Heh."He had no wars"
Bush only had the one war that he started against Iraq under complete and false pretenses and
the other one in Afghanistan, started after 9/11 occurred ON HIS WATCH!
Obama was elected partially by promising to end Iraq and Afganistan. He started Lybia.
Face it he had no idea what he was in for. President Bush had a little thing called 9-11.
Oh yes, i forgot, the Bush"argument" that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. A lie, a false pretense to try to get us to go to war there. The argument said that , since Al Quaeda was in Iraq therefore Saddam must have been working with Al Quaeda somehow to cause 9/11. Funny thing, Al Quaeda was only in IRAQ AFTER George Bush started the Iraq War. And it turns out, Saddam wasnt Muslim enough for Bin Laden and as a result, they didnt get along at all. Lie #1 to get the US into war in Iraq. Ooops. Well, "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction". Lie #2. Ooops - that one turned out to be a lie never did find those WMD. Iraq had chemical weapons that he might use against his neighbors. OOps - untrue - he had chemical weapons but he used them against his own people, years before. AHA! He used Chemical weapons to kill HIS OWN PEOPLE! Yes, he did, i agree. That was a good reason to go on and topple him, right? Sorry - that invalidates YOUR OWN ARGUMENT that you state below (its ok for Bush to go into Iraq to prevent civilian deaths but not ok for Obama. Hows that work again? (oh yeah, just call me a socialist ) that it's a mistake to go to war in Libya! Pick a position and stand on it hypocrite.
He could of had Bin Ladin , but discided it was to much trouble to pick him up.
(sort of like it's too much trouble for you use spell checker?)
And the REPUBLICANS, who ccontrolled congress for SIX of the FINAL NINE years of the (clinton)SIC (admin )had nothing to do with Intelligence? If Congress is so powerful, and can of course fix the economy single handedly, why did the Republican (congree)SIC in the Clinton years not have Bin Laden picked up?
Sorry wrong again. Yeman had Bin Laden. And Clinton declined to take custody. And where
did I say Congress by it's self could do anything. Your the one blameing Bush exclusivly.
Clinton had the veto and he used it. Plus I'm talking now. The economy is tanking because
of 9-11, fuel prices houseing crash. Clinton didn't have any of that to deal with. 2 years
wasted.
Truly a gem, considering that President Obama gave the order to go in and kill Osama Bin Laden just a couple of days ago. Hows that work again Skippy? A democrat, socilist commie muslim loving american gave the final order to go ahead and kill Osama? I cant hear you.....
So, why didt the all powerful Republican Congress jusy "have Yemen pick up Bin Laden" for us, that would have been so much easier. Oh, Clinton vetoed the Congress from that? What?
Here's a little gem - a well known fact - the Bush administration had its own chance at Osama. Remember how we had OBL "cornered" in Tora Bora? We just knew it, only a matter of time before we found him hiding in the mountains. Ooops - Bush let him escape though, somehow - days before he just WALKED RIGHT out of Tora Bora into Pakistan. Hmmm. How'd that happen? Maybe clinton tried to kill OBL with the cruise missile attack too and missed him by just hours. Maybe both presidents tried plenty hard to get OBL but just had a little bad luck?
more bad news for ya Skippy - fuel prices are up b/c worldwide demand for gasoline is up and b/c of speculators on wall street whom, both republican and democratic administrations refuse to reign in. Face it, regulations are needed for Wall Street, Big Banks, Big Insurance and Big Healthcare - the free market doesnt work 100% for the same reason pure communism doesnt work - greed! Now, democrats are at least working for financial reform and the republicans are blocking their every move, as they are obeying their own corporate paymasters in big oil, big pharma, big insurance and wll street. This is why the economy is in the tank.
"He stripped the Military to bare bones."
