Will Republicans ever admit the mess they left President Obama?

[eddiew]

YOU should have told that to these people!!!

Obviously you never heard of these DEMOCRAT quotes!
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

ALL Democrats asking for resumption of "1991 CEASE FIRE" YOU idiots!

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"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.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Duhbya, December, 2005

guess that throws a monkey wrench into their it was hillary's fault bs

Only if you ignore the whole "Constitution" thing...you know...where the President has to get authority from Congress to go to war?

So was Hillary part of Congress? Did she vote to authorize? Your "monkey wrench" just flew out and hit you in the head!

Bush asked Congress for that authority and Congress approved a resolution to allow him to use the military IF he thought Iraq was a threat. Basically, Congress made Bush the decider. So Bush is 100% correct when he said...

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Bush, December, 2005

So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!

perhaps congress didn't realize they were dealing with an ah who would lie and scare us into war

 

[Faun]

YOU should have told that to these people!!!

Obviously you never heard of these DEMOCRAT quotes!
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

ALL Democrats asking for resumption of "1991 CEASE FIRE" YOU idiots!

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"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.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Duhbya, December, 2005

guess that throws a monkey wrench into their it was hillary's fault bs

Only if you ignore the whole "Constitution" thing...you know...where the President has to get authority from Congress to go to war?

So was Hillary part of Congress? Did she vote to authorize? Your "monkey wrench" just flew out and hit you in the head!

Bush asked Congress for that authority and Congress approved a resolution to allow him to use the military IF he thought Iraq was a threat. Basically, Congress made Bush the decider. So Bush is 100% correct when he said...

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Bush, December, 2005

So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!

When a president, not long after an attack like 9.11, implores the Congress to give him the authority, if needed, to use the military to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq because they pose a threat and blurs the line between Saddam Hussein (who wouldn't allow inspectors into Iraq) and Al-Qaeda, it's not easy to deny him that. So they gave him the authority to decide.

Even after getting the inspectors back in, he decided to have the U.N. replaced with our military.

 

[healthmyths]

"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Duhbya, December, 2005

guess that throws a monkey wrench into their it was hillary's fault bs

Only if you ignore the whole "Constitution" thing...you know...where the President has to get authority from Congress to go to war?

So was Hillary part of Congress? Did she vote to authorize? Your "monkey wrench" just flew out and hit you in the head!

Bush asked Congress for that authority and Congress approved a resolution to allow him to use the military IF he thought Iraq was a threat. Basically, Congress made Bush the decider. So Bush is 100% correct when he said...

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Bush, December, 2005

So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!

perhaps congress didn't realize they were dealing with an ah who would lie and scare us into war

What Ass h... lied,... Clinton?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

His wife...
"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.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

During the 1992 presidential campaign, Al Gore criticized the first Bush administration for its "blatant disregard" of Iraq's ties to terrorism. On September 29, 1992 Al Gore said, "The Reagan-Bush administration was also prepared to overlook the fact that the terrorists who masterminded the attack on the Achille Lauro and the savage murder of American Leon Klinghoffer, fled with Iraqi assistance. Nor did it seem to matter that the team of terrorists who set out to blow up the Rome airport came directly from Baghdad with suitcase bombs." Al Gore went on to say, "There might have been a moment's pause for reflection when Iraqi aircraft intentionally attacked the USS Stark in May of 1987 killing 37 sailors, but the administration smoothed it over very fast."

Clinton's state department...???
The U.S. Department of State's 1995 Patterns of Global Terrorism report stated, "Iraq continues to provide haven and training facilities for several terrorist clients. Abu Abbas' Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) maintains its headquarters in Baghdad. The Abu Nidal organization (ANO) continues to have an office in Baghdad. The Arab Liberation Front (ALF), headquartered in Baghdad, continues to receive funding from Saddam's regime. Iraq also continues to host the form

Clinton appointed Security Advisor???
CIA director George Tenet (appointed by President Bill Clinton July 11, 1997) wrote in a letter to Senator Bob Graham dated October 7, 2002. "We have solid reporting of senior level contact between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information exists that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. . . . We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities."

Are all of the above AHs that lied????

Maybe you should check out the sources for all the above quotes???
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

 

[Faun]

LOL

You're sooo fucking deranged.

I said their job approval rating is the same. Job approval comprises every aspect of their job, not just the economy. So no, I never inferred the economy is booming.

That's twice now you ran from my post with your tail tucked firmly betwixt your hind legs.

Care to try for three? When did your unemployment rate replace the BLS's? Theirs is 5.0%. Who knows what yours is?

Current U-6 Unemployment Rate

The official unemployment rate is the U-3, not the U-6. Always has been since these measurements have been collected. Even worse for your derangement, the U-6 does not measure unemployment. It measures underutilization. And lastly, you were whining about the 93 million who are not in the labor force... what does the U-6 have to do with those 93 million folks?

The purpose of showing "unemployment" rate is to determine the health of the economy. Full employment means everyone has money to spend and take care
of themselves and not be dependent on the government or families.
So politically it is better to show U-3 table as a simple % of civilian labor force.
But reality is the economy stagnate as the people who make up U-6 are People "marginally attached".
As a general practice, discouraged workers, who are often classified as marginally attached to the labor force, on the margins of the labor force, or as part of hidden unemployment, are not considered part of the labor force, and are thus not counted in most official unemployment rates—which influences the appearance and interpretation of unemployment statistics. Although some countries offer alternative measures of unemployment rate, the existence of discouraged workers can be inferred from a low employment-to-population ratio.

