The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[francoHFW]

OP- Totally dishonest bs, for hater dupes only...How 'bout the president presented with the worst economy ever, and who has the longest period of growth ever, despite total, mindless Pub obstruction...

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

So he was echoing Clinton, et al.

Someone asked for a link to show Bush was thinking invading Iraq from "day one" and I posted one. Too bad if you gave a problem with that.

But why did you single out Bush when it was such a bipartisan popular idea?

You'll have to ask the poster who asked for a link to Bush. Again, too bad if you have a problem with that.

If you were honest you would have pointed out why it would be moot.

I couldn't have been more honest. Someone asked for a link to Bush talking about an excuse to invade Iraq and I produced one. Anything you seek beyond that stems from your own frustration that I delivered.

So you admit it's an attempt to by you to blame Bush for something most others including Clinton favored. Hypocrisy.

 

[asterism]

He inherited the bottom of the recession.

Yes the recession was over. Until Democrats passed his legislation.
You just arent doing well here, dum-dum.

Would knowing how much fun we liberals have mauling you change your willingness to be mauled?

LOL! You've failed at every post you've made here. You just shwoed that Obama inherited a recession that had bottomed out already and an economy that was on the rise. He promptly turned that to the slowest growth "recovery" i n history. Yes, you've shown that.

Bottomed out losing 700,000 jobs a month

What a great time to assume the presidency

Employment is a lagging indicator.
What you dont know would fill a universe.

Fair point. So if employment is a lagging indicator that means the by your own measure economic conditions had already bottomed out before Obama took the reins correct?

 

[Faun]

Someone asked for a link to show Bush was thinking invading Iraq from "day one" and I posted one. Too bad if you gave a problem with that.

But why did you single out Bush when it was such a bipartisan popular idea?

You'll have to ask the poster who asked for a link to Bush. Again, too bad if you have a problem with that.

If you were honest you would have pointed out why it would be moot.

I couldn't have been more honest. Someone asked for a link to Bush talking about an excuse to invade Iraq and I produced one. Anything you seek beyond that stems from your own frustration that I delivered.

So you admit it's an attempt to by you to blame Bush for something most others including Clinton favored. Hypocrisy.

I admit posting a link to Bush after someone asked for a link to Bush. Nothing hypocritical about that at all except in the mind of demented rightwing nuts.

 

[rightwinger]

Did the UN say Bush should invade?
Did the French? Germans? Majority of Democrats? Obama?

No

All advised Bush to wait for more proof. Bush invaded before proof that Iraq was not a threat came out

You're moving the goal posts big guy. This is the point I refuted:

They brushed aside anything that said Iraq was not a threat

I provided a link that proved that they did

The Lies that Led to the Iraq War and the Persistent Myth of Intelligence Failure Foreign Policy Journal

LOL, what a whacko leftist site, that's a hoot. Did you read any of the articles? They are moonbat on your scale, big guy.

The Democrats on the other hand:

John Edwards: "As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."

Wesley Clark: "He does have weapons of mass destruction. ... There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..."

Al Gore: "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry: "It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Barrack Obama: "{Hussein} has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

What Obama actually said

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length,

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes the recession was over. Until Democrats passed his legislation.
You just arent doing well here, dum-dum.

Would knowing how much fun we liberals have mauling you change your willingness to be mauled?

LOL! You've failed at every post you've made here. You just shwoed that Obama inherited a recession that had bottomed out already and an economy that was on the rise. He promptly turned that to the slowest growth "recovery" i n history. Yes, you've shown that.

Bottomed out losing 700,000 jobs a month

What a great time to assume the presidency

Employment is a lagging indicator.
What you dont know would fill a universe.

Fair point. So if employment is a lagging indicator that means the by your own measure economic conditions had already bottomed out before Obama took the reins correct?

Yup.
When Obozo proposed the stimulus we were told if we enacted it UE would not go above 8%. We enacted it and it went above 10%.
That is a total failure of policy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Did the UN say Bush should invade?
Did the French? Germans? Majority of Democrats? Obama?

No

All advised Bush to wait for more proof. Bush invaded before proof that Iraq was not a threat came out

You're moving the goal posts big guy. This is the point I refuted:

They brushed aside anything that said Iraq was not a threat

I provided a link that proved that they did

The Lies that Led to the Iraq War and the Persistent Myth of Intelligence Failure Foreign Policy Journal

LOL, what a whacko leftist site, that's a hoot. Did you read any of the articles? They are moonbat on your scale, big guy.

The Democrats on the other hand:

John Edwards: "As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."

Wesley Clark: "He does have weapons of mass destruction. ... There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..."

