Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
“Trump is not a politician he is a boss”In discussing with a friend about George H. W. Bush and his legacy, we recalled this remark he made about President Trump:
"I don't like him. I don't know much about him, but I know he's a blowhard. And I'm not too excited about him being a leader," said George Bush Sr, who was president between 1989 and 1993.
George Bush Sr calls Trump a 'blowhard'
And I agree with George H. W. Bush! And I agree with all that say President Trump is obnoxious. A braggart. A loud-mouth. All the adjectives the "sophisticated" politically adroit and politicians have said about Trump.
But they are missing the point.
Trump is not a politician. He is a boss. He wants things done and in many ways HIS way!
And all these sophisticates including GWB Sr and Jr. didn't get it.
Most of us don't like Trump personally BUT totally admire what he has accomplished in his two short years!
Tump’s list: 289 accomplishments in just 20 months, ‘relentless’ promise-keeping
Trump’s list: 289 accomplishments in just 20 months, ‘relentless’ promise-keeping
Again... most of us that have respect for the Presidency and the President have a deeper respect for people that
1) Love America...2) Love their families ..3) Respect law enforcement and 4) get things done!
And so Bush Sr,Jr.,Clintons, and hosts of other unsophisticated people that look at the packaging i.e. Trump and not the contents because that's what the MSM is doing...i.e. advertising the negatives about Trump which for a FACT:
Media Trump Hatred Shows In 92% Negative Coverage Of His Presidency: Study
Anti-Trump Media? 92% Of Coverage Of His Presidency Is Negative: Study | Investor's Business Daily
The FACT is the MSM et.al. Anti-Trumpers are just not sophisticated to look beyond the packaging and
are NOT seeing the results.
And that's OK! Trump is getting around them and most of us sophisticated people that agree...
President Trump is obnoxious. A braggart. A loud-mouth. All the adjectives the "sophisticated" politically adroit and politicians have said about Trump...BUT HE IS GETTING THINGS DONE!!!
US will hold off on raising China tariffs to 25% as Trump and Xi agree to a 90-day trade truce
US, China call a 90-day truce in trade war as Trump, Xi agree to continue wide ranging talks
- Xi Jinping and Donald Trump discussed a range of issues — among them the trade dispute that has left over $200 billion worth of goods hanging in the balance.
- "President Trump has agreed that on January 1, 2019, he will leave the tariffs on $200 billion worth of product at the 10 percent rate, and not raise it to 25 percent at this time," the White House said.
This is a start!
Right... and I'll predict that in 20 years GWB will be considered one of the GREAT presidents...
Facing adversity and responding to it in a shitty way does not make one great. Bush II will forever and always been seen as one of the worst 3 presidents, ever. What he did in Iraq will never be whitewashed by the sands of time, it will forever remain one of the biggest fuck ups (if not the biggest) ever made by any major world leader.
What did he do in Iraq????
Simply what the democrats asked for!!!
"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.
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.
I love how in your little pea brained mind the fact that the Dems talked about makes it cool for Bush II to have done it.
What he did in Iraq was sacrifice the lives of more than 4,400 US service members, the bodies of more than another 50,000 US service members and wasted more than 2.4 trillion dollars and counting, a cost that will rise as the Veterans of that war age and require more VA services.
And he did all of that for a country that was no threat to the US and had no part in the 9/11 attack.
The result was a region that was less stable than before our attack and the rise of ISIS.
Yet you still eat the corn out of his shit because he has an (R) before his name.
Right... and I'll predict that in 20 years GWB will be considered one of the GREAT presidents...
Facing adversity and responding to it in a shitty way does not make one great. Bush II will forever and always been seen as one of the worst 3 presidents, ever. What he did in Iraq will never be whitewashed by the sands of time, it will forever remain one of the biggest fuck ups (if not the biggest) ever made by any major world leader.
What did he do in Iraq????
Simply what the democrats asked for!!!
"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.
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.
I love how in your little pea brained mind the fact that the Dems talked about makes it cool for Bush II to have done it.
What he did in Iraq was sacrifice the lives of more than 4,400 US service members, the bodies of more than another 50,000 US service members and wasted more than 2.4 trillion dollars and counting, a cost that will rise as the Veterans of that war age and require more VA services.
And he did all of that for a country that was no threat to the US and had no part in the 9/11 attack.
The result was a region that was less stable than before our attack and the rise of ISIS.
Yet you still eat the corn out of his shit because he has an (R) before his name.