"Discouraged workers" Doesn't sound like a vibrant growing economic environment.

Here look at this table from Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization


View attachment 70467

Complete nonsense. The unemployment rate has always been an indicator of the economy and the U--3 rate has always been the official measurement to determine that. You don't get to switch to a higher rate because you're aggregated a Democrat president got us down to full employment after a Republican president wrecked the job markets.

Except that everyone knowledgeable on the subject, knows the U3 rate is a fraud. It is a rate used to dupe people easily duped by big government propaganda, like you.

Utter nonsense. The U-3 has always been the official unemployment rate and still is.

 

[healthmyths]

"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Duhbya, December, 2005

guess that throws a monkey wrench into their it was hillary's fault bs

Only if you ignore the whole "Constitution" thing...you know...where the President has to get authority from Congress to go to war?

So was Hillary part of Congress? Did she vote to authorize? Your "monkey wrench" just flew out and hit you in the head!

Bush asked Congress for that authority and Congress approved a resolution to allow him to use the military IF he thought Iraq was a threat. Basically, Congress made Bush the decider. So Bush is 100% correct when he said...

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Bush, December, 2005

So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!

When a president, not long after an attack like 9.11, implores the Congress to give him the authority, if needed, to use the military to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq because they pose a threat and blurs the line between Saddam Hussein (who wouldn't allow inspectors into Iraq) and Al-Qaeda, it's not easy to deny him that. So they gave him the authority to decide.

Even after getting the inspectors back in, he decided to have the U.N. replaced with our military.

I guess you didn't know this but the 1991 Desert Storm war was never over but there was a "1991 CEASE FIRE"!
- Five weeks after the United States and it allies drove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait, Iraq said yesterday that it will accept United Nations terms for a formal cease-fire in the Persian Gulf war.

In accepting the conditions, the National Assembly in Baghdad, which follows Mr. Hussein's dictates, called the arrangement "unjust," but it acknowledged that Iraq had little choice if it was to avert further degradation.

The message of Iraqi acceptance was delivered in New York to the offices of the U.N. secretary-general and to the chairman of the Security Council by the Iraqi representative at the United Nations, Abdul Amir al-Anbari. He told reporters that Iraq
Iraq accepts U.N.'s terms for cease-fire Strict conditions to be met before allies withdraw WAR IN THE GULF

 

[Oldstyle]

"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Duhbya, December, 2005

guess that throws a monkey wrench into their it was hillary's fault bs

Only if you ignore the whole "Constitution" thing...you know...where the President has to get authority from Congress to go to war?

So was Hillary part of Congress? Did she vote to authorize? Your "monkey wrench" just flew out and hit you in the head!

Bush asked Congress for that authority and Congress approved a resolution to allow him to use the military IF he thought Iraq was a threat. Basically, Congress made Bush the decider. So Bush is 100% correct when he said...

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Bush, December, 2005

So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!

perhaps congress didn't realize they were dealing with an ah who would lie and scare us into war

Ah, so now you're claiming that George W. "outsmarted", Hillary? That all those Democrats were too stupid to decide for themselves and got "scared" into voting for authorization?

And that's the woman you think should be President? Amusing concept, Eddie...really...

 

[Oldstyle]

"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Duhbya, December, 2005

guess that throws a monkey wrench into their it was hillary's fault bs

Only if you ignore the whole "Constitution" thing...you know...where the President has to get authority from Congress to go to war?

So was Hillary part of Congress? Did she vote to authorize? Your "monkey wrench" just flew out and hit you in the head!

Bush asked Congress for that authority and Congress approved a resolution to allow him to use the military IF he thought Iraq was a threat. Basically, Congress made Bush the decider. So Bush is 100% correct when he said...

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Bush, December, 2005

So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!

When a president, not long after an attack like 9.11, implores the Congress to give him the authority, if needed, to use the military to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq because they pose a threat and blurs the line between Saddam Hussein (who wouldn't allow inspectors into Iraq) and Al-Qaeda, it's not easy to deny him that. So they gave him the authority to decide.

Even after getting the inspectors back in, he decided to have the U.N. replaced with our military.

Ah, so you're claiming that the Democrats gave Bush authorization because to not do so wouldn't be "easy"?

LOL...the more you on the far left try to make excuses for votes by people like Kerry and Clinton...the more you make the case that they don't have the back bone to ever BE President!

 

[eddiew]

guess that throws a monkey wrench into their it was hillary's fault bs

Only if you ignore the whole "Constitution" thing...you know...where the President has to get authority from Congress to go to war?

So was Hillary part of Congress? Did she vote to authorize? Your "monkey wrench" just flew out and hit you in the head!

Bush asked Congress for that authority and Congress approved a resolution to allow him to use the military IF he thought Iraq was a threat. Basically, Congress made Bush the decider. So Bush is 100% correct when he said...

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Bush, December, 2005

So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!

perhaps congress didn't realize they were dealing with an ah who would lie and scare us into war

Ah, so now you're claiming that George W. "outsmarted", Hillary? That all those Democrats were too stupid to decide for themselves and got "scared" into voting for authorization?