Al Gore: "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry: "It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Barrack Obama: "{Hussein} has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

What Obama actually said

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length,

So you're saying Obama voted "Present" on the war. Got it.

 

[kaz]

Did the UN say Bush should invade?
Did the French? Germans? Majority of Democrats? Obama?

No

All advised Bush to wait for more proof. Bush invaded before proof that Iraq was not a threat came out

You're moving the goal posts big guy. This is the point I refuted:

They brushed aside anything that said Iraq was not a threat

I provided a link that proved that they did

The Lies that Led to the Iraq War and the Persistent Myth of Intelligence Failure Foreign Policy Journal

LOL, what a whacko leftist site, that's a hoot. Did you read any of the articles? They are moonbat on your scale, big guy.

The Democrats on the other hand:

John Edwards: "As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."

Wesley Clark: "He does have weapons of mass destruction. ... There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..."

Al Gore: "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry: "It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Barrack Obama: "{Hussein} has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

What Obama actually said

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length,

OK, big guy, I know the kool-aid gives you a big buzz, but try to follow the discussion. I know you have no long term memory, can't follow the flow of a discussion and believe you can freely move the goal posts, but this isn't relevant to the discussion.

You said W ignored the people who said Hussein wasn't a threat.

I said there were none.

You are responding with Democrats who voted against the war and Obama who said we should not invade. That doesn't address the point because Obama said Hussein was a threat, the point being discussed, and the Democrats who voted against invading said he was a threat.

You are the slow kid who likes to keep running in front of the pack and try to keep us behind you

 

[Faun]

Did the UN say Bush should invade?
Did the French? Germans? Majority of Democrats? Obama?

No

All advised Bush to wait for more proof. Bush invaded before proof that Iraq was not a threat came out

You're moving the goal posts big guy. This is the point I refuted:

They brushed aside anything that said Iraq was not a threat

I provided a link that proved that they did

The Lies that Led to the Iraq War and the Persistent Myth of Intelligence Failure Foreign Policy Journal

LOL, what a whacko leftist site, that's a hoot. Did you read any of the articles? They are moonbat on your scale, big guy.

The Democrats on the other hand:

John Edwards: "As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."

Wesley Clark: "He does have weapons of mass destruction. ... There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..."

Al Gore: "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry: "It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Barrack Obama: "{Hussein} has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

What Obama actually said

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length,

OK, big guy, I know the kool-aid gives you a big buzz, but try to follow the discussion. I know you have no long term memory, can't follow the flow of a discussion and believe you can freely move the goal posts, but this isn't relevant to the discussion.

You said W ignored the people who said Hussein wasn't a threat.

I said there were none.

You are responding with Democrats who voted against the war and Obama who said we should not invade. That doesn't address the point because Obama said Hussein was a threat, the point being discussed, and the Democrats who voted against invading said he was a threat.

You are the slow kid who likes to keep running in front of the pack and try to keep us behind you

No one said Hussein wasn't a threat?? Put the crack pipe down...

• "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." - Condoleezza Rice

• "We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq." - Colin Powell

 

[kaz]

You're moving the goal posts big guy. This is the point I refuted:

I provided a link that proved that they did

The Lies that Led to the Iraq War and the Persistent Myth of Intelligence Failure Foreign Policy Journal

LOL, what a whacko leftist site, that's a hoot. Did you read any of the articles? They are moonbat on your scale, big guy.

The Democrats on the other hand:

John Edwards: "As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."

Wesley Clark: "He does have weapons of mass destruction. ... There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..."

Al Gore: "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry: "It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Barrack Obama: "{Hussein} has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

What Obama actually said

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length,

OK, big guy, I know the kool-aid gives you a big buzz, but try to follow the discussion. I know you have no long term memory, can't follow the flow of a discussion and believe you can freely move the goal posts, but this isn't relevant to the discussion.

You said W ignored the people who said Hussein wasn't a threat.

I said there were none.

You are responding with Democrats who voted against the war and Obama who said we should not invade. That doesn't address the point because Obama said Hussein was a threat, the point being discussed, and the Democrats who voted against invading said he was a threat.

You are the slow kid who likes to keep running in front of the pack and try to keep us behind you

No one said Hussein wasn't a threat?? Put the crack pipe down...

• "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." - Condoleezza Rice

• "We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq." - Colin Powell

Obviously neither of them said that when the decision was being made to invade Iraq. Which is what the discussion is about. That they ever said that at any point in time in history is irrelevant.

Yet again showing the lie over Iraq is by the left and you're showing my point you don't have the gonads to take responsibility for your fuck up in doing it with the Republicans.

