomes were at a level not seen since.
Gov't debt had not risen by 80%
The Middle East was no aflame with Islamic radicals burning and destroying
Russia was not expanding into Ukraine and Syria
We are far worse off now.

It's pretty obvious that you decide a position on everything based upon your politics. How in the hell you came up blaming Bill Clinton is a real puzzle. The FBI, the CIA and some military experts told Bush that an attack on our country using commercial aircraft was a distinct possibility. The hijackers actually trained on how to fly the planes but refused to learn landing procedures. Condoleezza Rice personally handed Bush a memo to that effect. George Bush was too busy working on his two tax cuts for the wealthy to pay attention to any kind of military warning.

Now....a little history for you:

The Barracks Bombings October 23, 1983 in Beruit Lebanon occurred when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing US and French military forces—killing 299 American and French servicemen. A then obscure group calling itself Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombings. Our U S marines had determined their location and had artillery weapons set to take them out. What did ol' movie star do? He pulled all our military out of the country. There's no way of knowing but chances are pretty good that if we had taken their asses all the way out then we wouldn't have had to put up with all the bull shit today. This letter to Bill Clinton will explain in detail what the Republicans were trying to do and it wasn't stop terrorism, quite the contrary:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Geezus are you fucking stupid.
The US suffered attacks on the USS Cole, at embassies in Nairobi and Daar es Salaam in Aftrica, an attack on the WTC, and others. And Clinton looked severe and promised to bring the attackers to justice and then shit canned it. Then he sent troops to Somalia and cut and run when things got tough. Osama watched all that and knew the US wouldnt respond effectively and started the 9/11 operation well before Bush ever became president.
Bush was warned about an attack. Wow! What the fuck was he supposed to do? Shut own every airport in America? He was warned about a suitcase nuke too. There was no actionable intelligence there.
As usual Democrats fucked up, Republicans cleaned up, and Democrats deny responsibility and try to blame the GOP.

LMAO!! Bush couldn't wipe his ass and he proved it. The invasion of Iraq just because he wanted to take out Saddam Hussein was the biggest screw up in American history. The only real reason Bush attacked Saddam Hussein was that Saddam tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar in 1993. The entire Republican caucus was hell bent to kill Saddam from then on. Oh well.....only cost the lives of 4500 young Americans, got 35,000 seriously wounded and monetarily cost a trillion dollars. Saddam Hussein had never done anything to the United States and it hadn't been that long since we were kissing his ass:

Every word a lie. Need me to repost Sen Al Gore complaining Saddam was working on aWMD program and Bush was doing nothing about it?

Source Please.......you people watch too much Faux News

OK so now I spent all of 10 seconds searching for it and found it so you didn thave to bother now what? Are you going to claim it's a fake? Al Gore was an idiot (true but irrelevant)? Republicans lie about everything?
Or are you actually going to man up for once, admit I was right, and go on to the next topic, which would be the honest thing to do if you had any shred of integrity.
I know where my money is at.

 

[Campbell]

How can you judge Obama based on policies republicans wouldn't let him pass? Fucking idiot,

So Obama has spent nearly 8 years in the White House doing nothing?
It is hysterical: When people point out that Dem policies have failed libs scream they were blocked by the gOP. When people point out Obama and the Dems havent been effective libs point to a laundy list of laws and policies enacted by Dems.
Cant have it both ways.

Oh, he's done plenty, it's why we haven't tripled our debt like Ronnie Reagan.

it's so boring reminding you Democrats voted for every one of Reagan's polices;; W Bush's too!

lmao

God Damn and Hell Fire! I was a Republican for the first 30 years I voted. I voted for Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon three times...even Reagan once. When I saw Reagan's agenda of massive tax cuts for the richest people in America, continuing to spend like a drunk sailor then quadrupling the national debt I went twenty years and didn't even show up at the polls. I've only voted for a Democrat in a national election three times but you can bet your ass I'll never vote for another Republican. They have destroyed the middle class in America. What they want is a Lord/Serf society. It's why you'll never have another Republican president. Get Used To It! Practice saying Madame President.

I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney...The tea party woke me to the same reality of their greed and lust to do away with all workers rights, our science institutions and pretty much hand everything to the super rich is extremely bad for the 99% of America that aren't rich.. Fuck that and so I woke up.