And that's the woman you think should be President? Amusing concept, Eddie...really...

it was the bs you're either with us or against us,that scared the politicians.....and he did outsmart many with mis information false information and hidden information just remember that the pos cheny was manipulating the moron

 

[Faun]

guess that throws a monkey wrench into their it was hillary's fault bs

Only if you ignore the whole "Constitution" thing...you know...where the President has to get authority from Congress to go to war?

So was Hillary part of Congress? Did she vote to authorize? Your "monkey wrench" just flew out and hit you in the head!

Bush asked Congress for that authority and Congress approved a resolution to allow him to use the military IF he thought Iraq was a threat. Basically, Congress made Bush the decider. So Bush is 100% correct when he said...

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Bush, December, 2005

So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!

When a president, not long after an attack like 9.11, implores the Congress to give him the authority, if needed, to use the military to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq because they pose a threat and blurs the line between Saddam Hussein (who wouldn't allow inspectors into Iraq) and Al-Qaeda, it's not easy to deny him that. So they gave him the authority to decide.

Even after getting the inspectors back in, he decided to have the U.N. replaced with our military.

Ah, so you're claiming that the Democrats gave Bush authorization because to not do so wouldn't be "easy"?

LOL...the more you on the far left try to make excuses for votes by people like Kerry and Clinton...the more you make the case that they don't have the back bone to ever BE President!

How do you tell the president, "no," when he asks for military strength to enforce U.N. resolutions against a country he's tying to the terrorist group which attacked us on 9.11? Especially since he's saying he doesn't want to go to war, he wants to disarm Iraq.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The official unemployment rate is the U-3, not the U-6. Always has been since these measurements have been collected. Even worse for your derangement, the U-6 does not measure unemployment. It measures underutilization. And lastly, you were whining about the 93 million who are not in the labor force... what does the U-6 have to do with those 93 million folks?

The purpose of showing "unemployment" rate is to determine the health of the economy. Full employment means everyone has money to spend and take care
of themselves and not be dependent on the government or families.
So politically it is better to show U-3 table as a simple % of civilian labor force.
But reality is the economy stagnate as the people who make up U-6 are People "marginally attached".
As a general practice, discouraged workers, who are often classified as marginally attached to the labor force, on the margins of the labor force, or as part of hidden unemployment, are not considered part of the labor force, and are thus not counted in most official unemployment rates—which influences the appearance and interpretation of unemployment statistics. Although some countries offer alternative measures of unemployment rate, the existence of discouraged workers can be inferred from a low employment-to-population ratio.

"Discouraged workers" Doesn't sound like a vibrant growing economic environment.

Here look at this table from Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization


View attachment 70467

Complete nonsense. The unemployment rate has always been an indicator of the economy and the U--3 rate has always been the official measurement to determine that. You don't get to switch to a higher rate because you're aggregated a Democrat president got us down to full employment after a Republican president wrecked the job markets.

If a republican president accomplished what obama has they'd be screaming to put him on Mt Rushmore

And if DumBama was a Republican, you'd be screaming how lousy of a shape our country is in, and continually point to Iraq as the second major F-up in that region; how those Republicans love to put us deeper in debt.

That's speculation. If Bush inherited the mess he left and brought us back from the brink, I would give credit where credit is due. I would never approve of white people saying they want to destroy the first black president even before he was sworn in. That's the ultimate in racism. And it's undemocratic.

Nobody said anything about destroying the first black president.

And in case you haven't received the memo, he's just as white as he is black you dipshit.

 

[Faun]

guess that throws a monkey wrench into their it was hillary's fault bs

Only if you ignore the whole "Constitution" thing...you know...where the President has to get authority from Congress to go to war?

So was Hillary part of Congress? Did she vote to authorize? Your "monkey wrench" just flew out and hit you in the head!

Bush asked Congress for that authority and Congress approved a resolution to allow him to use the military IF he thought Iraq was a threat. Basically, Congress made Bush the decider. So Bush is 100% correct when he said...

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Bush, December, 2005

So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!

When a president, not long after an attack like 9.11, implores the Congress to give him the authority, if needed, to use the military to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq because they pose a threat and blurs the line between Saddam Hussein (who wouldn't allow inspectors into Iraq) and Al-Qaeda, it's not easy to deny him that. So they gave him the authority to decide.

Even after getting the inspectors back in, he decided to have the U.N. replaced with our military.

I guess you didn't know this but the 1991 Desert Storm war was never over but there was a "1991 CEASE FIRE"!
- Five weeks after the United States and it allies drove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait, Iraq said yesterday that it will accept United Nations terms for a formal cease-fire in the Persian Gulf war.

In accepting the conditions, the National Assembly in Baghdad, which follows Mr. Hussein's dictates, called the arrangement "unjust," but it acknowledged that Iraq had little choice if it was to avert further degradation.

The message of Iraqi acceptance was delivered in New York to the offices of the U.N. secretary-general and to the chairman of the Security Council by the Iraqi representative at the United Nations, Abdul Amir al-Anbari. He told reporters that Iraq
Iraq accepts U.N.'s terms for cease-fire Strict conditions to be met before allies withdraw WAR IN THE GULF

Again, no one is claiming Bush could not invade Iraq. We're saying he shouldn't have. The cease fire has nothing to do with that.

