Time to admit Obamanomics has failed

[Mustachio]

Wow...way to discredit ANYTHING you have ever written! Oh...sure...thats ALL it would do...not cause ideologues to realize the path they have chosen to support is wrong and destructive for the country. not cause people to consider more intelligent fiscal policies.

No, it wouldn't do that. "Obamanomics has failed" is a talking point that does nothing to address problems or suggest a path forward.

 

[VanceMack]

No, it wouldn't do that. "Obamanomics has failed" is a talking point that does nothing to address problems or suggest a path forward.

Oh...for sure...thats all some people are looking for. I have been just as critical of those ideologues that are just interested in seeing him fail because he is a democrat as I am of the idiots who SUPPORT HIM blindly...JUST because he is a democrat.

No...if we ever saw that Obamanomics (and it is a misnomer...its not Obamanomics...just as it wasnt Obamacare-If anything its demonomics) failed, then intelligent, reasoned, rational people would not continue to drive over the cliff in blind support of a d or r next to their politicians name.

 

[VanceMack]

If you followed Clinton, he, or more accurately his peoples (See snopes on this and the out of context part about words of democrats) said the threat was over after his last bombing.

No where did Clinton argue for invasion. Taking quotes out of context is no more honest than out right lying.

But that is all irrelevent as Bush and Bush alone made the decision. And a republican congress, with republicans holding the power, did nothing to hinder him. These are the facts. You can say Saddam is bad, that he needs to be removed, and that we shouldn't trust him and not equal an argument to invade.

Those democrats didnt say Hussein was bad. They said he was a threat...that he had WMDs. That he was a threat to the security of the world. That he supported global terrorism. They said the SAME THINGS Bush said. Spin it how you want...it says more about you than anything I could ever say.

 

[Boo Radley]

Those democrats didnt say Hussein was bad. They said he was a threat...that he had WMDs. That he was a threat to the security of the world. That he supported global terrorism. They said the SAME THINGS Bush said. Spin it how you want...it says more about you than anything I could ever say.

But they did not say he was the kind of threat that required invading. There is a difference. And like all those quotes of democrats, you can look on snopes and get better context, which is always important.

Saddam was minor league and not worth invading. This does not mean he wasn't worth keeping an eye on. Or worth denouncing. Butinvasion is an entirely different level, and only Bush made that decision. And he did so with a republican congress. We can't change the facts to suit us.

 

[MaggieD]

If you followed Clinton, he, or more accurately his peoples (See snopes on this and the out of context part about words of democrats) said the threat was over after his last bombing.

No where did Clinton argue for invasion. Taking quotes out of context is no more honest than out right lying.

But that is all irrelevent as Bush and Bush alone made the decision. And a republican congress, with republicans holding the power, did nothing to hinder him. These are the facts. You can say Saddam is bad, that he needs to be removed, and that we shouldn't trust him and not equal an argument to invade.

On the contrary, Snopes says these quotes from Democrats are true. snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

They go on to say that some were taken out of context and thoroughly describe the context. However, it is quite clear that Clinton and Clinton's advisors, and Congress were ready to use military force if necessary.

Unfortunately, I can't copy it from Snopes, the 'lil brats. But here are the quotes they discuss and the context around them.

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Clinton preceded this quote indicating he would prefer a diplomatic solution. Well, duh.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

This speech was delivered at the Pentagon. I'm surprised they didn't include the sentence he said just before he said the above: "And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you (snip) believes that, too."

"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." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Right out of her speech. No context changes what she said. Check it for yourself.

"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

Same meeting Allbright spoke at. Complete context has no effect on his quote.

This is very time-consuming. I urge you to check out the link and the rest of them. It's quite clear to me and anyone who can read that the Democrats began the dialogue. Those crazy hawks.

"[W]e 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: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"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." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... 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 redefine 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 th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored 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 of 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

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 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

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 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

The truth will set you free,. ;-)

 

[Boo Radley]

Maggie D, read your own link. They say they are true, and oten out of context and often in arguments not to invade. Remember the IF NECESSARY part. This is important. Nothing changed with Iraq that made it necessary. Nor do democrats argue it did.

 

[VanceMack]

But they did not say he was the kind of threat that required invading. There is a difference. And like all those quotes of democrats, you can look on snopes and get better context, which is always important.

Saddam was minor league and not worth invading. This does not mean he wasn't worth keeping an eye on. Or worth denouncing. Butinvasion is an entirely different level, and only Bush made that decision. And he did so with a republican congress. We can't change the facts to suit us.

