Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So you aren't even disputing that the Obama Administration misled the American people about the Affordable Care Act? That they felt obliged to tell them lies and write the bill in such a confusing manner that the American public WOULDN'T understand what it was that was being done to them?
The ACA has been available for the American public to read. Why didn't you read it?
Read the Affordable Care Act Health Care Law HealthCare.gov
Peter Gruber admitted that the people who wrote the ACA DELIBERATELY made it so complex and confusing that nobody would understand what was in it. They made it so long (2.500 pages) that few tried. The architects of the ACA did so because they didn't want people to understand the ACA because if they did they would have wanted it even less than they did!
No, Gurber accurately described American's who are too lazy/stupid to read and learn.
WrmK 10381874Beyond that however, Iraq's socialist government was a long time proponent of International islamic Terrorism, who was also in violation of their treaty obligations... so the WMD thing was only one of the reasons that Iraq's socialist government HAD TO GO... and go, it went.
The US Congress authorized use of military force (if necessary) in Iraq for two reasons and both were required to be applicable for any decision to invade.
To protect the national security of the USA. "And". " enforce "relevant" UN Security Council Resolutions against Iraq. UNSC Resolution 1441 became a relevant UNSC Resolution in November 2002 and it dealt with WMD and no other reason was relevant to the UN inspection regime that was set up to determine whether use of military force would become necessary under Resolution 1441.
There were no other reasons than WMD and Bush signed on to 1441 after sending Colin Powell to the UN to get it.
You are seriously wrong LostKeys.
Yes... and invading and removing the socialist government of Iraq was necessary in the Protecting the national security of the United States, because Iraq was a longstanding proponent of International Terrorism, who was known to have ongoing programs producing Chemical Biological Weapons (CBW) which fall into the category of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
You're conflating what was legally essential to rising above the threshold of respective treaties, with inherent justifications... .
In the post 9-11 paradigm, Saddam was an unacceptable risk to the security of the United States.
And while it was nice that the UN found enough members who recognized that... but in reality, had they failed to do so, it would not have changed anything.
The UN needed to appear relevant, so it complied... .
But, the Ideological Left is never relevant where US Security is concerned.
Sadly, we're a Republic, so from time to time ya find power and you screw us over... then you're kicked to the curb. At which time, we bury the dead and rebuild... and the deadly cycle begins anew.
You are completely off your rocker.
Yeah... and that's because there is absolutely no evidence that the Ideological Left has damaged the United States in ANY WAY...
I mean US Families... are stronger than ever.
US Education is the envy of the planet.
Why the US enjoys greater freedom because of the Left. Anyone can start any business they like, without any concern for Tens of thousands of dollars in immediate bureaucratic expenses, before one can legally trade so much as a single product or service.
The Internet... look at what you've done for THAT! Children are free to learn of every facet of human sexuality by simply being left alone with a computer that is connected to the World Wide Web and look how THAT is turning out... , with feminized males demanding to marry other feminized males... and unlimited Girl on Girl, where's the downside to THAT? Every Dad dreams of the day when his daughter will be on the home page of his favorite porn site!
And the list goes on and on!
Why in this very thread, we're witnessing the Left celebrate the murders of innocent US Citizens... all justified through a series of profoundly obvious deceits. All of which leads directly to unprecedented treachery, wherein the Commander in Chief, was informed of an attack on a US Mission, which directly threatened the life of the US Ambassador and at BEST he went to bed without being certain that his staff was authorized to do what was necessary to render the aid to save those US Lives.
Yes... any idea that the Left in the US threatens the US is a LIE! Because... After all, The Left believes that THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO THREATEN THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES! Because the Constitution of the United States GIVES THEM THAT RIGHT!
ROFLMNAO! You people are truly a menace to the human species. The Idiocracy: LIVES!
Yes... and invading and removing the socialist government of Iraq was necessary in the Protecting the national security of the United States, because Iraq was a longstanding proponent of International Terrorism, who was known to have ongoing programs producing Chemical Biological Weapons (CBW) which fall into the category of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
All of which leads directly to unprecedented treachery, wherein the Commander in Chief, was informed of an attack on a US Mission, which directly threatened the life of the US Ambassador and at BEST he went to bed without being certain that his staff was authorized to do what was necessary to render the aid to save those US Lives
So you aren't even disputing that the Obama Administration misled the American people about the Affordable Care Act? That they felt obliged to tell them lies and write the bill in such a confusing manner that the American public WOULDN'T understand what it was that was being done to them?
When George W. Bush left office both Afghanistan and Iraq were LIGHT YEARS better off than they are now after six years of "President Leading From Behind!"
Wrmk 10383415Yes... and invading and removing the socialist government of Iraq was necessary in the Protecting the national security of the United States, because Iraq was a longstanding proponent of International Terrorism, who was known to have ongoing programs producing Chemical Biological Weapons (CBW) which fall into the category of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
Reality does not support the conclusion you have reached.