 

[healthmyths]

Only if you ignore the whole "Constitution" thing...you know...where the President has to get authority from Congress to go to war?

So was Hillary part of Congress? Did she vote to authorize? Your "monkey wrench" just flew out and hit you in the head!

Bush asked Congress for that authority and Congress approved a resolution to allow him to use the military IF he thought Iraq was a threat. Basically, Congress made Bush the decider. So Bush is 100% correct when he said...

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Bush, December, 2005

So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!

When a president, not long after an attack like 9.11, implores the Congress to give him the authority, if needed, to use the military to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq because they pose a threat and blurs the line between Saddam Hussein (who wouldn't allow inspectors into Iraq) and Al-Qaeda, it's not easy to deny him that. So they gave him the authority to decide.

Even after getting the inspectors back in, he decided to have the U.N. replaced with our military.

Ah, so you're claiming that the Democrats gave Bush authorization because to not do so wouldn't be "easy"?

LOL...the more you on the far left try to make excuses for votes by people like Kerry and Clinton...the more you make the case that they don't have the back bone to ever BE President!

How do you tell the president, "no," when he asks for military strength to enforce U.N. resolutions against a country he's tying to the terrorist group which attacked us on 9.11? Especially since he's saying he doesn't want to go to war, he wants to disarm Iraq.

Who did the "tying to the terrorist group" FIRST when you read below:
Iraq and a History of Terrorism Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

On December 3, 1976, the New York Times reported that radical Palestinians have gathered in Iraq to mount a terrorist campaign against "moderate" arab governments. The group referred to in the article was known as Black June and they were led by the terrorist Abu Nidal. On August 5, 1978, the New York Times reported that this Palestinian group was linked to Iraq's intelligence service. Abu Nidal was a ruthless terrorist who planned the 1973 assault on an American passenger plane in Rome that resulted in 34 deaths and the 1974 bombing of TWA 841 which resulted in 88 deaths.

On April 24, 1977, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) was reorgainized under the leadership of the terrorist Abu Abbas. According to an October 13, 1985 article in the New York Times, the group was organized with money and help from the Iraqi government.
In December 1977, Carlos the Jackal (a.k.a. Ilich Ramirez Sanchez) a "terrorist for hire" met with Saddam Hussein. Carlos was openly supported by the Iraqi government.

On July 15, 1978, the LA Times reported that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had formally asked the government of Iraq to hand over the terrorist Abu Nidal "so he would get what he deserves." The article reported Iraq had given support to Abu Nidal and even provided him with his own radio station which he called "the voice of the Palestinian revolution." Among other things, the radio station had launched virulent attacks on two Palestinian leaders shortly before they were assassinated earlier that year. link

In 1979, Congress passed legislation (Export Administration Act of 1979) which required the executive branch to create and maintain a list of countries deemed to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. In December 1979, the Carter Administration declared four countries as state sponsors of terrorism including: Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Southern Yemen. link link link

On August 30, 1980, the New York Times reported in an article titled "U.S. Forbids Sale of Jetliners to Iraq" that the Carter Administration decided to block the sale of five Boeing jets due to Iraq's involvement in recent terrorist activities. The article reported that, within the previous few months, Iraqi diplomats were involved in attempted bomb attacks in Vienna and West Berlin. link

On November 9, 1982, the Los Angeles Times reported in an article titled "Top Arab Terrorist Back in Baghdad" that Abu Nidal had recently moved back to Iraq after being expelled from the country four years earlier. His presence in Iraq was confirmed by President Saddam Hussein. link

Abu Abbas was the mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking. Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old Manhattan retiree, was rolled by Abbas's men, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean. After holding some 400 passengers hostage for 44 hours, the hijackers surrendered to Egyptian authorities in exchange for safe passage to Tunisia aboard an Egypt Air jet. The airliner, however, was forced by U.S. fighter planes to land at a NATO base in Sicily. Italian officials took the hijackers into custody but Abu Abbas possessed a get-out-of-jail card: an Iraqi diplomatic passport. Seeing that this terrorist traveled as a credentialed Iraqi diplomat, the Italian authorities let Abbas flee to Yugoslavia. link link link

On January 21, 1986 the Associated Press reported the May 15 Organization is an Iraqi-based terrorist group headed by a Palestinian who goes by the name of Abu Ibrahim. The article quoted an Israeli military officer who said the group "specializes in blowing up planes in the air. They operate with the active support of Iraqi intelligence." The May 15 Organization was responsible for five attacks on American and Israeli airliners between 1982 and 1983 including the August 11, 1982 bombing of Pan Am flight 830 over Honolulu which killed one teenager and injured 15 other passengers. Members of the group are also suspected in the April 2, 1986 bombing of TWA flight 840 which killed four Americans near Athens. link link link

On May 13, 1986, the New York Times reported that the French Interior Ministry had received confessions for three terrorist bombings including the Marks & Spencer department stores in Paris and London. According to reports, the terrorist in custody had received his orders from a "contact in Baghdad." That contact was Abu Ibrahim, the leader of a radical Palestinian organization called the "Arab Organization of May 15." This group, which received Iraqi government support, was known for its use of sophisticated explosive devices in the form of plastic explosives and suitcase bombs. link link