 

[The Rabbi]

Did the UN say Bush should invade?
Did the French? Germans? Majority of Democrats? Obama?

No

All advised Bush to wait for more proof. Bush invaded before proof that Iraq was not a threat came out

You're moving the goal posts big guy. This is the point I refuted:

They brushed aside anything that said Iraq was not a threat

I provided a link that proved that they did

The Lies that Led to the Iraq War and the Persistent Myth of Intelligence Failure Foreign Policy Journal

LOL, what a whacko leftist site, that's a hoot. Did you read any of the articles? They are moonbat on your scale, big guy.

The Democrats on the other hand:

John Edwards: "As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."

Wesley Clark: "He does have weapons of mass destruction. ... There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..."

Al Gore: "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry: "It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Barrack Obama: "{Hussein} has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

What Obama actually said

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length,

OK, big guy, I know the kool-aid gives you a big buzz, but try to follow the discussion. I know you have no long term memory, can't follow the flow of a discussion and believe you can freely move the goal posts, but this isn't relevant to the discussion.

You said W ignored the people who said Hussein wasn't a threat.

I said there were none.

You are responding with Democrats who voted against the war and Obama who said we should not invade. That doesn't address the point because Obama said Hussein was a threat, the point being discussed, and the Democrats who voted against invading said he was a threat.

You are the slow kid who likes to keep running in front of the pack and try to keep us behind you

Youre'wasting your breath here. Nitwitter's idea of reality is whatever he thinks it is. If he thinks Bush was duped into lying about the war so Cheney could make millions on no bid contracts with Halliiburton, then that's reality for him. If he thinks Bush lied to everyone in the universe because he wanted war to avenge Saddam's plot against GHW Bush then that's reality for him. If he think neo-cons plotted to dupe Bush and Cheney into lying about intelligence to go to war so they could prove their manliness then that's reality to him.
The scary part is that he believes all three of those things at the same time.

 

[Faun]

I provided a link that proved that they did

The Lies that Led to the Iraq War and the Persistent Myth of Intelligence Failure Foreign Policy Journal

LOL, what a whacko leftist site, that's a hoot. Did you read any of the articles? They are moonbat on your scale, big guy.

The Democrats on the other hand:

John Edwards: "As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."

Wesley Clark: "He does have weapons of mass destruction. ... There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..."

Al Gore: "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry: "It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Barrack Obama: "{Hussein} has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

What Obama actually said

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length,

OK, big guy, I know the kool-aid gives you a big buzz, but try to follow the discussion. I know you have no long term memory, can't follow the flow of a discussion and believe you can freely move the goal posts, but this isn't relevant to the discussion.

You said W ignored the people who said Hussein wasn't a threat.

I said there were none.

You are responding with Democrats who voted against the war and Obama who said we should not invade. That doesn't address the point because Obama said Hussein was a threat, the point being discussed, and the Democrats who voted against invading said he was a threat.

You are the slow kid who likes to keep running in front of the pack and try to keep us behind you

No one said Hussein wasn't a threat?? Put the crack pipe down...

• "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." - Condoleezza Rice

• "We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq." - Colin Powell

Obviously neither of them said that when the decision was being made to invade Iraq. Which is what the discussion is about. That they ever said that at any point in time in history is irrelevant.

Yet again showing the lie over Iraq is by the left and you're showing my point you don't have the gonads to take responsibility for your fuck up in doing it with the Republicans.

Umm... you claimed no one said Iraq was a threat. You're wrong, and you're just not man enough to admit it.

 

[kaz]

You're moving the goal posts big guy. This is the point I refuted:

I provided a link that proved that they did

The Lies that Led to the Iraq War and the Persistent Myth of Intelligence Failure Foreign Policy Journal

LOL, what a whacko leftist site, that's a hoot. Did you read any of the articles? They are moonbat on your scale, big guy.

The Democrats on the other hand:

John Edwards: "As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."

Wesley Clark: "He does have weapons of mass destruction. ... There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..."

Al Gore: "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry: "It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Barrack Obama: "{Hussein} has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

What Obama actually said

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length,

OK, big guy, I know the kool-aid gives you a big buzz, but try to follow the discussion. I know you have no long term memory, can't follow the flow of a discussion and believe you can freely move the goal posts, but this isn't relevant to the discussion.

You said W ignored the people who said Hussein wasn't a threat.

I said there were none.

You are responding with Democrats who voted against the war and Obama who said we should not invade. That doesn't address the point because Obama said Hussein was a threat, the point being discussed, and the Democrats who voted against invading said he was a threat.