A FAT LIE that you have quoted because you heard it on Fox? But you failed to fact check it; you just repeat it b/c it sounds good:
<http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nh_debate_the_gop_field.html>
Clinton cut the Army by 16% over a period of his 8 years in office. George Bush Senior and his vice President Cheney, cut the army's number by a WHOPPING 25%! In fact, it was Cheney who first bragged aboutt he so called "peace dividend", a fancy phrase that George Bush Sr came up with to describe cuts to the military!
If you even remember or was born yet, President Bush Sr. Had the first Gulf War. The cuts
are atributed to the draw down of the Military after that war, Dahhh. FOX is FACT.
So, stop the lies where you try to slime Bill Clinton and by extension, all Democrats somehow with the "soft on defense" crapola. President Barack HUSSEIN Obama, DEMOCRAT, planned for, executed and gave the final order to take out Osama Bin Laden.I bet Fox News loves that one. I'm sure they'll come up with some conspiracy crapola anyways.
I was born during the Kennedy administration myself, so i remember the 1st gulf war just fine.
"Clinton had no morals and should have been thrown out."
Purely a matter of personal opinion. Not only that, Republican's efforts in the so called culture wars do not produce jobs or an improved economy - those issues only distract from the real issues. So, shut up about "morals". Besides, I bet you're polly purebread in the morals department also, huh? "those who live in glass houses..."
Look what happened after the Carter experiment. Clinton was a discrace. Mr. Pants on the
Ground himself.
Whats the Carter administration got to do with Clinton? Nothing. I think your arguments are called "argument ad hominem" - when you cant figure any substantial objection, so you attack the individual's character which has nothing to do with anything here.
Plus you guys forget who was in congress in charge when this disaster started.
Freddy and ***** and bank forced to give loans to people who couldn't afford
it."
The policies that wrecked us were both Republican and Demacrat policies that began
in the Clinton era.
"You've had more than two years because you had the congress (befor )SICObama."
If you want to blame the financial meltdown on Clinton, you cannot have it both ways - REPUBLICANS were in charge of Congress for the final SIX YEARS of CLINTON's administration! And then, under Dubya's administration, REPUBLICANS had control of BOTH HOUSES of Congress until 2007!
Why didnt they stop the mess before it started?
I blame everyone then. I blame Obama and the Demacrats now. The Republicans are the only
ones that want to try to knock down the debt. The Demacrates want to keep spending and
spending. Again Obama Care will the death of our country. It's to darned expensive, not to
mention Un-Constitutional. But you Socialists don't seem to care about the Constitution any-
way.
Changing your story, now that you are pinned down a bit?
Yes, the republicans care about the deficit. Congressman Ryans plan blows another hole in the deficit by again LOWERING taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, most of whom dont even pay taxes anyway (Gneral Electric...). Dont forget 4 BILLION dollars in subsidies to the oil companies, who are even now, declaring RECORD profits in the TRILLIONS of dollars!
"Instead of focasing on the economy they wasted thier time time on Cap & Trade and Obama Care"
A matter of personal opinion. I assume you're talking about the 2 years the (Democrts)SIC were in charge, after republican control for over 10 years before that? . To that i'd say, where ARE the jobs Mr Boehner - you ran for Speaker on a campaign long on rhetoric and short of actual plans to (creaate)SIC jobs. (Whie)SIC the Democrats havent done much to improve the economy for you and me, the republicans have NOT offered any plan of their own. Same with Healthcare, short of radical, right wing, partisan agenda driven healthcare plans.
And let's not forget Obama's new war in Lybia.
Boy, you are just full of Fox News talking points today arent you? I think any President who is not a complete heartless ******* would go to war ro protect innocent people. I'd be willing to bet, if a Republican President was in office, going to war in Libya, you'd be telling us all what great humanitarian he was!
That's just it. You guys continued to critisize President Bush about Iraq and Afganistan all
thru his Presidency. We were attacked by Bin Laden and Sadam H.(I no we can't say the H.
word because of you know who.) not only had chemical weapons that he used on his own
people, But was constantly massacring his own people. And now this President is doing the
same exact thing and now it's ok?