So according to you it would have been absolutely OK for 4 million Iraqi children to starve to death as they would have if Saddam was still in power today.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
It would also be ok for Iraqis to have a per capita GDP In 2003 of The AVERAGE IRAQ per capita GDP was $600!
In 2017 it was $16,700 a 2,783% increase. But keeping them at $600/year would be ok with you right?
Middle East :: Iraq — The World Factbook - Central Intelligence Agency
And of course being the Obama ass kisser YOU were totally in favor of the ROE that any logical rational military person would react as this soldier did!
But of course you know a lot better.
Now explain to me how come the CIC after Bush who you evidently believe could do no wrong directly strictly for political correctness this ROE?
A laminated card ROE with the following text was distributed to all U.S. Army and Marine personnel in Iraq.
Policies about limiting civilian casualties have soldiers complaining they can't effectively fight;
one showed author Michael Hastings a card with regulations including:
"Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force."
For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests.
“Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch.
In Afghanistan, a New General -- But An Old Strategy
Finally... YOU totally ignored what happened in 1991. Totally ignored what Saddam did after that. YOU totally ignore the mental state of America after 9/11 because after all YOU are so imperious to any patriotism,. So sophisticated as not to be caught up as 90% of Americans TRUE Americans were regarding 9/11 in supporting GWB!
RIGHT you knew better!
You know there is a very famous statement about idiots like you it is "hindsight is 20/20"... or Monday Morning quarterbacks know everything!
After 9/11 GWB approval rating Presidential Approval Ratings -- George W. Bush
And then idiots like you and the MSM spent the rest of the years tearing America and Americans apart. Divisive. Unpatriotic. Hatred of America all clothed
in that pompous "WE KNOW "BETTER!!!"
Where are the Teatards who stormed Washington?I guess I've stumped them again...
They just are not sophisticated enough to understand.
He understood the stupidity of his base and their attraction to shiny objectsTrump is the least intelligent President of my lifetime.
You support him. You're a moron.
And yet smart enough to win the Electoral College.
He understood the stupidity of his base and their attraction to shiny objectsTrump is the least intelligent President of my lifetime.
You support him. You're a moron.
And yet smart enough to win the Electoral College.
Look! Wall!
Right... and I'll predict that in 20 years GWB will be considered one of the GREAT presidents...
Facing adversity and responding to it in a shitty way does not make one great. Bush II will forever and always been seen as one of the worst 3 presidents, ever. What he did in Iraq will never be whitewashed by the sands of time, it will forever remain one of the biggest fuck ups (if not the biggest) ever made by any major world leader.
What did he do in Iraq????
Simply what the democrats asked for!!!
"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.
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.
I love how in your little pea brained mind the fact that the Dems talked about makes it cool for Bush II to have done it.
What he did in Iraq was sacrifice the lives of more than 4,400 US service members, the bodies of more than another 50,000 US service members and wasted more than 2.4 trillion dollars and counting, a cost that will rise as the Veterans of that war age and require more VA services.
And he did all of that for a country that was no threat to the US and had no part in the 9/11 attack.
The result was a region that was less stable than before our attack and the rise of ISIS.
Yet you still eat the corn out of his shit because he has an (R) before his name.
So according to you it would have been absolutely OK for 4 million Iraqi children to starve to death as they would have if Saddam was still in power today.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
It would also be ok for Iraqis to have a per capita GDP In 2003 of The AVERAGE IRAQ per capita GDP was $600!
In 2017 it was $16,700 a 2,783% increase. But keeping them at $600/year would be ok with you right?
Middle East :: Iraq — The World Factbook - Central Intelligence Agency
And of course being the Obama ass kisser YOU were totally in favor of the ROE that any logical rational military person would react as this soldier did!
But of course you know a lot better.
Now explain to me how come the CIC after Bush who you evidently believe could do no wrong directly strictly for political correctness this ROE?
A laminated card ROE with the following text was distributed to all U.S. Army and Marine personnel in Iraq.
Policies about limiting civilian casualties have soldiers complaining they can't effectively fight;
one showed author Michael Hastings a card with regulations including:
"Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force."
For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests.
“Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch.
In Afghanistan, a New General -- But An Old Strategy
Finally... YOU totally ignored what happened in 1991. Totally ignored what Saddam did after that. YOU totally ignore the mental state of America after 9/11 because after all YOU are so imperious to any patriotism,. So sophisticated as not to be caught up as 90% of Americans TRUE Americans were regarding 9/11 in supporting GWB!
RIGHT you knew better!
