Set all the bashing, hating and partisan bias’s aside.

What have you LIKED that Bush has done since he has been in office?

Originally posted by jpa2400
Set all the bashing, hating and partisan bias’s aside.

What have you LIKED that Bush has done since he has been in office?

I tried to ask this question once, your in for a huge spin by the Democrats on this one.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
I tried to ask this question once, your in for a huge spin by the Democrats on this one.:rolleyes:


Grin, must have missed that or forgot about it.

All spins aside, he couldn't have done EVERYTHING wrong, what did he do right then?

he convinced most american's we werent safe from saddam and his legion of doom

he successfully blew most of iraq up - proved our millitary is pretty deadly

he has managed to do what his dad couldn't do,... which is oust saddam - pretty impressive

he has successfully labelled every middle eastern country a terrorist threat with the exception of isreal - pretty stupid, but he did it

he has identified each terrorist harboring country as a global threat - stated the obvious

he has successfully alienated the US from other once allies - expected that

he successfully divided this country over partisianship of parties instead of principles - ever so obvious at CL

he successfully caused people to follow him blindly and nail themselves to a cross for him ( pretty impressive in my opinion )

I think he's great at what he does, I just don' t like what he does.

I'm sure that there's some good somewhere out there,... I haven't seen it personally myself, but I like his persistance!

"I tried to ask this question once, your in for a huge spin by the Democrats on this one."


Yep, so much for a simple question.

Originally posted by jpa2400
"I tried to ask this question once, your in for a huge spin by the Democrats on this one."


Yep, so much for a simple question.

told yuh:egads:

Originally posted by NAZTY97
he convinced most american's we werent safe from saddam and his legion of doom


The ironic thing is: You thought we were safe

Originally posted by NAZTY97

he successfully blew most of iraq up - proved our millitary is pretty deadly


Really, seems like most of Iraq is still intact (well as much as it was at least).. You must be thinking of the wrong country.

Originally posted by NAZTY97

he has managed to do what his dad couldn't do,... which is oust saddam - pretty impressive


Actually his daddy could have, he just didn't.. nice spin though

Originally posted by NAZTY97

he has successfully labelled every middle eastern country a terrorist threat with the exception of isreal - pretty stupid, but he did it


There are a few left..... BTW: Name some that he labled as a terrorist threat? hope your not refering to Iran. maybe syria though.

Originally posted by NAZTY97

he has identified each terrorist harboring country as a global threat - stated the obvious


Well, it has to be stated pretty obviously for some people...

Originally posted by NAZTY97

he has successfully alienated the US from other once allies - expected that


Thank God, who need France anyhow... Hope they make it through the next heat wave without losing half their population.

Originally posted by NAZTY97

he successfully divided this country over partisianship of parties instead of principles - ever so obvious at CL


no, that would be the Democratic party... I think you knew that already though... I'll let you slide on this one.

Originally posted by NAZTY97

he successfully caused people to follow him blindly and nail themselves to a cross for him ( pretty impressive in my opinion )


Hes a good man, don't know of any people taking the next step of getting the hammer and nails out..

Originally posted by NAZTY97

I think he's great at what he does, I just don' t like what he does.


Well with the spin you put on things, you could make ANYTHING ANYONE does sound bad. Your good at it.

Originally posted by NAZTY97

I'm sure that there's some good somewhere out there,... I haven't seen it personally myself, but I like his persistance!

This is why your the minority

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
The ironic thing is: You thought we were safe

We weren't safe from Saddam? Let's see, it had been a whole TWELVE years since we beat the living crap out of Saddam and his army (Persian Gulf War) and in those TWLEVE years he did absolutely nothing to harm the United States---even while we continually bombed his country after the war for years on end. Any of us here, would be steaming with rage if someone broke into your car and destroyed the interior, then came back every night to throw eggs at it, which is in a sense what we did to Iraq. Yet Saddam didn't even take a single step of action to harm Americans back--except one foiled attempt on Bush Sr.'s life.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
Really, seems like most of Iraq is still intact (well as much as it was at least).. You must be thinking of the wrong country.