On March 20, 1990, four months prior to the invasion of Kuwait, the Chicago Tribune asked, "Why is Bush gentle with the Butcher of Baghdad?" The newspaper was upset a British journalist had been recently hanged in Iraq as a spy. Saddam had also declared a school holiday to swell the crowds ordered to demonstrate in front of the British embassy. The Iraqi propaganda minister declared, "Mrs. Thatcher wanted him alive, we gave her the body." link

On March 31, 1990, months prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY) reported that five people were indicted for illegally exporting nuclear warhead triggering devices to Iraq. The article reported, "Hussein is one of the world's foremost sponsors of terrorism. Numbered among his clients are a varied assortment of highjackers, bombers and kidnappers around the world." link

On January 16, 1991 President George H.W. Bush announced that twenty eight countries with forces in the Gulf began military operations to remove Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait. "Some may ask: Why act now? Why not wait? The answer is clear: The world could wait no longer. Sanctions, though having some effect, showed no signs of accomplishing their objective. Sanctions were tried for well over 5 months, and we and our allies concluded that sanctions alone would not force Saddam from Kuwait. While the world waited, Saddam Hussein systematically raped, pillaged, and plundered a tiny nation, no threat to his own. He subjected the people of Kuwait to unspeakable atrocities -- and among those maimed and murdered, innocent children." video

During the first Gulf War, on February 4, 1991, the Washington Times wrote an article titled, "Terrorist Camps Deserted in Iraq." The article reported that several terrorist camps inside Iraq were abandoned shortly after the start of the allied bombing campaign. One camp in the western desert was operated by the terrorist Abu Nidal for weapons and explosives training. A terrorist camp near Bagdad was operated by Abu Ibrahim, leader of the Arab Organization May 15. And another terrorist camp near Bagdad was occupied by terrorists of unknown affiliation. Later, after the war, the Washington Times wrote another article dated November 24, 1992 reporting that terrorists were once again training at a camp near Bagdad in violation of the cease-fire terms that ended the Gulf War. link link

On February 4, 1992, The Canadian Press reported, "A Palestinian ex-businessman said Tuesday he was sent on a bombing mission to Europe in 1982 by an Iraqi-based guerrilla group whose leader had close connections with the Baghdad government. Adnan Awad told a U.S. Senate hearing he took a sophisticated briefcase bomb to Switzerland where he was to blow up either an Israeli or an American installation but could not bring himself to do it." Awad said the leader of the group, Abu Ibrahim, had an "open and clear" relationship with the Iraqi government and enjoyed special privileges "like any big officer in Iraq." link

On June 6, 1992, the Associated Press reported that, "U.S. officials knew Palestinian terrorists were finding a safe haven in Baghdad, but for eight years the Reagan and Bush administrations rejected congressional attempts to punish Iraq, newly declassified documents show." A July 1, 1986 memo to then-Secretary of State George Shultz said, "The Iraqis initially endeavored to preserve their terrorist assets, resorting to subterfuge to divert attention from their continued support for terrorist groups." The memo was declassified by the State Department at the request of Rep. Sam Gejdenson, D-Conn. link

During the 1992 presidential campaign, Al Gore criticized the first Bush administration for its "blatant disregard" of Iraq's ties to terrorism. On September 29, 1992 Al Gore said, "The Reagan-Bush administration was also prepared to overlook the fact that the terrorists who masterminded the attack on the Achille Lauro and the savage murder of American Leon Klinghoffer, fled with Iraqi assistance. Nor did it seem to matter that the team of terrorists who set out to blow up the Rome airport came directly from Baghdad with suitcase bombs." Al Gore went on to say, "There might have been a moment's pause for reflection when Iraqi aircraft intentionally attacked the USS Stark in May of 1987 killing 37 sailors, but the administration smoothed it over very fast." link video

Former President George H.W. Bush visited Kuwait between April 14 and April 16, 1993, to commemorate the allied victory in the Persian Gulf War. In late-April 1993, the United States learned that terrorists had attempted to assassinate Bush during his visit to Kuwait and evidence indicated that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) was behind the assassination attempt. The Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 persons suspected in the plot to kill Bush using explosives hidden in a Toyota Landcruiser. On June 26, 1993, the United States launched a cruise missile attack against a building housing the Iraqi Intelligence Service in Baghdad in retaliation for the assassination attempt on former President Bush. video link link

On June 27, 1994 ABC News reported that Abdul Rahman Yasin (indicted for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) was known to be living in Iraq. A reporter working for ABC News and Newsweek spotted Abdul Yasin at his father's house in Baghdad. Newsweek reported that, according to neighbors, Yasin was "working for the Iraqi government." At the time, the U.S. government was offering a $2 million reward for information leading to his capture. Yasin was never brought to justice and still remains at large today. The reward for his capture has since increased to $5 million. link link

On October 12, 1994, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Pentagon had placed 155,000 additional ground troops on alert in response to the recent build-up of Iraqi forces near the Kuwait border. These soldiers were in addition to the 36,000 already being sent to the Persian Gulf. "For the next several hours, we're going to watch and see what Iraq is going to do," one official said. "Meanwhile, we are getting ourselves prepared in case the worst comes to pass." link link

