Is Donald Trump the new George W. Bush?

[Siete]

Gingrich was couped in 1998. That is the difference. Dennis Fat Hastert, now jailbird for sexually assaulting young boys, did not share Newt's fiscally conservative views. Indeed, this chart says it all...





Personally, I care a lot more about COUNTRY than PARTY, but the chart speaks for itself. When government spending grows, the economy and the American people suffer. Government spending is the variable.

Congress is responsible for spending bills, starting in the House.

 

[LaDexter]

True. That's why those of us who supported Gingrich in the 1990s are no longer "Republicans." We did not change. The GOP changed, from a patriotic party of fiscal conservatism, to the completely sold out to Israel socialist mess it is now...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What difference does it make?

None, after they're already dead. Why did Republicans cut the embassy security budget? Hillary warned them not to. What has the Benghazi Committee done to help prevent such attacks in the future? Nothing! They've been too busy trying to burn Hillary at the stake. Looks like the rabid NaziCon salivating days are over.

Lying fuck spouting a lie that been debunked a billion fucking times already

 

[oreo]

Remember, Bush tricked the country into invading Iraq and didn't even know Sunni and Shiite had been at war for the last thousand years. Would he have done it if he knew he was making a powerful friend for Iran? You know his "advisers" talked him into it with delusions of grandeur.

Trump has promised to killed babies, women and children, which, of course, would be the families of suicide bombers.



"You have to take out their families" three times.

How would the rest of the world view this country. Now I know some right wingers out there will say, "But Obama kills children all the time" or "Obama targets Americans and their families" or some other such right wing bullshit. Because they are as crazy as Trump.

But what do the sane ones think. Is this what you want in a president?

And you know he would cut taxes on the wealthy and do nothing to block jobs from going overseas.

And yet, how many Republicans on the USMB think Bush was not only successful, but a great president?

You know it's really STUPID to chase off millions of Republicans who will be voting for Hillary Clinton, by comparing one of their favorites G.W. Bush to Donald Trump. Are you trying to piss them off so bad, that they'll change their minds and vote for Trump? So while Republicans are out there endorsing Hillary Clinton, and millions more Republicans are on the fence--you're hard at work--working the opposite direction. LOL

Republicans for Hillary? - CNNPolitics.com
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-nearly-half-of-republican-women-wouldnt-vote-for-
trump/article/2586775
Mac Stipanovich: An open letter to my fellow Republicans
Michael Reagan explains why his father wouldn't have voted for Trump - CNNPolitics.com

I seriously doubt Hillary Clinton would want you volunteering for her campaign--LOL You're about as much help to her as a rubber crutch.

 

[hadit]

Republicans try to take credit for Clinton's economic success.

But let's look at the facts.

When Clinton left office and Bush became president, Bush had the same GOP controlled congress Clinton had.

And yet, Bush gave us deficits and war and debt and finally a failed economy. About the only thing that changed was the presidency. If Republicans keep trying to take credit for what happened under Clinton, then they have to take the responsibility for what happened under Bush. No way around it.

Uhhh, you forgot that little kerfluffle at the twin towers in New York a few months into his presidency along with jumpin Jim Jeffords flipping the Senate. Not sure exactly how you missed those, but whatever.

 

[Windship]

...and lets not forget the coup d'etat in 2000.

 

[Windship]

gorjie busch= "we will be greeted as liberators"
"oil will pay for the war"
" we will be out in 6 months"

 

[Windship]

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.There is a small somber box that appears in the New York Times every day. Titled simply "Killed in Iraq," it lists the names and military affiliations of those who most recently died on tour of duty. Wednesday's edition listed just one name: Orenthial J. Smith, age 21, of Allendale, South Carolina.

The young, late O.J. Smith was almost certainly named after the legendary running back, Orenthal J. Simpson, before that dashing American hero was charged for a double-murder. Now his namesake has died in far-off Mesopotamia in a noble mission to, as our president put it on March 19, "disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."

Today, more than three months after Bush's stirring declaration of war and nearly two months since he declared victory, no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons have been found, nor any documentation of their existence, nor any sign they were deployed in the field.

The mainstream press, after an astonishing two years of cowardice, is belatedly drawing attention to the unconscionable level of administrative deception. They seem surprised to find that when it comes to Iraq, the Bush administration isn't prone to the occasional lie of expediency but, in fact, almost never told the truth.