You are the slow kid who likes to keep running in front of the pack and try to keep us behind you

Youre'wasting your breath here. Nitwitter's idea of reality is whatever he thinks it is. If he thinks Bush was duped into lying about the war so Cheney could make millions on no bid contracts with Halliiburton, then that's reality for him. If he thinks Bush lied to everyone in the universe because he wanted war to avenge Saddam's plot against GHW Bush then that's reality for him. If he think neo-cons plotted to dupe Bush and Cheney into lying about intelligence to go to war so they could prove their manliness then that's reality to him.
The scary part is that he believes all three of those things at the same time.

I agree, but there are other people reading it

 

[kaz]

LOL, what a whacko leftist site, that's a hoot. Did you read any of the articles? They are moonbat on your scale, big guy.

The Democrats on the other hand:

John Edwards: "As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."

Wesley Clark: "He does have weapons of mass destruction. ... There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..."

Al Gore: "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry: "It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Barrack Obama: "{Hussein} has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

What Obama actually said

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length,

OK, big guy, I know the kool-aid gives you a big buzz, but try to follow the discussion. I know you have no long term memory, can't follow the flow of a discussion and believe you can freely move the goal posts, but this isn't relevant to the discussion.

You said W ignored the people who said Hussein wasn't a threat.

I said there were none.

You are responding with Democrats who voted against the war and Obama who said we should not invade. That doesn't address the point because Obama said Hussein was a threat, the point being discussed, and the Democrats who voted against invading said he was a threat.

You are the slow kid who likes to keep running in front of the pack and try to keep us behind you

No one said Hussein wasn't a threat?? Put the crack pipe down...

• "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." - Condoleezza Rice

• "We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq." - Colin Powell

Obviously neither of them said that when the decision was being made to invade Iraq. Which is what the discussion is about. That they ever said that at any point in time in history is irrelevant.

Yet again showing the lie over Iraq is by the left and you're showing my point you don't have the gonads to take responsibility for your fuck up in doing it with the Republicans.

Umm... you claimed no one said Iraq was a threat. You're wrong, and you're just not man enough to admit it.

So when I said no one said Iraq was a threat when we were discussing invading Iraq, you took that as meaning I said no one said Iraq was a threat to anyone ever at any time in history. Got it. Thanks for that intellectual contribution to the discussion

 

[TooTall]

Republicans have to hide the gains in employment by averaging it out. With employment it is more accurate to know what figures the administration started with and where the figures are today.

And under Obama barely more people are working today than 7 years ago, which is even worse given the growth in the potential workforce.

Your hallucinations grow increasingly bizarre. In reality, there are 6.4 million more people working today than there were when Obama became president. If 6.4 million in little more than 6 years (about 1 million per year) is your idea of "barely" growing, who knows what you think of Bush41's 4 years in office, which produced only 592K jobs per year. The second lowest growth. His son, Bush43, was the only one worse producing only 547K per year.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

These numbers are from the BLS Data link.

You cherry pick 4 years of Bush against 6 years and 4 months of Obama, so I will use 8 years of Bush against 6 years and 4 months of Obama.

Number employed
142,152,000 Jan 2009
148,523,000 Apr 2015
Increase 6,371,000

136,559,000 Jan 2000
143,369,000 Dec 2008
Increase 6,810,000

You will say the baby boomers just started retiring in 2009 and I will say he population growth has added more people to the work force.

All it proves is that numbers can be manipulated to satisfy one's agenda.

 

[edthecynic]

Republicans have to hide the gains in employment by averaging it out. With employment it is more accurate to know what figures the administration started with and where the figures are today.

And under Obama barely more people are working today than 7 years ago, which is even worse given the growth in the potential workforce.

Your hallucinations grow increasingly bizarre. In reality, there are 6.4 million more people working today than there were when Obama became president. If 6.4 million in little more than 6 years (about 1 million per year) is your idea of "barely" growing, who knows what you think of Bush41's 4 years in office, which produced only 592K jobs per year. The second lowest growth. His son, Bush43, was the only one worse producing only 547K per year.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

These numbers are from the BLS Data link.

You cherry pick 4 years of Bush against 6 years and 4 months of Obama, so I will use 8 years of Bush against 6 years and 4 months of Obama.

Number employed
142,152,000 Jan 2009
148,523,000 Apr 2015
Increase 6,371,000

136,559,000 Jan 2000
143,369,000 Dec 2008
Increase 6,810,000

You will say the baby boomers just started retiring in 2009 and I will say he population growth has added more people to the work force.

All it proves is that numbers can be manipulated to satisfy one's agenda.

Bush was not president in 2000.