Throughout the 1990's the U.S. Department of State listed Iraq as a country known to sponsor international terrorism. The Department of State's 1994 Patterns of Global Terrorism report stated, "Since 1991, in violation of UN Security Council resolutions, the Government of Iraq has obstructed the international community's provision of humanitarian assistance. We believe that Iraq is responsible for more than 100 attacks on relief personnel and aid convoys over the past four years. Moreover, the Government of Iraq has offered monetary 'bounties' to anyone who assassinates UN and other international relief workers." link

On January 17, 1995 the Boston Globe reported possible Iraqi involvement in the World Trade Center bombing. "I believe the totality of the evidence points toward Iraqi involvement," said James Fox, former special agent in charge of the FBI's New York office and the man credited with solving the bombing case. "I should say, I arrived at that conclusion after not believing it at first," he added. Fox explained that an eight-page State Department analysis that was classified but made available to him suggested that Iraqi sponsorship of the World Trade Center bombing was the "most likely scenario." link link

The U.S. Department of State's 1995 Patterns of Global Terrorism report stated, "Iraq continues to provide haven and training facilities for several terrorist clients. Abu Abbas' Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) maintains its headquarters in Baghdad. The Abu Nidal organization (ANO) continues to have an office in Baghdad. The Arab Liberation Front (ALF), headquartered in Baghdad, continues to receive funding from Saddam's regime. Iraq also continues to host the former head of the now-defunct 15 May organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of US aircraft." link

On September 4, 1996, Newsday reported the United States had launched a cruise missile strike the prior day against Saddam Hussein to make him "pay a price" for unleashing his army against the northern Kurds. Over a two day period the United States launched a total of 44 cruise missiles into Iraq. President Clinton said, "Our objectives are limited but clear: To make Saddam pay a price for the latest act of brutality, reducing his ability to threaten his neighbors and America's interests." link video

On September 12, 1996, National Public Radio interviewed a former CIA chief of counter-terrorism who said Iraq might have been a state sponsor behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. NPR pointed out that Ramzi Ahmed Yousef came to the United States with an Iraqi passport and also reported that indicted co-conspirator Abdul Rahman Yasin was currently living in Baghdad. link link

On March 2, 1998, U.S. News & World Report wrote that Saddam Hussein had dispatched some 30 terrorist teams around the world to strike U.S. interests prior to the first Gulf War. Disaster was averted, the article reported, by a combination of U.S. intelligence and Iraqi incompetence. Iraq had shipped automatic weapons and explosives to embassies overseas but most of the Iraqi agents were amateurish and easily detected. Two men who did get through accidentally blew themselves up in the Philippines before they could bomb a U.S. cultural center in Manila. link

On January 27, 1999 an article in the New York Times titled "A Much-Shunned Terrorist Is Said to Find Haven in Iraq" stated that "Abu Nidal, one of the world's most infamous terrorists, moved to Baghdad late last year and obtained the protection of President Saddam Hussein, according to intelligence reports received by United States and Middle Eastern government officials." The article quoted a counterterrorism expert who said that, regarding Abu Nidal, "Osama bin Laden is a student by comparison." link

 

[healthmyths]

Only if you ignore the whole "Constitution" thing...you know...where the President has to get authority from Congress to go to war?

So was Hillary part of Congress? Did she vote to authorize? Your "monkey wrench" just flew out and hit you in the head!

Bush asked Congress for that authority and Congress approved a resolution to allow him to use the military IF he thought Iraq was a threat. Basically, Congress made Bush the decider. So Bush is 100% correct when he said...

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Bush, December, 2005

So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!

When a president, not long after an attack like 9.11, implores the Congress to give him the authority, if needed, to use the military to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq because they pose a threat and blurs the line between Saddam Hussein (who wouldn't allow inspectors into Iraq) and Al-Qaeda, it's not easy to deny him that. So they gave him the authority to decide.

Even after getting the inspectors back in, he decided to have the U.N. replaced with our military.

I guess you didn't know this but the 1991 Desert Storm war was never over but there was a "1991 CEASE FIRE"!
- Five weeks after the United States and it allies drove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait, Iraq said yesterday that it will accept United Nations terms for a formal cease-fire in the Persian Gulf war.

In accepting the conditions, the National Assembly in Baghdad, which follows Mr. Hussein's dictates, called the arrangement "unjust," but it acknowledged that Iraq had little choice if it was to avert further degradation.

The message of Iraqi acceptance was delivered in New York to the offices of the U.N. secretary-general and to the chairman of the Security Council by the Iraqi representative at the United Nations, Abdul Amir al-Anbari. He told reporters that Iraq
Iraq accepts U.N.'s terms for cease-fire Strict conditions to be met before allies withdraw WAR IN THE GULF

Again, no one is claiming Bush could not invade Iraq. We're saying he shouldn't have. The cease fire has nothing to do with that.

OH so the nearly two dozen violations of the 1991 Cease Fire should have been ignored again by GWB?
Didn't seem to work for Clinton and like his wife he had no balls to uphold the Cease Fire even though UN sanctions allowed resumption. Even though terrorists
attacked WTC in 1993. Even though Clinton had Osama in Somalia but because he again didn't have the balls let the guy go.