What follows are just the most outrageous and significant of the dozens of outright lies uttered by Bush and his top officials over the past year in what amounts to a systematic campaign to scare the bejeezus out of everybody:

 

[Windship]

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrilytold The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

 

[Windship]

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

 

[Windship]

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

 

[Windship]

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."-- President Bush, Oct. 7.FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

 

[Windship]

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States."--President Bush, Oct. 7.FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

 

[Windship]

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.

 

[Windship]

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets."-- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.

 

[Windship]

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." --Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, aspreviously reported on AlterNet the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.

 

[Windship]

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week -- have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.

So, months after the war, we are once again where we started -- with plenty of rhetoric and absolutely no proof of this "grave danger" for which O.J. Smith died. The Bush administration is now scrambling to place the blame for its lies on faulty intelligence, when in fact the intelligence was fine; it was their abuse of it that was "faulty."

Rather than apologize for leading us to a preemptive war based on impossibly faulty or shamelessly distorted "intelligence" or offering his resignation, our sly madman in the White House is starting to sound more like that other O.J. Like the man who cheerfully played golf while promising to pursue "the real killers," Bush is now vowing to search for "the true extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, no matter how long it takes."

On the terrible day of the 9/11 attacks, five hours after a hijacked plane slammed into the Pentagon, retired Gen. Wesley Clark received a strange call from someone (he didn't name names) representing the White House position: "I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein,'" Clark told Meet the Press anchor Tim Russert. "I said, 'But -- I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence.'"

And neither did we.

 

[Windship]

oh...thats 13...sry.

 

[Windship]

2 trillion usd the cost so far...5000+ dead and 30,000 maimed+...but check this out:


Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War

By Angelo Young, International Business Times

20 March 13

he accounting of the financial cost of the nearly decade-long Iraq War will go on for years, but a recent analysis has shed light on the companies that made money off the war by providing support services as the privatization of what were former U.S. military operations rose to unprecedented levels.

Private or publicly listed firms received at least $138 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for government contracts for services that included providing private security, building infrastructure and feeding the troops.

Ten contractors received 52 percent of the funds, according to an analysis by the Financial Times that was published Tuesday.

The No. 1 recipient?

Houston-based energy-focused engineering and construction firm KBR, Inc. (NYSE:KBR), which was spun off from its parent, oilfield services provider Halliburton Co. (NYSE:HAL), in 2007.

The company was given $39.5 billion in Iraq-related contracts over the past decade, with many of the deals given without any bidding from competing firms, such as a $568-million contract renewal in 2010 to provide housing, meals, water and bathroom services to soldiers, a deal that led to a Justice Department lawsuit over alleged kickbacks, as reported by Bloomberg.

Who were Nos. 2 and 3?

Agility Logistics (KSE:AGLTY) of Kuwait and the state-owned Kuwait Petroleum Corp. Together, these firms garnered $13.5 billion of U.S. contracts.

As private enterprise entered the war zone at unprecedented levels, the amount of corruption ballooned, even if most contractors performed their duties as expected.

According to the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the level of corruption by defense contractors may be as high as $60 billion. Disciplined soldiers that would traditionally do many of the tasks are commissioned by private and publicly listed companies.

Even without the graft, the costs of paying for these services are higher than paying governement employees or soldiers to do them because of the profit motive involved. No-bid contracting - when companies get to name their price with no competing bid - didn't lower legitimate expenses. (Despite promises by President Barack Obama to reel in this habit, the trend toward granting favored companies federal contracts without considering competing bids continued to grow, by 9 percent last year, according to the Washington Post.)

Even though the military has largely pulled out of Iraq, private contractors remain on the ground and continue to reap U.S. government contracts. For example, the U.S. State Department estimates that taxpayers will dole out $3 billion to private guards for the government's sprawling embassy in Baghdad.

The costs of paying private and publicly listed war profiteers seem miniscule in light of the total bill for the war.

Last week, the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University said the war in Iraq cost $1.7 trillion dollars, not including the $490 billion in immediate benefits owed to veterans of the war and the lifetime benefits that will be owed to them or their next of kin.

 

[Windship]

1/3 of kbr and haliburton's profit is from the Iraq war.
Is this ok with you?