So minor league that Bill Clinton hit him 8 times. That the UN passed 17 resolutions attempting to force compliance. God Boo...you are trite.

 

[Kushinator]

I think it's time for Democrats to admit that Bush had those same problems.

Bush presided under an economy that was near or at full employment output. Obama has yet to even sniff such a notion....

 

[Boo Radley]

So minor league that Bill Clinton hit him 8 times. That the UN passed 17 resolutions attempting to force compliance. God Boo...you are trite.

YEs, he was a good scape goat. But Clinton did not invade. Nor did we see him as a threat large enough to even stop the smuggling we were monitoring. He was not a major player in anything outside of Iraq.

 

[VanceMack]

Bush presided under an economy that was near or at full employment output. Obama has yet to even sniff such a notion....

maybe he should have been more proactive as a legislator and should have insisted the democrats that have controlled the house AND senate for 3 years and 8 months actiually DO something. Unless you missed it...unemployment didnt start skyrocketing til the first full year the democrats were in control of the legislature.

I know...I know...44 months is HARDLY enough time to affect positive change...

 

[MaggieD]

Maggie D, read your own link. They say they are true, and oten out of context and often in arguments not to invade. Remember the IF NECESSARY part. This is important. Nothing changed with Iraq that made it necessary. Nor do democrats argue it did.

No, read your own link, Boo. That's the one YOU cited, not me. I just posted it up. You obviously ignored the first four contexts I gave you. We can lead a horse to water, but we can't make it drink. It's clear to everyone except Democrats. I'm really amazed at the lack of fairness.

 

[Boo Radley]

No, read your own link, Boo. That's the one YOU cited, not me. I just posted it up. You obviously ignored the first four contexts I gave you. We can lead a horse to water, but we can't make it drink. It's clear to everyone except Democrats. I'm really amazed at the lack of fairness.

It is too bad I can't copy snopes, but I have ignore nothing. This is the important part:

They go on to say that some were taken out of context and thoroughly describe the context. However, it is quite clear that Clinton and Clinton's advisors, and Congress were ready to use military force if necessary.


If you read, you will find Clinton's Secretary of defense declaring the threat over. So, those quotes before that no longer matter and don't count for a reason to invade in 2003. And many made these statements while arguing NOT to invade. So, they don't count either as the argumnent was aginst invasion.

You are left with but a few, and none that are supported with any facts. Add to this the misinformation presented buy the Bush WH, and you can eliminate even those few.

Still, as I say (and have said from the begining), none of this matters. None of these people decided to invade. Only Bush did that. No one else. And only republicans held the power to hinder him. No one else. That is the simple fact of the matter.

 

[Opteron]

Actually, Iraq was on America's radar during the entire Clinton administration. Here are just some of the quotes from prior to 9/11:

These are all 1998 quotes, when inspections were being done in Iraq. Of course he would be the focus of attention at that time. You're incorrect, in the lead up to the war, he was not on anybody's radar except President Bush's and the hawks in his Administration, and there are no quotes from Democrats 2001. Up until President Bush called out Iraq as part of the "axis of evil" and began building a case against them, was Iraq not on anybody's radar at the time except Bush's. Again the quotes from Democrats and from the videos as well are all 1998, 2002, or later, after Iraq had been brought up as an issue by Bush. Notice the gap of absence of talk from Democrats from between around 2000 to early 2002.

As for your comment about Cheney strong arming members of congress, that is a load of bull. The majority of both democrats and republicans in Washington supported the invasion of their own free will, just like the majority of the American people did, according to every single credible public opinion poll of the time. If Bush would not have invaded Iraq, he would have had to go against the wishes of everyone. It was America's decision to go to war with Iraq, not just president Bush's.

That's not correct. First of all, the majority of Democrats did not support the war authorization. Please check the war votes before you make that statement. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml. The Republicans almost unanimously rubber stamped the war in both the House and the Senate. Again, Bush sold this to Congress as not a vote to go to war, but only a vote to disarm Saddam, and many Democrats probably not wanting to appear unpatriotic in a post 9/11 world went along with it. This was not America's war, this was Bush's war. He pushed heavily for it against significant opposition both around the world and at home.

 

[MaggieD]

These are all 1998 quotes, when inspections were being done in Iraq. Of course he would be the focus of attention at that time. You're incorrect, in the lead up to the war, he was not on anybody's radar except President Bush's and the hawks in his Administration, and there are no quotes from Democrats 2001. Up until President Bush called out Iraq as part of the "axis of evil" and began building a case against them, was Iraq not on anybody's radar at the time except Bush's. Again the quotes from Democrats and from the videos as well are all 1998, 2002, or later, after Iraq had been brought up as an issue by Bush. Notice the gap of absence of talk from Democrats from between around 2000 to early 2002.