 

[healthmyths]

The USA defeated Saddam and subsequently there were peaceful elections remember purple thumb? Were you aware that the terrorists that became ISIS did so
because of traitors who told the terrorists the US Military were the bad guys. Justifying the terrorists actions. HERE are quotes that these traitors stated that a
Harvard study (which you will ignore because they are the facts) caused the problems we have now with ISIS.
Obama totally blasted our military as a Senator when he said"..Air-raiding villages, killing civilians"!
This statement and the below from the totally politically driven idiots like Obama encouraged as a Harvard study shows the insurgents in Iraq!
I mean any one any one can see that if you tell the bad guys that our military is the bad guy i.e. our troops are killers, terrorists, what would you as the bad guys
think? What would THEY do with that propaganda ?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.
The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.
When these statements were made were they not recruiting statements?
According to this Harvard study the answer is YES! According to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Daily Policy Digest Archive - Page 1 | NCPA


AND then this AHOLE president says:
“I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL than some of the rhetoric coming out of here in the course of this debate,” Obama said, using his preferred acronym for the group.
President Obama Says GOP Acting As Recruitment Tool For ISIS | RedState

 

[gipper]

Current U-6 Unemployment Rate

The official unemployment rate is the U-3, not the U-6. Always has been since these measurements have been collected. Even worse for your derangement, the U-6 does not measure unemployment. It measures underutilization. And lastly, you were whining about the 93 million who are not in the labor force... what does the U-6 have to do with those 93 million folks?

The purpose of showing "unemployment" rate is to determine the health of the economy. Full employment means everyone has money to spend and take care
of themselves and not be dependent on the government or families.
So politically it is better to show U-3 table as a simple % of civilian labor force.
But reality is the economy stagnate as the people who make up U-6 are People "marginally attached".
As a general practice, discouraged workers, who are often classified as marginally attached to the labor force, on the margins of the labor force, or as part of hidden unemployment, are not considered part of the labor force, and are thus not counted in most official unemployment rates—which influences the appearance and interpretation of unemployment statistics. Although some countries offer alternative measures of unemployment rate, the existence of discouraged workers can be inferred from a low employment-to-population ratio.

"Discouraged workers" Doesn't sound like a vibrant growing economic environment.

Here look at this table from Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization


View attachment 70467

Complete nonsense. The unemployment rate has always been an indicator of the economy and the U--3 rate has always been the official measurement to determine that. You don't get to switch to a higher rate because you're aggregated a Democrat president got us down to full employment after a Republican president wrecked the job markets.

Except that everyone knowledgeable on the subject, knows the U3 rate is a fraud. It is a rate used to dupe people easily duped by big government propaganda, like you.

Utter nonsense. The U-3 has always been the official unemployment rate and still is.

Liberal Logic:
Something ALWAYS used by big government, means it is accurate and proper.

DUPED!!!

 

[g5000]

The failed economy.
The Iraq debacle.
The deficit creating Bush Tax Cuts.
The millions of jobs moved oversea.
The over 40,000 factories closed.
Medical bills becoming the number one cause of bankruptcy.
Not getting Bin Laden.

Republicans were able to use reconciliation three times which shows they controlled the entire government.
Will they ever take any responsibility for what happened on their watch?

The mess we are in was a bi-partisan effort. I will happily agree the Republican Congress and Republican White House were a giant posse of power-mad retards. I can talk all day about their crimes and their stupidity.

But to do so without mentioning the equal participation of the Democrats in the fucking over of America would be to commit a gross lie of omission.

There is one thing both parties have excelled at, however. They have done a masterful job of convincing their herds of rubes the opposite party is fully responsible for all our ills, and can never do right. Meanwhile, they have convinced their parroting minions their own party is a collection of saints, patriots, and martyrs who can do no wrong.

It is time for everyone to realize there is no "War on Christianity". There is no "War on Poverty". The only war is a war on the American people by their elected officials and the people who own them.

We need to quit with this fucking Us vs. Them bullshit. There is only Us. The American Politboro, and the people who own them, have divided us and conquered us. It's time to wake up and take the country back and to stop trying to stab each other the way our propaganda outlets and our puppet masters have been goading us to do for a very long time now.

 

[g5000]

Did the Republicans drive the car into a ditch, as President Obama liked to say during the 2012 campaign?

Yep.

But then we gave the keys to a student driver who rolled the car over onto its roof.

 

[healthmyths]

Did the Republicans drive the car into a ditch, as President Obama liked to say during the 2012 campaign?

Yep.

But then we gave the keys to a student driver who rolled the car over onto its roof.

I don't understand you people! WHAT ditch???

Not one of you people that complain about the "ditch" seem to admit THESE EVENTS occurred and they have NEVER occurred in ONE administration at the same
time in HISTORY! Why is it so hard to admit that these EVENTS happened and they had deleterious affect on the economy, our psyche, and our social order!
Please someone other then me explain how come NO ONE seems to comprehend the magnitude of these events.