Employed
137,778,000 Jan 2001
142,152,000 Jan 2009
Increase 4,374,000

Unemployed
6,023,000 Jan 2001
12,058,000 Jan 2009
Increase 6,035,000

Net job loss 1,661,000

 

[rightwinger]

Did the UN say Bush should invade?
Did the French? Germans? Majority of Democrats? Obama?

No

All advised Bush to wait for more proof. Bush invaded before proof that Iraq was not a threat came out

You're moving the goal posts big guy. This is the point I refuted:

They brushed aside anything that said Iraq was not a threat

I provided a link that proved that they did

The Lies that Led to the Iraq War and the Persistent Myth of Intelligence Failure Foreign Policy Journal

LOL, what a whacko leftist site, that's a hoot. Did you read any of the articles? They are moonbat on your scale, big guy.

The Democrats on the other hand:

John Edwards: "As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."

Wesley Clark: "He does have weapons of mass destruction. ... There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..."

Al Gore: "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry: "It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Barrack Obama: "{Hussein} has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

What Obama actually said

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length,

So you're saying Obama voted "Present" on the war. Got it.

Sounds like he is asking Bush...Are you fucking crazy?

Helped get Obama elected President. When it came to Iraq, it seems Obama was once again the only adult in the room

 

[kaz]

You're moving the goal posts big guy. This is the point I refuted:

I provided a link that proved that they did

The Lies that Led to the Iraq War and the Persistent Myth of Intelligence Failure Foreign Policy Journal

LOL, what a whacko leftist site, that's a hoot. Did you read any of the articles? They are moonbat on your scale, big guy.

The Democrats on the other hand:

John Edwards: "As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."

Wesley Clark: "He does have weapons of mass destruction. ... There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..."

Al Gore: "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry: "It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Barrack Obama: "{Hussein} has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

What Obama actually said

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length,

So you're saying Obama voted "Present" on the war. Got it.

Sounds like he is asking Bush...Are you fucking crazy?

Helped get Obama elected President. When it came to Iraq, it seems Obama was once again the only adult in the room

You realize all you just said was you are an unquestioning sycophant, no?

 

[rightwinger]

Would knowing how much fun we liberals have mauling you change your willingness to be mauled?

LOL! You've failed at every post you've made here. You just shwoed that Obama inherited a recession that had bottomed out already and an economy that was on the rise. He promptly turned that to the slowest growth "recovery" i n history. Yes, you've shown that.

Bottomed out losing 700,000 jobs a month

What a great time to assume the presidency

Employment is a lagging indicator.
What you dont know would fill a universe.

Fair point. So if employment is a lagging indicator that means the by your own measure economic conditions had already bottomed out before Obama took the reins correct?

Yup.
When Obozo proposed the stimulus we were told if we enacted it UE would not go above 8%. We enacted it and it went above 10%.
That is a total failure of policy.

Actually, that study was released six months ahead of the actual stimulus. By the time stimulus passed unemployment was already above 8%

 

[Faun]

What Obama actually said

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length,

OK, big guy, I know the kool-aid gives you a big buzz, but try to follow the discussion. I know you have no long term memory, can't follow the flow of a discussion and believe you can freely move the goal posts, but this isn't relevant to the discussion.

You said W ignored the people who said Hussein wasn't a threat.

I said there were none.

You are responding with Democrats who voted against the war and Obama who said we should not invade. That doesn't address the point because Obama said Hussein was a threat, the point being discussed, and the Democrats who voted against invading said he was a threat.

You are the slow kid who likes to keep running in front of the pack and try to keep us behind you

No one said Hussein wasn't a threat?? Put the crack pipe down...

• "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." - Condoleezza Rice

• "We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq." - Colin Powell

Obviously neither of them said that when the decision was being made to invade Iraq. Which is what the discussion is about. That they ever said that at any point in time in history is irrelevant.

Yet again showing the lie over Iraq is by the left and you're showing my point you don't have the gonads to take responsibility for your fuck up in doing it with the Republicans.

Umm... you claimed no one said Iraq was a threat. You're wrong, and you're just not man enough to admit it.

So when I said no one said Iraq was a threat when we were discussing invading Iraq, you took that as meaning I said no one said Iraq was a threat to anyone ever at any time in history. Got it. Thanks for that intellectual contribution to the discussion

We're not talking about "any time in history." Those statements were made the year before and nothing changed in Iraq during that year. It also fits into the timeframe of the discussion which encompasses the period of time Bush was contemplating invading Iraq. All that changed during that year was the Bush administration's position on Iraq as they sought to fix the intelligence around their policy.