That's not correct. First of all, the majority of Democrats did not support the war authorization. Please check the war votes before you make that statement. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml. The Republicans almost unanimously rubber stamped the war in both the House and the Senate. Again, Bush sold this to Congress as not a vote to go to war, but only a vote to disarm Saddam, and many Democrats probably not wanting to appear unpatriotic in a post 9/11 world went along with it. This was not America's war, this was Bush's war. He pushed heavily for it against significant opposition both around the world and at home.

Do you even READ other posts. Look at my previous posts eleven quotes from very powerful Dems after 2000.

Honestly Bush-Bashers are hopeless.

@ Boo -- I would love to dig right in to your last post to me, but life calls. Nevertheless, don't forget what Arnold said, "I'll be back." ;-) Very enjoyable, BTW -- I'm learning something. Hope others are as well.

 

[Boo Radley]

Do you even READ other posts. Look at my previous posts eleven quotes from very powerful Dems after 2000.

Honestly Bush-Bashers are hopeless.

@ Boo -- I would love to dig right in to your last post to me, but life calls. Nevertheless, don't forget what Arnold said, "I'll be back." ;-) Very enjoyable, BTW -- I'm learning something. Hope others are as well.

I'll be leaving soon as well. So, enjoy and I'll catch you later.

 

[Grim17]

These are all 1998 quotes, when inspections were being done in Iraq. Of course he would be the focus of attention at that time.

That's because I was responding to a statement that said Iraq wasn't on our radar prior to 9/11. Try reading my entire post next time.

You're incorrect, in the lead up to the war, he was not on anybody's radar except President Bush's and the hawks in his Administration, and there are no quotes from Democrats 2001. Up until President Bush called out Iraq as part of the "axis of evil" and began building a case against them, was Iraq not on anybody's radar at the time except Bush's. Again the quotes from Democrats and from the videos as well are all 1998, 2002, or later, after Iraq had been brought up as an issue by Bush. Notice the gap of absence of talk from Democrats from between around 2000 to early 2002.

My God.... I'll bet you actually believe that crap too.

That's not correct. First of all, the majority of Democrats did not support the war authorization. Please check the war votes before you make that statement. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml.

You are correct, and I should have known that. There was however, bipartisan support from both the senate and the congress.

The Republicans almost unanimously rubber stamped the war in both the House and the Senate. Again, Bush sold this to Congress as not a vote to go to war, but only a vote to disarm Saddam, and many Democrats probably not wanting to appear unpatriotic in a post 9/11 world went along with it. This was not America's war, this was Bush's war. He pushed heavily for it against significant opposition both around the world and at home.

Bull.

The reason the Iraq invasion got bipartisan support, was because the published intelligence reports of the time depicted Saddam as a legitimate threat, and he had still not accounted for the WMD that he declared that he possessed after the first gulf war. That and the fact the majority of the American people supported removing Saddam.

When The senate, congress and the majority of the American people all support the president taking action, and he takes such action, that is America speaking, not one man.

This is all old news, and no matter how hard you try, you can not rewrite history.

 

[VanceMack]

That's because I was responding to a statement that said Iraq wasn't on our radar prior to 9/11. Try reading my entire post next time.




My God.... I'll bet you actually believe that crap too.




You are correct, and I should have known that. There was however, bipartisan support from both the senate and the congress.



Bull.

The reason the Iraq invasion got bipartisan support, was because the published intelligence reports of the time depicted Saddam as a legitimate threat, and he had still not accounted for the WMD that he declared that he possessed after the first gulf war. That and the fact the majority of the American people supported removing Saddam.

When The senate, congress and the majority of the American people all support the president taking action, and he takes such action, that is America speaking, not one man.

This is all old news, and no matter how hard you try, you can not rewrite history.

Oh but they do try...and luckily for them...the facts dont matter...all that matters is blind ideology. Honest to God...its getting boring talking to some of these guys, they have their heads wedged so far up The Ones ass they could check him for lung cancer.

 

[Grim17]

Oh but they do try...and luckily for them...the facts dont matter...all that matters is blind ideology. Honest to God...its getting boring talking to some of these guys, they have their heads wedged so far up The Ones ass they could check him for lung cancer.

It's like I've always said... If a person has to use lies and deception to prop up their ideology, then they're embracing an ideology that's not worth propping up in the first place.