The fact remains that in October 2002 a decision to invade and remove the government of Iraq was not necessary in order to protect the national security of the United States, because the President of the United States of
America stated so at such time. That is why Bush agreed to pursue the non- military diplomatic approach through UNSC Resolution 1441.
Invasion was not necessary in October 2002 according to Bush.
We know as a fact that Bush held that view that an invasion was not necessary from October 2002 through March 10, 2003.
It is beyond comprehension that Bush decided after March 10, 2003 that an invasion was in fact necessary for any other reason than WMD because there were 200 UN inspectors on the ground inside Iraq at the time - and no evidence of WMD was found. The inspectors were down to resolving old longstanding issues from the 1990s.
But Bush claimed he decided in the last days to invade because he had doubtless intelligence that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from those 200 inspectors.
If what happened occurred in any other way, I'd like to see in writing your version of it.
So you aren't even disputing that the Obama Administration misled the American people about the Affordable Care Act? That they felt obliged to tell them lies and write the bill in such a confusing manner that the American public WOULDN'T understand what it was that was being done to them?
Hold on a minute there sweetlips. When exactly was the public given the opportunity to vote on the healthcare bill? WE WEREN"T, because that's not the way it works. The bill was presented in the House and Senate for our representatives to vote on. Are you saying that your representatives was too stupid to have his staff read and understand the bill, and then explain it to him? Not my fault if you voted for an idiot.
When George W. Bush left office both Afghanistan and Iraq were LIGHT YEARS better off than they are now after six years of "President Leading From Behind!"
In terms of what specifically?
Here's one area of statistics very important to me, perhaps not to you?
How many US troops were killed during 2008 and how many troops were killed this year (2014):
In Iraq?
In Afghanistan?
What about wounded?
I will propose several criteria after you provide your answer to the first one, or I have to look them up for you:
Wrmk 10383698All of which leads directly to unprecedented treachery, wherein the Commander in Chief, was informed of an attack on a US Mission, which directly threatened the life of the US Ambassador and at BEST he went to bed without being certain that his staff was authorized to do what was necessary to render the aid to save those US Lives
Do you have any documentation to back up your whacky assertion/ aspersions against the President of the United States that has a Congressional stamp of approval on it.
Myths are not true LostKeys / that is why they are called myths.
"Now, look, I didn’t — part of the reason we went into Iraq was — the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction." - George W. Bush, 8.21.2006Wrmk 10383415Yes... and invading and removing the socialist government of Iraq was necessary in the Protecting the national security of the United States, because Iraq was a longstanding proponent of International Terrorism, who was known to have ongoing programs producing Chemical Biological Weapons (CBW) which fall into the category of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
Reality does not support the conclusion you have reached.
The fact remains that in October 2002 a decision to invade and remove the government of Iraq was not necessary in order to protect the national security of the United States, because the President of the United States of
America stated so at such time. That is why Bush agreed to pursue the non- military diplomatic approach through UNSC Resolution 1441.
Invasion was not necessary in October 2002 according to Bush.
We know as a fact that Bush held that view that an invasion was not necessary from October 2002 through March 10, 2003.
It is beyond comprehension that Bush decided after March 10, 2003 that an invasion was in fact necessary for any other reason than WMD because there were 200 UN inspectors on the ground inside Iraq at the time - and no evidence of WMD was found. The inspectors were down to resolving old longstanding issues from the 1990s.
But Bush claimed he decided in the last days to invade because he had doubtless intelligence that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from those 200 inspectors.
If what happened occurred in any other way, I'd like to see in writing your version of it.
The reason we went into Iraq when we did was the sanctions imposed on Iraq following the first Gulf War had become essentially toothless. Saddam Hussein was selling oil on the black market and countries like France and Russia were selling him weapons. It was so bad that the son of the UN Secretary General was brokering those oil for gun deals!
As for what could or could not be hidden from inspectors? When Libya voluntarily disclosed the whereabouts of a secret site for the development of nuclear weapons...that was hidden out in the desert and the international inspectors who were supposed to be making sure Libya wasn't conducting such research knew NOTHING of it's existence!
So you aren't even disputing that the Obama Administration misled the American people about the Affordable Care Act? That they felt obliged to tell them lies and write the bill in such a confusing manner that the American public WOULDN'T understand what it was that was being done to them?
Hold on a minute there sweetlips. When exactly was the public given the opportunity to vote on the healthcare bill? WE WEREN"T, because that's not the way it works. The bill was presented in the House and Senate for our representatives to vote on. Are you saying that your representatives was too stupid to have his staff read and understand the bill, and then explain it to him? Not my fault if you voted for an idiot.
I'm saying that the reason they wrote the bill the way they did was to deliberately make it as confusing as possible so NOBODY would understand it. It's why you had the Speaker of the House telling us that they needed to pass the bill before they could know what was in the bill!
When George W. Bush left office both Afghanistan and Iraq were LIGHT YEARS better off than they are now after six years of "President Leading From Behind!"
In terms of what specifically?