You know there is a very famous statement about idiots like you it is "hindsight is 20/20"... or Monday Morning quarterbacks know everything!
After 9/11 GWB approval rating Presidential Approval Ratings -- George W. Bush
And then idiots like you and the MSM spent the rest of the years tearing America and Americans apart. Divisive. Unpatriotic. Hatred of America all clothed
in that pompous "WE KNOW "BETTER!!!"
The answer to ending kids starving from sanctions is not to invade the country and cause the death of a half a million people, it is to readdress the sanctions.
I do not give a flying fuck what the per capita GDP is in Iraq, raising it was not worth a single American life. It is not the job of the US military to raise the GDP of citizens of other countries.
No, I did not support Obama's ROE, you fucking moron. I do not support anything that Obama did. You keep accusing me of being an Obama lover when I have never praised him even once on this forum. That is just a smoke screen to cover the fact you a fucking coward that never served a day in the military and yet you are willing to trade the lives of US service members for the GDP of people in Iraq.
So, I am "imperious to any patriotism", what the fuck ever that means. Pretty sure you meant impervious but are too stupid to get the word correct.
Let me show you what true patriotism looks like you fucking coward...
View attachment 232670
This is what patriotism is, it is actually serving your country and giving years of your life to the country and being willing to die for it.
Sitting in your fucking basement supporting trading the lives of US service members for a higher GDP in Iraq is not patriotism.
You have no fucking clue what patriotism is.
Thanks I corrected impervious as I was wrong. Something YOU will NEVER ever admit to even though you pompously show your "service record".
NOTE you never served overseas and yet you pump yourself up to be so knowledgeable about the military in Iraq etc.
See that's the difference between you and me. I didn't serve in the military and I do regret it. You on the other hand make a big deal about and you were never at risk!
Pomposity at it's best is illustrated by your lack of humility.
I admit I was wrong in the words. I am NOT going to admit being wrong about being an American after 9/11 and Iraq was laughing at us while also subsidizing terrorists something I bet you ignore!
Of course YOU know better and will refute this but this is from people that did serve overseas!
Safe haven, training, and financial support. In violation of international law, Iraq has also sheltered specific terrorists wanted by other countries, reportedly including:
IRAQ: Iraqi Ties to Terrorism
- Abu Nidal, who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002, led an organization responsible for attacks that killed some 300 people.
- Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas, who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Laurocruise ship in the Mediterranean. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces April 15.
- Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000.
- Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is on the FBI’s "most wanted terrorists" list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Gee, maybe because no other modern day president has had the balls to to tell our global “partners” it’s no longer going to be business as usual...at OUR expense! UN, NATO folks guess what? It’s time to live up to your commitments to pay your fair share of the bills because we’re tired of footing ‘em for you. Telling our partners the trade imbalance games in their favor due to tariffs limiting our exports are over is bad? From now on you play fairly or we’re gonna get a lot tougher than you can ever afford to until you come to your senses. No wonder they’re mad. The party’s over and they know it. MAGA!No American President has ever been globally despised mocked and humiliated the way Donald Trump has.
LOLOLLOLOLI wish I could get paid for this, I post it so much....Right job growth!Gee, if only Trump matched the job growth of Obama's last five years.
Gee, if only Trump matched Obama's growth in the DOW by this same point in his presidency.
Gee, if only Trump had not DOUBLED THE FEDERAL DEFICIT in less than two years in order to artificially juice the GDP, which still has not matched Obama's growth.
Then, maybe then, the dipshit elected on third base who thinks he hit a triple might be impressive.
FACTS here G5000 which you ignore!
And then the OTHER monstrosity of Obamacare that totally discouraged economic growth!
Businesses eliminated hundreds of thousands of full-time jobs to avoid Obamacare mandate
Businesses eliminated hundreds of thousands of full-time jobs to avoid Obamacare mandate
The Affordable Care Act requires businesses with more than 50 full-time employees to provide health insurance
Up to 250,000 positions may have been eliminated by small businesses seeking to avoid Obamacare’s employer mandate, according to estimates in a new working paper distributed by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Altogether between 28,000 and 50,000 businesses appear to have reduced their number of full-time employees from 2014 to 2016 because of the mandate.
The share of businesses with fewer than 50 employees grew between 2012 and 2016 to 45% from 37%.
Meanwhile, a June 2016 study determined that 500,000 workers in the retail, hospitality and food service sectors were forced involuntarily into part-time employment as companies sought to circumvent the employer mandate. A separate Goldman Sachs study found that a few hundred thousand people found themselves in this position.
