Mr. Clean said:
And the reason it “needed to be done� Hopefully you can explain, because the Bush reasons (WoMD, terror, etc.) all ring hollow. The U.S. doesn’t really have of preemptive strikes/waging war to displace even the most despicable of tyrants. If we do, there are some more out there (Congo), alas they have no oil.
The government in Congo is not funding terrorists who want to strike America or it's allies. There was an al Qaeda training camp in Iraq, though there is some question as to whether or not Saddam controlled that area. It is not questionable though that he was paying $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. WoMD? I wouldn't be so sure there are none at all. Even David Kay said that Saddam had several WoMD programs that
he believed were farther along then they were. In addition, there have been some missiles found that do exceed the range limits imposed on Iraq upon the cease fire at the end of the Gulf War.
In 1998, Bill Clinton gave a speech after ordering missile strikes on Iraq and at the time, he claimed Iraq had WoMD.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Just curious, why did we go into Bosnia in the late 90's? We had no vital interests, it was Europe's problem, right? Just a consistancy check....
If Bush were truly interested in doing the right thing for the country, he would have stepped down and allowed the Republican party to put forth a much more worthy ticket.
...Says the man who's party has put forth the most liberal member of the Senate, based on his voting record in 2003.
Shhhh. Don’t tell that to Ken Lay (Enron)
Oh yeah, Ken Lay.
http://www.hench.net/2002/z011302a.htm
Time magazine is reporting that four days before the Government in New Delhi gave final approval for the Enron Corporation's $ 3 billion venture in India, the company gave the Democratic National Committee $ 100,000. The latest issue of Time says that Enron denied that its "gift" was a repayment for Mr.Bill Clinton's attention.
Can you point to a similar
Quid Pro Quo during the Bush administation? Ken Lay called the White House before Enron went under looking for a bailout and was rebuffed.
More on Ken Lay, Enron and Democrats.
http://solstice.crest.org/discussion/greenbuilding/200202/msg00214.html
Ken Lay is not someone Democrats should be bringing up. :lol
Were you around for those 8 years? Wonderful in whose eyes? Economically speaking…does the term Voodoo Economics ring a bell? It wasn’t labeled that in the form of a compliment.
I was and the economy was much better than it was under Carter...remember the misery index and inflation, interest rates and unemployment all over 10% in the late 70s? I do
Enlighten me. I wasn’t aware that the President could single handedly raise or lower taxes! That fact passed by me in Civics.
Other than JFK, name a Democrat President who lowered taxes. The President can push Congress and the Senate to pass bills to raise or lower taxes. Bush said he would lower taxes and he worked with both Houses to make sure it was done, just like when Clinton worked with both Houses to raise taxes. And don't try and say his raising of taxes is what spurred the economy in the 90's. The minor recession of 1991-2 was already recovering nicely before Clinton took office in 1993.
BTW, can you state what Clinton's economic policy was and how it benefited the economy?
Will Bush and the Republicans?
I've made it clear already I do not like the domestic spending Bush has proposed and signed into law.
Better to spend it here than the $100+Billion (is there an end to this sink hole?) being spent in Iraq. Add to that the Afghanistan mire. Besides a bloated Medicare bill (which really benefits corporate America more than the citizens) and NASA (Mars boondoggle...News Flash....Mars may have supported life at one time...And that helps us, how?)...What has he done to (excuse me for America?)
A democratic Iraq will only benefit the US and the rest of the world in the long run. Afghanistan now has a constitution and women have more rights than they did under the Taliban. I thought you Democrats were for stuff like that. :nixweiss
Bush has lowered taxes, he is rebuilding the military, he is taking the war on terrorism to the terrorists, he took the Kyoto Accord off the table (which would have strangled the US economy over the global warming myth....gee, back in the 70s, it was global cooling we were supposed to worry about), and he is pushing not only for us to drill for oil in Alaska (a good thing), but he is also pushing for fuel cell technology.
I guess now you are clairvoyant in knowing what Kerry will propose. He will still need the legislative body's approval.
All I need to do is look at his voting record. Your statement
He will still need the legislative body's approval. seems to suggest even you think he may propose more spending.
Bush didn’t have to spend all the monies on rebuilding the military. But as he continues to overextend the resources, yes then more money is required.
Peace through strength.
You have a real problem getting the facts straight on this recession issue. The nation was not in recession when Clinton left office. Therefore, Bush could not have inherited it.
Nothing wrong with my facts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38826-2004Jan22?language=printer
The last recession may have started in the last months of the Clinton administration rather than at the beginning of the Bush administration.
The panel of economists that serves as the official timekeeper for the nation's recessions is considering moving the starting date for the most recent economic decline back to November or December of 2000, a member of the group said today, confirming a report that appeared in The Wall Street Journal.
"We have discussed it already and there seems to be some inclination to move the date" to some time in the last three months of 2000, said Victor Zarnowitz. He is a member of the National Bureau of Economic Research's business cycle dating committee, which determines the widely accepted start and end dates to U.S. recessions.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/22/news/economy/nber/
And you think that Democrats should praise Bush???? The Bush administration and Bushies in general all are seen and heard with great regularity.
Never said that, but the constant hate speech towards Bush is non stop. Democrats calling him a 'gang leader', saying the Iraq war is a 'scheme cooked up in Texas for political gain' and saying he was AWOL. I have no problems with Democrats disagreeing with Bush on policy, but the hate speech is out of control.
If it is not already known, I’m for ABB. My list of reasons is long, but I’ll say that this president is out of touch with the country. Two quick and easy examples from his State of the Union address. The use of steroids in sports, and the exploration of Mars are not issues that are at the forefront in the hearts and minds of the nation’s citizenry. Get a clue.
Steriods and Mars were just a small part of the State of the Union speech. Amazing that you would focus in on those two minor parts and use it to say Bush is out of touch.
. I'm a Republican (registered in Massachusetts), and I can tell you that Bush's recent nods to big spending and expansion of government are a big dissapointment. However, compared to the 8 years of the shameless clinton void, he's been like a Second Coming of RONALDUS MAXIMUS.