I pray that there's enough of us to keep these assholes out of the white house.

That's exactly why I abandoned the party. Look at Eisenhower initiating the Interstate highway system. Look at Kennedy committing our nation to go to the moon. Today's politicians don't even consider that sort of thing. Right now we should be committed to solar, wind and nuclear power but the leftovers from the 1930's don't want to tackle it. They're quick to hand $800 billion to the banks but damn slow to do things for the general population. I'm really not red hot on either party but so far at least the Democrats work for the people more than the shills for the Republican party.

 

[Correll]

So Obama has spent nearly 8 years in the White House doing nothing?
It is hysterical: When people point out that Dem policies have failed libs scream they were blocked by the gOP. When people point out Obama and the Dems havent been effective libs point to a laundy list of laws and policies enacted by Dems.
Cant have it both ways.

Oh, he's done plenty, it's why we haven't tripled our debt like Ronnie Reagan.

it's so boring reminding you Democrats voted for every one of Reagan's polices;; W Bush's too!

lmao

God Damn and Hell Fire! I was a Republican for the first 30 years I voted. I voted for Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon three times...even Reagan once. When I saw Reagan's agenda of massive tax cuts for the richest people in America, continuing to spend like a drunk sailor then quadrupling the national debt I went twenty years and didn't even show up at the polls. I've only voted for a Democrat in a national election three times but you can bet your ass I'll never vote for another Republican. They have destroyed the middle class in America. What they want is a Lord/Serf society. It's why you'll never have another Republican president. Get Used To It! Practice saying Madame President.

I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney...The tea party woke me to the same reality of their greed and lust to do away with all workers rights, our science institutions and pretty much hand everything to the super rich is extremely bad for the 99% of America that aren't rich.. Fuck that and so I woke up.

I pray that there's enough of us to keep these assholes out of the white house.

That's exactly why I abandoned the party. Look at Eisenhower initiating the Interstate highway system. Look at Kennedy committing our nation to go to the moon. Today's politicians don't even consider that sort of thing. Right now we should be committed to solar, wind and nuclear power but the leftovers from the 1930's don't want to tackle it. They're quick to hand $800 billion to the banks but damn slow to do things for the general population. I'm really not red hot on either party but so far at least the Democrats work for the people more than the shills for the Republican party.

Entitlements suck up to much money. And will be growing to consumer ever more.


We are already is an unsustainable Financial situation.

 

[The Rabbi]

So Obama has spent nearly 8 years in the White House doing nothing?
It is hysterical: When people point out that Dem policies have failed libs scream they were blocked by the gOP. When people point out Obama and the Dems havent been effective libs point to a laundy list of laws and policies enacted by Dems.
Cant have it both ways.

Oh, he's done plenty, it's why we haven't tripled our debt like Ronnie Reagan.

it's so boring reminding you Democrats voted for every one of Reagan's polices;; W Bush's too!

lmao

God Damn and Hell Fire! I was a Republican for the first 30 years I voted. I voted for Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon three times...even Reagan once. When I saw Reagan's agenda of massive tax cuts for the richest people in America, continuing to spend like a drunk sailor then quadrupling the national debt I went twenty years and didn't even show up at the polls. I've only voted for a Democrat in a national election three times but you can bet your ass I'll never vote for another Republican. They have destroyed the middle class in America. What they want is a Lord/Serf society. It's why you'll never have another Republican president. Get Used To It! Practice saying Madame President.

I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney...The tea party woke me to the same reality of their greed and lust to do away with all workers rights, our science institutions and pretty much hand everything to the super rich is extremely bad for the 99% of America that aren't rich.. Fuck that and so I woke up.

I pray that there's enough of us to keep these assholes out of the white house.

That's exactly why I abandoned the party. Look at Eisenhower initiating the Interstate highway system. Look at Kennedy committing our nation to go to the moon. Today's politicians don't even consider that sort of thing. Right now we should be committed to solar, wind and nuclear power but the leftovers from the 1930's don't want to tackle it. They're quick to hand $800 billion to the banks but damn slow to do things for the general population. I'm really not red hot on either party but so far at least the Democrats work for the people more than the shills for the Republican party.

The GOP is pushing the Keystone Pipeline, the biggest infrastructure project since highways and Dems have blocked it for years.
Yeah, tell us it's the GOP.