Now for the actual proof!
Obamacare required an employer with 50 or more employees to have group insurance plan, Obama never understood that the employer would be faced
when the employer wanted to hire another employee to the 49 employees it would cost an employer an average of $284/month per employee.
50 employees times $284 equals $14,200 more per month.
Solution: Hire two part-time employees. No need to spend $14,200/month
A new study by economists from Harvard and Princeton indicates that 94% of the 10 million new jobs created during the Obama era were temporary positions.
The study shows that the jobs were temporary, contract positions, or part-time "gig" jobs in a variety of fields.
shows that the proportion of workers throughout the U.S., during the Obama era, who were working in these kinds of temporary jobs, increased from 10.7% of the population to 15.8%.
Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract
And you idiots that say Obama contributed to the "economic recovery" are the SAME dummies that the guy who designed ACA said it took well here's his exact words:
"And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."
ObamaCare architect: 'Stupidity' of voters helped bill pass
What kind of "job growth" are part time jobs?
By the way please dispute the above experts ok?
Jobs are growing at the same rate as they have been for the last 9 years. Trump’s big accomplishment is not fucking it up; and taking a record of 76 consecutive months of job growth and extending that to 97 months (so far).
JOBS growth ?
Part time dumb shit!
View attachment 232595
There was something like 11 million jobs created under Obama. And that’s factoring in Bush’s Great Recession. Set aside the jobs lost from that, and Obama added some 15 million jobs during his last 7 years in office.
Now compare that with Bush, who’s the only president since Depression era Herbert Hoover to leave office with FEWER private sector jobs than when he started.
Bush’s presidency was an abject failure. You should toy with the notion of rejoining reality sometime.
Right... and I'll predict that in 20 years GWB will be considered one of the GREAT presidents because up till now NO PRESIDENT has ever faced these events that AFFECTED billions of people lives around the world!
And I know I'm right because YOU CAN"T say these events didn't occur. NONE of which were the fault of GWB!
And following the below CONSIDER what the totally incompetent Obama SAID and did to THWART the economy!
View attachment 232649
What kind of idiot wishes bankruptcies, 1,400 businesses to go out of business throwing half million people out of work and costing $100 billion a year in taxes!
View attachment 232650
It’s a massive fuckup, but not even in the same league as Vietnam.Right... and I'll predict that in 20 years GWB will be considered one of the GREAT presidents...
Facing adversity and responding to it in a shitty way does not make one great. Bush II will forever and always been seen as one of the worst 3 presidents, ever. What he did in Iraq will never be whitewashed by the sands of time, it will forever remain one of the biggest fuck ups (if not the biggest) ever made by any major world leader.
”Simply what the democrats asked for!!!”Right... and I'll predict that in 20 years GWB will be considered one of the GREAT presidents...
Facing adversity and responding to it in a shitty way does not make one great. Bush II will forever and always been seen as one of the worst 3 presidents, ever. What he did in Iraq will never be whitewashed by the sands of time, it will forever remain one of the biggest fuck ups (if not the biggest) ever made by any major world leader.
What did he do in Iraq????
Simply what the democrats asked for!!!
"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.
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.
There is also a trade imballance that affects themGee, maybe because no other modern day president has had the balls to to tell our global “partners” it’s no longer going to be business as usual...at OUR expense! UN, NATO folks guess what? It’s time to live up to your commitments to pay your fair share of the bills because we’re tired of footing ‘em for you. Telling our partners the trade imbalance games in their favor due to tariffs limiting our exports are over is bad? From now on you play fairly or we’re gonna get a lot tougher than you can ever afford to until you come to your senses. No wonder they’re mad. The party’s over and they know it. MAGA!No American President has ever been globally despised mocked and humiliated the way Donald Trump has.
Bush still had his 9-11 card and any congressman opposing him was called unpatriotic”Simply what the democrats asked for!!!”Right... and I'll predict that in 20 years GWB will be considered one of the GREAT presidents...
Facing adversity and responding to it in a shitty way does not make one great. Bush II will forever and always been seen as one of the worst 3 presidents, ever. What he did in Iraq will never be whitewashed by the sands of time, it will forever remain one of the biggest fuck ups (if not the biggest) ever made by any major world leader.
What did he do in Iraq????
Simply what the democrats asked for!!!
"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.
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.
Fuck that shit.