I'm shouting now... TELL ME THESE EVENTS DID NOT HAVE AN AFFECT???PLEASE!!!
Am I the only one that lived through these events?
Am I the only one that understands the economic disaster that COULD have occurred?
Am I the only one that recognizes GWB will be considered a great president BECAUSE
IN spite of all these adversities the country survived!
Just one event equal ... Pearl Harbor 1941 changed our country!
WE Survived 4 major events in 8 years!
AND YOU idiots still don't seem to comprehend what happened!
Wasn't a democrat's fault. Wasn't a GOP fault. It happened!
So why are you dummies ignoring it?
Recession
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $8 trillion market loss
Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $8 trillion in losses?
Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!
$8 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue.
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $8 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies.
More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 -
and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives, $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Now before you idiots say "well Bush should have known"! DUMMIES... ever hear of the Gorelick Memo signed under CLINTON??
Gorelick Memo that created the wall between FBI & CIA thus no knowledge of the 9/11 bombers shared with the FBI!!!
Looks especially imprudent 10 years later.
Because the memo created a barrier for U.S. intelligence agencies to share information with the FBI, one of its unintended consequences may have been to prevent the FBI from receiving the necessary intelligence to stop the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the worst in American history.
Gorelick Memo Allegedly Impeded Probe of Clinton Fundraising Scandal
1995 memo [Clinton presidency-concerned about Chinese election sales] Gorelick wrote, stated explicitly that they would “go beyond what is legally required, [to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.” GORELICK Memo!
Here read what NOT my words but other sources:
Jamie Gorelick’s wall barred anti-terror investigators from accessing the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, already in custody on an immigration violation shortly before 9/11.
At the time, an enraged FBI investigator wrote a prophetic memo to headquarters about the wall.
Whatever has happened to this — someday someone will die — and wall or not — the public will not understand why we were not more effective in throwing every resource we had at certain problems…..especially since the biggest threat to us UBL [Usama bin Laden], is getting the most protection.
So, a year before the 9/11 attacks, a special unit in the U.S. military was aware of the presence of an al-Queda cell in Brooklyn, New York, and sought to share its information with the FBI but was stopped cold.Why?Because (as described in the April 16, 2004 Washington Times piece) “on March 4, 1995, [Jamie Gorelick, the then number 2 official in the Clinton Justice Department, sent a 4-page directive] to FBI Director Louis Freeh and Mary Jo White, the New York-based U.S. attorney investigating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
In the memo, Ms. Gorelick ordered Mr. Freeh and Ms. White to follow information-sharing procedures that ‘go beyond what is legally required,’ in order to avoid ‘any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance’ that the Justice Department was using Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants, instead of ordinary criminal investigative procedures, in an effort to undermine the civil liberties of terrorism suspects.”
Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented? The Gorelick Memo and What We Knew

Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World
Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of:
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts... In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property..
IN SPITE of that:
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later due to dot.com/9-11 losses against revenue.
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=20

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historical

OH and yea how about THESE EVENTS that no other President ever experienced: 1) Dot.com bust-- 2) 9/11 3) Worst hurricane SEASONS...All of which made these numbers worse BUT still there was growth!!!
http://www.bea.gov/National/index.htm
Average annual growth over 8 years 2.9% IN Spite of all the events AND if the housing bubble caused by the below people hadn't occurred it would have
been: 4.4% compared to what now???
2001 2.3% increase
2002 2.4%
2003 6.8%
2004 6.4%
2005 5.4%
2006 4.6%
2007 3.2%
2008 -7.7%

 

[Oldstyle]

Only if you ignore the whole "Constitution" thing...you know...where the President has to get authority from Congress to go to war?

So was Hillary part of Congress? Did she vote to authorize? Your "monkey wrench" just flew out and hit you in the head!

Bush asked Congress for that authority and Congress approved a resolution to allow him to use the military IF he thought Iraq was a threat. Basically, Congress made Bush the decider. So Bush is 100% correct when he said...

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Bush, December, 2005

So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!

perhaps congress didn't realize they were dealing with an ah who would lie and scare us into war

Ah, so now you're claiming that George W. "outsmarted", Hillary? That all those Democrats were too stupid to decide for themselves and got "scared" into voting for authorization?

And that's the woman you think should be President? Amusing concept, Eddie...really...

it was the bs you're either with us or against us,that scared the politicians.....and he did outsmart many with mis information false information and hidden information just remember that the pos cheny was manipulating the moron

So you admit that Hillary Clinton was outsmarted by W....but you want her to be the next President? Sorry, Eddie...but I don't see the logic in that!

 

[Oldstyle]

Only if you ignore the whole "Constitution" thing...you know...where the President has to get authority from Congress to go to war?

So was Hillary part of Congress? Did she vote to authorize? Your "monkey wrench" just flew out and hit you in the head!

Bush asked Congress for that authority and Congress approved a resolution to allow him to use the military IF he thought Iraq was a threat. Basically, Congress made Bush the decider. So Bush is 100% correct when he said...

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Bush, December, 2005

So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!

When a president, not long after an attack like 9.11, implores the Congress to give him the authority, if needed, to use the military to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq because they pose a threat and blurs the line between Saddam Hussein (who wouldn't allow inspectors into Iraq) and Al-Qaeda, it's not easy to deny him that. So they gave him the authority to decide.

Even after getting the inspectors back in, he decided to have the U.N. replaced with our military.

Ah, so you're claiming that the Democrats gave Bush authorization because to not do so wouldn't be "easy"?

LOL...the more you on the far left try to make excuses for votes by people like Kerry and Clinton...the more you make the case that they don't have the back bone to ever BE President!

How do you tell the president, "no," when he asks for military strength to enforce U.N. resolutions against a country he's tying to the terrorist group which attacked us on 9.11? Especially since he's saying he doesn't want to go to war, he wants to disarm Iraq.

You say no by voting no. You seem to think you say no by saying yes!