 

[Opteron]

That's because I was responding to a statement that said Iraq wasn't on our radar prior to 9/11. Try reading my entire post next time.

I said right prior to 9/11. I read your post, try reading my post more carefully or ask for clarification next time.

Bull.

The reason the Iraq invasion got bipartisan support, was because the published intelligence reports of the time depicted Saddam as a legitimate threat, and he had still not accounted for the WMD that he declared that he possessed after the first gulf war. That and the fact the majority of the American people supported removing Saddam.

When The senate, congress and the majority of the American people all support the president taking action, and he takes such action, that is America speaking, not one man.

This is all old news, and no matter how hard you try, you can not rewrite history.

Bull. Most Congressman didn't read the intelligence reports completely. Bush trumped up Saddam as a threat, everybody else just assumed he had WMD because he had them before, and everyone went along with it. There was significant pressure from the Administration to go along with this war.

That's why there was significant opposition and protests to this war both at home and around the world, because America supported it.

 

[VanceMack]

I said right prior to 9/11. I read your post, try reading my post more carefully or ask for clarification next time.


Bull. Most Congressman didn't read the intelligence reports completely. Bush trumped up Saddam as a threat, everybody else just assumed he had WMD because he had them before, and everyone went along with it. There was significant pressure from the Administration to go along with this war.

That's why there was significant opposition and protests to this war both at home and around the world, because America supported it.

BUSH did it. Not congress. Not the intel groups. not every intel group in the world. Bush...the evil mad genius outsmarted ALL of those democrats...INCLUDING ALL of them who had access to that same intel while Clinton was president.

Good God we have another one. Boo is checking for lung cancer...why dont you look for pollups on his throat...

 

[Opteron]

Do you even READ other posts. Look at my previous posts eleven quotes from very powerful Dems after 2000.

Honestly Bush-Bashers are hopeless.

@ Boo -- I would love to dig right in to your last post to me, but life calls. Nevertheless, don't forget what Arnold said, "I'll be back." ;-) Very enjoyable, BTW -- I'm learning something. Hope others are as well.

In all your quotes, this is the only offending one that fits. That is, not having to do with 1998 stuff, and between around 2000-2001:

In December 2001, nine members of Congress (a group which included both Democrats and Republicans) wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to step up support for the internal Iraqi opposition seeking to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Included in that letter was the following paragraph:

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.

Unless the version reproduced on the Department of State's web site is in error, however, Senator Bob Graham of Florida was not one of the signatories to that letter.

All the rest of the quotes are 1998, except one 1999 from Madeline Albright, and then they jump to Semptember 2002, when the debate on Iraq had jumped to full swing.

So basically, Iraq was not on Democrats' or anyone's mind 2000-2001, or right prior to Bush labeling it part of the "axis of evil", except for the nine signatories, a mix of Republicans and Democrats, on that one letter, of which D-Bob Graham was not a signatory anyways. If you're trying to say that anyone but Bush or the Hawks started this war, your wrong.

 

[Opteron]

BUSH did it. Not congress. Not the intel groups. not every intel group in the world. Bush...the evil mad genius outsmarted ALL of those democrats...INCLUDING ALL of them who had access to that same intel while Clinton was president.

Good God we have another one. Boo is checking for lung cancer...why dont you look for pollups on his throat...

Right, because Bush had nothing to do with the Iraq War. Only asking for authorization and then giving Saddam an ultimatum at some random time and then unilaterally starting the war at his own command, and he had nothing to do with it, it was America and Congress who went to war. :lamo

 

[Grim17]

Opteron, do you really want to rehash all of this again? I mean what's the point? History doesn't lie and neither did the results of several bipartisan investigations into all of this.

I have debated this issue extensively over the last 6 years, and was smart enough to build up quite an extensive library of documents, quotes and facts, just in case someone wanted to resurrect the issue.

 

[VanceMack]

Right, because Bush had nothing to do with the Iraq War. Only asking for authorization and then giving Saddam an ultimatum at some random time and then unilaterally starting the war at his own command, and he had nothing to do with it, it was America and Congress who went to war. :lamo

Of COURSE Bush had something to do with it. What is MORONIC is your claim Democrats DIDNT!!!

 

[Opteron]

Of COURSE Bush had something to do with it. What is MORONIC is your claim Democrats DIDNT!!!

Right, because the Democrats decided on their own accord just randomly, that inspections weren't working. Then the Democrats gave an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, rejected any intermediate offer, then the Democrats unilaterally ordered air strikes and bombings to begin and then a full-scale invasion of Iraq. Also, because the Democrats asked to have this war resolution created in the first place.