There would have been no war in Iraq had Bush not been banging his war drums throughout 2002, turning to entice Hussein into throwing the first punch. That and blurring the lines between Iraq and 9.11, followed by him asking Congress for the authorization to use military force against Iraq and then, as Commander-in-Chief, making the decision to deploy troops into Iraq — makes that Bush’s war and nobody else.
I will point out that even you know what a massive clusterfuck Iraq was since you’re trying to blame it on Democrats.
Bush still had his 9-11 card and any congressman opposing him was called unpatriotic”Simply what the democrats asked for!!!”Right... and I'll predict that in 20 years GWB will be considered one of the GREAT presidents...
Facing adversity and responding to it in a shitty way does not make one great. Bush II will forever and always been seen as one of the worst 3 presidents, ever. What he did in Iraq will never be whitewashed by the sands of time, it will forever remain one of the biggest fuck ups (if not the biggest) ever made by any major world leader.
What did he do in Iraq????
Simply what the democrats asked for!!!
"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.
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.
Fuck that shit.
There would have been no war in Iraq had Bush not been banging his war drums throughout 2002, turning to entice Hussein into throwing the first punch. That and blurring the lines between Iraq and 9.11, followed by him asking Congress for the authorization to use military force against Iraq and then, as Commander-in-Chief, making the decision to deploy troops into Iraq — makes that Bush’s war and nobody else.
I will point out that even you know what a massive clusterfuck Iraq was since you’re trying to blame it on Democrats.
He abused that privilege
”BOGUS JOB GROWTH: 95 Percent Of New Jobs Under Obama Were ‘Temporary’[/“Remember Obama had QE1,2,3... TARP which was paid back and still 95% of jobs created by Obama were part time!
You claim to post facts and then post some stupid bullshit like this that is so obviously false that a 1st grader would laugh in your face for posting it.
you are nothing but a partisan hack that would not know a fact if it bit you on the ass while you were kissing Trump's ass.
FAKE? Well you certainly are as YOU haven't posted ANYTHING to counter my links!
PLEASE prove with YOUR FACTS THESE FACTS!
Yes that was in 2010... from this source...
Top Ex-White House Economist Admits 94% Of All New Jobs Under Obama Were Part-Time
Just over six years ago, in December of 2010, we wrote "Charting America's Transformation To A Part-Time Worker Society",
Fast forward 6 years, when a report by Harvard and Princeton economists Lawrence Katz and Alan Krueger, a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, was surprised by the finding., confirms exactly what we warned. In their study, the duo show that from 2005 to 2015, the proportion of Americans workers engaged in what they refer to as “alternative work” soared during the Obama era, from 10.7% in 2005 to 15.8% in 2015. Alternative, or "gig" work is defined as "temporary help agency workers, on-call workers, contract company workers, independent contractors or freelancers", and is generally unsteady, without a fixed paycheck and with virtually no benefits.
The two economists also found that each of the common types of alternative work increased from 2005 to 2015—with the largest changes in the number of independent contractors and workers provided by contract firms, such as janitors that work full-time at a particular office, but are paid by a janitorial services firm.
BOGUS JOB GROWTH: 95 Percent Of New Jobs Under Obama Were ‘Temporary’
95 Percent Of New Jobs Under Obama Were 'Temporary'
AGAIN... why did this happen??
Businesses eliminated hundreds of thousands of full-time jobs to avoid Obamacare mandate
Up to 250,000 positions may have been eliminated by small businesses seeking to avoid Obamacare’s employer mandate, according to estimates in a new working paper distributed by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Altogether between 28,000 and 50,000 businesses appear to have reduced their number of full-time employees from 2014 to 2016 because of the mandate.
Businesses eliminated hundreds of thousands of full-time jobs to avoid Obamacare mandate
Obamacare required an employer with 50 or more employees to have group insurance plan, Obama never understood that the employer would be faced
when the employer wanted to hire another employee to the 49 employees it would cost an employer an average of $284/month per employee.
50 employees times $284 equals $14,200 more per month.
Solution: Hire two part-time employees. No need to spend $14,200/month
Again that's why 95% of new jobs were temporary or part time.
Really... explain to a small employer why they should hire a new employee that would raise their count to 50 and with that 50th employee, the employer
now spends $14,200 more PER MONTH?
”BOGUS JOB GROWTH: 95 Percent Of New Jobs Under Obama Were ‘Temporary’[/“Remember Obama had QE1,2,3... TARP which was paid back and still 95% of jobs created by Obama were part time!