We were never attacked by Saddam Hussein and SADDAM had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. Yes, in 1990 he occupied Kuwait and we kicked him out. Fine, Bush Sr was certainly within his rights to kick him out of Kuwait. But Saddam Hussein NEVER ATTACKED AMERICA! Bush was first caught in this lie.
So, which one is your position Skippy? Is it:
A) NOT OK to go into Libya with the express purpose of protecting innocent civilians from Gaddhafi (sorry NOBODY knows how to spell this one ) AND its NOT OK to go into Iraq with the express purpose of protecting innocent civilians from Saddam?
or
B) is it fully OK to do both?
All i hear from you is that you argue that it IS ok to go into Iraq with the express purpose of protecting innocent civilians from Saddam (as long as Bush as President did it and that its NOT ok to go into Libya fro the same reasons (as long as a Democratic President Obama does it.
PICK ONE OR THE OTHER!
Never mind the latest air strike killed 3 of Kadafi's
innocent grandchildren. And who really are the rebels? Are they our future enemy like
Iraq? And what about the other places in the world where people were massacred? You
guys are hypocrites. Maybe a republican President would have done the same thing. But
Obama might have done the same thing as Bush if he were president then. As a Senator
he's said and done one thing, but as President he has done the opposite. The debt sealing
for example.
"And what about energy?"
What about it? You got any better ideas? How bout George Bush - HE was clueless with respect to energy too - go buy a 50,000 fuel cell car that hasnt even been developed yet! Ha! Send him over to Saudi Arabia to pal around with his Arab good buddies, let them plan how to steal the rest of our money? When you get some better ideas, come back to the table; until then, put a cork in it.
President Bush was discrasful when he went to Saudi Arabia. Obama didn't do us any justice
when he went on his apology tour thru the Middle East. And bowing before forein leaders,
no other President of the United States has ever discrased us like that. And again you dwell in the past.
I dont suppose it counts that George Bush bowed and kissed both cheeks of Saudi King Abdullah in this video?:
<http://imagesource.cnn.com/imagesource/player.swf?streamer=rtmp://isfms.cnn.com/vod&file=mp4:895/05281895&type=video&controlbar=none&autostart=true&width=480&height=324>
"He who cannot remember the past is condemmed to repeat it" - George Santayana (google it)
George Bush's lies must be exposed; "trickle down economics" must not be repeated, it must be stamped out! It only means rich people. peeing on us peons from above! If we give them tax break after tax break they'll just say thank you - iy doesnt mean they'll create any more jobs, or stop sending jobs overseas! They've proven this over and over yet the Republicans continue to kowtow to this bogus philosophy in the name somehow, of deficit reduction!
We MUST get ourselves together and realize we have got a severe crises. Unemployment near 10%. The dollar hitting new lows. The Chinese lecturing us about our
debt. And no plans to retreave our own energy resoures. We are the richest in the world in
resources, yet we have a policy that is dictated to by people like Van Jones. What about our
borders? Is it want you want to open them wide open and let the cartels and terrorists have
their way with us? ************************
Your a fool. Talk about my spelling. I'll also finish checking your spelling. Where's your spell check? *********************************
I agree, lets get together. Do not join the party of "no". This country has been using compromise as an effective means of government for over 200 years yet, the republicans refuse to compromise on anything at all - this is NOT what the founding fathers intended - they wanted everyone to have to compromise at some point! If you decide to opt out of that, as the republicans have, then you opt out of the democratic form of government and you should be considered the traitors that you are. Just my humble opinion. Call me a socialist if you want, it will still be untrue.
You keep serving up the Whopper's - i'll keep hittin em out
Actually I like Whoppers', there pretty tastey. (You can make mine with extra pickle.)
Great post, keep up the good work.
Skippy's only knowledge is to keep calling everybody "socialist" and doesn't even know what a socialist philosophy is. No clue.