So you aren't even disputing that the Obama Administration misled the American people about the Affordable Care Act? That they felt obliged to tell them lies and write the bill in such a confusing manner that the American public WOULDN'T understand what it was that was being done to them?
Hold on a minute there sweetlips. When exactly was the public given the opportunity to vote on the healthcare bill? WE WEREN"T, because that's not the way it works. The bill was presented in the House and Senate for our representatives to vote on. Are you saying that your representatives was too stupid to have his staff read and understand the bill, and then explain it to him? Not my fault if you voted for an idiot.
I'm saying that the reason they wrote the bill the way they did was to deliberately make it as confusing as possible so NOBODY would understand it. It's why you had the Speaker of the House telling us that they needed to pass the bill before they could know what was in the bill!
Again, if you voted for a representative that was too stupid to at least get someone to explain it to him, that's your fault. Understanding and voting on bills is their job, not ours. As far as the out of context quote from Pelosi, that's been explained a million times, but I don't expect fox ever told you about that, or that teabaggers would ever understand what she really meant anyway.
Wrmk 10383415Yes... and invading and removing the socialist government of Iraq was necessary in the Protecting the national security of the United States, because Iraq was a longstanding proponent of International Terrorism, who was known to have ongoing programs producing Chemical Biological Weapons (CBW) which fall into the category of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
Reality does not support the conclusion you have reached.
The fact remains that in October 2002 a decision to invade and remove the government of Iraq was not necessary in order to protect the national security of the United States, because the President of the United States of
America stated so at such time. That is why Bush agreed to pursue the non- military diplomatic approach through UNSC Resolution 1441.
Invasion was not necessary in October 2002 according to Bush.
We know as a fact that Bush held that view that an invasion was not necessary from October 2002 through March 10, 2003.
It is beyond comprehension that Bush decided after March 10, 2003 that an invasion was in fact necessary for any other reason than WMD because there were 200 UN inspectors on the ground inside Iraq at the time - and no evidence of WMD was found. The inspectors were down to resolving old longstanding issues from the 1990s.
But Bush claimed he decided in the last days to invade because he had doubtless intelligence that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from those 200 inspectors.
If what happened occurred in any other way, I'd like to see in writing your version of it.
Umm, not only was there no risk, the administration itself admitted there was no risk before they decided to invade anyway.Wrmk 10383415Yes... and invading and removing the socialist government of Iraq was necessary in the Protecting the national security of the United States, because Iraq was a longstanding proponent of International Terrorism, who was known to have ongoing programs producing Chemical Biological Weapons (CBW) which fall into the category of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
Reality does not support the conclusion you have reached.
The fact remains that in October 2002 a decision to invade and remove the government of Iraq was not necessary in order to protect the national security of the United States, because the President of the United States of
America stated so at such time. That is why Bush agreed to pursue the non- military diplomatic approach through UNSC Resolution 1441.
Invasion was not necessary in October 2002 according to Bush.
We know as a fact that Bush held that view that an invasion was not necessary from October 2002 through March 10, 2003.
It is beyond comprehension that Bush decided after March 10, 2003 that an invasion was in fact necessary for any other reason than WMD because there were 200 UN inspectors on the ground inside Iraq at the time - and no evidence of WMD was found. The inspectors were down to resolving old longstanding issues from the 1990s.
But Bush claimed he decided in the last days to invade because he had doubtless intelligence that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from those 200 inspectors.
If what happened occurred in any other way, I'd like to see in writing your version of it.
You're asking me why Bush decided to invade Iraq, after the 18 months he gave Iraq to bring itself into compliance with its treaty obligations... wherein prior to the deadline, which FTR: Iraq failed to meet, Iraq was presumed to be a reasonable risk... and after which, that presumption was lifted?
Is there something about 'Deadlines' that confuses you? It's pretty simple stuff... .
. Violence in Afghanistan has spiked in the last two years, and Taliban militants now control wide swaths of countryside. Military officials say they have enough troops to win battles but not to hold territory, and they hope the influx of troops, plus the continued growth of the Afghan army, will change that.
You're asking me why Bush decided to invade Iraq, after the 18 months he gave Iraq to bring itself into compliance with its treaty obligations... wherein
Wrmk 10384383You're asking me why Bush decided to invade Iraq, after the 18 months he gave Iraq to bring itself into compliance with its treaty obligations... wherein
No I didn't ask you why Bush decided to invade Iraq. I set you straight ... .
For Oldstyle:
155 US troops were killed in Afghanistan during 2008. Afghan Government Security Forces were not responsible for security in any districts outside of the city of Kabul. Taliban terrorists controlled most of the country. Taliban had momentum going into 2009. A surge of 20,000 US troops was needed to break it.
Here's a view from January 1 2009:
. Violence in Afghanistan has spiked in the last two years, and Taliban militants now control wide swaths of countryside. Military officials say they have enough troops to win battles but not to hold territory, and they hope the influx of troops, plus the continued growth of the Afghan army, will change that.
U.S. Readying Afghan Surge Against Taliban Fox News