You claim to post facts and then post some stupid bullshit like this that is so obviously false that a 1st grader would laugh in your face for posting it.
you are nothing but a partisan hack that would not know a fact if it bit you on the ass while you were kissing Trump's ass.
FAKE? Well you certainly are as YOU haven't posted ANYTHING to counter my links!
PLEASE prove with YOUR FACTS THESE FACTS!
Yes that was in 2010... from this source...
Top Ex-White House Economist Admits 94% Of All New Jobs Under Obama Were Part-Time
Just over six years ago, in December of 2010, we wrote "Charting America's Transformation To A Part-Time Worker Society",
Fast forward 6 years, when a report by Harvard and Princeton economists Lawrence Katz and Alan Krueger, a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, was surprised by the finding., confirms exactly what we warned. In their study, the duo show that from 2005 to 2015, the proportion of Americans workers engaged in what they refer to as “alternative work” soared during the Obama era, from 10.7% in 2005 to 15.8% in 2015. Alternative, or "gig" work is defined as "temporary help agency workers, on-call workers, contract company workers, independent contractors or freelancers", and is generally unsteady, without a fixed paycheck and with virtually no benefits.
The two economists also found that each of the common types of alternative work increased from 2005 to 2015—with the largest changes in the number of independent contractors and workers provided by contract firms, such as janitors that work full-time at a particular office, but are paid by a janitorial services firm.
BOGUS JOB GROWTH: 95 Percent Of New Jobs Under Obama Were ‘Temporary’
95 Percent Of New Jobs Under Obama Were 'Temporary'
AGAIN... why did this happen??
Businesses eliminated hundreds of thousands of full-time jobs to avoid Obamacare mandate
Up to 250,000 positions may have been eliminated by small businesses seeking to avoid Obamacare’s employer mandate, according to estimates in a new working paper distributed by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Altogether between 28,000 and 50,000 businesses appear to have reduced their number of full-time employees from 2014 to 2016 because of the mandate.
Businesses eliminated hundreds of thousands of full-time jobs to avoid Obamacare mandate
Obamacare required an employer with 50 or more employees to have group insurance plan, Obama never understood that the employer would be faced
when the employer wanted to hire another employee to the 49 employees it would cost an employer an average of $284/month per employee.
50 employees times $284 equals $14,200 more per month.
Solution: Hire two part-time employees. No need to spend $14,200/month
Again that's why 95% of new jobs were temporary or part time.
Really... explain to a small employer why they should hire a new employee that would raise their count to 50 and with that 50th employee, the employer
now spends $14,200 more PER MONTH?
Why do you insist on making a fool of yourself by posting something ch nonsense??? I can’t understand why you do this?
Moron, the period that covered was from 2005-2015.
That includes 4 years before Obama was even president and excludes his last 2 years as the economy was growing. Plus, it covers 100% of Bush’s Great Recession which is likely the biggest contributor to that statistic and that started more than a year before Obama became president and had nothing to do with him.
So there’s no way in hell anyone can lucidly claim 95% of job growth under Obama were temporary jobs. In fact, even the Harvard study didn’t claim that. All the study said was 95% of job growth between 2005-2015 was temporary jobs. It said nothing about Obama. It took a rightwing look, prolly not too different than a kook like you, to switch the title to make it appear like that was all under Obama.
Seriously, what fuck is wrong with you.
Bush still had his 9-11 card and any congressman opposing him was called unpatriotic”Simply what the democrats asked for!!!”Right... and I'll predict that in 20 years GWB will be considered one of the GREAT presidents...
Facing adversity and responding to it in a shitty way does not make one great. Bush II will forever and always been seen as one of the worst 3 presidents, ever. What he did in Iraq will never be whitewashed by the sands of time, it will forever remain one of the biggest fuck ups (if not the biggest) ever made by any major world leader.
What did he do in Iraq????
Simply what the democrats asked for!!!
"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.
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.
Fuck that shit.
There would have been no war in Iraq had Bush not been banging his war drums throughout 2002, turning to entice Hussein into throwing the first punch. That and blurring the lines between Iraq and 9.11, followed by him asking Congress for the authorization to use military force against Iraq and then, as Commander-in-Chief, making the decision to deploy troops into Iraq — makes that Bush’s war and nobody else.
I will point out that even you know what a massive clusterfuck Iraq was since you’re trying to blame it on Democrats.
He abused that privilege
healthmyths is still playing that card. He called me unpatriotic because I do not think that raising the GDP of Iraqis was worth the cost of 4400 plus US Service members.