Your source of information must be omitting all the video footage of wreckage I see in Iraq. And what are we doing at this moment? We're dropping 4-ton bombs on warehouses and buildings in an attempt to quell insurgents in Iraq. I'm sure all that collatoral damage will pacify them!

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
Actually his daddy could have, he just didn't.. nice spin though

Actually his daddy is one of those Presidents that abides by international law and respects the United Nations and he COULD NOT pursue Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf War. His mandate was to drive the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, not invade and reform Iraq. "Nice spin though"

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
There are a few left..... BTW: Name some that he labled as a terrorist threat? hope your not refering to Iran. maybe syria though.

Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, he's made accusations towards them all. Some of these governments fold and cooperate on an intelligence level with the US, but still. PS: check out the CIA blacklist, you might learn something there.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
Well, it has to be stated pretty obviously for some people...

Like you for instance? reference the previously quoted comment.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
Thank God, who need France anyhow... Hope they make it through the next heat wave without losing half their population.

Wow, I knew you were insensitive, but that's just heartless! France isn't the only one by the way. They are only one of many governments who have criticized to opposed this war, but they do make a popular target for the right to pick on. How childish... If you only personally knew a French national maybe you'd have a valid opinion of the French.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
no, that would be the Democratic party... I think you knew that already though... I'll let you slide on this one.

This is so absurd I'm almost reluctant to comment on it, for it speaks for itself. Bush is not a man of compromise, neither in foreign policy or domestic. Everything is his way or the highway. At least other Republicans understand the meaning of compromise and multilaterlism. The original comment was probably referring to Bush's contraversial actions, both in signing law, setting foreign policy, and economic policy. He does things that cater only to his ideology and thus frustration arises from Americans who lose at every turn.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
Hes a good man, don't know of any people taking the next step of getting the hammer and nails out.

Perhaps you should look into getting to know the Democratic incumbants.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
Well with the spin you put on things, you could make ANYTHING ANYONE does sound bad. Your good at it.

Bush doens't make it hard. Anyone can be good at it.


Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
This is why your the minority

In your view anyone that disagrees with you will always be the minority. We know this about you. You don't have to repeat it. Just keep believing it.

here's a direct quote from the Feb 26th speech of this year:

[Our coalition of more than 90 countries is pursuing the networks of terror with every tool of law enforcement and with military power. We have arrested, or otherwise dealt with, many key commanders of al-Qaida.

Across the world we are hunting down the killers one by one. We are winning and we're showing them the definition of American justice.

And we're opposing the greatest danger in the war on terror, outlaw regimes arming with weapons of mass destruction. In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world and we will not allow it.

This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country, and America will not permit it.

The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed.

The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East.

A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform this vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interest in security and America's belief in liberty both lead in the same direction, to a free and peaceful Iraq.

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war and misery and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein, but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us.

Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy, yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them.

If we must use force, the United States and our coalition stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated Iraq. We will deliver medicine to the sick, and we are now moving in to place nearly 3 million emergency rations to feed the hungry. We'll make sure that Iraq's 55,000 food distribution sites operating under the Oil for Food program are stocked and open as soon as possible.

The United States and Great Britain are providing tens of millions of dollars to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and to such groups as the World Food Program and UNICEF to provide emergency aid to the Iraqi people. We'll also lead in carrying out the urgent and dangerous work of destroying chemical and biological weapons. We will provide security against those who try to spread chaos or settle scores or threaten the territorial integrity of Iraq. We will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage by a dying regime and ensure those resources are used for the benefit of the owners, the Iraqi people.

The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected. ]

In this quote, he mentions things that have been already denounced and disproven, so I think we can extrapolate a true spin from this, since these are his words, and since I know some think they are the only educated people on this board, here's the whole text transcript of what he said, so there's no question of "spinning":
transcript (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/side/1796961)

thought I was safe? hmmmmm.... none of us are safe from anything,... I said saddam and the legion of doom,... prove to me that saddam himself has anything to do with what bush has accused him of other than being a terrible dictator who oppressed his people?


how about this for manipulation of the simple minded?

What makes it even harder to trust without verifying is that Team Bush doesn't exactly have the greatest track record when it comes to telling the truth. Back in 1990, when the first President Bush and then-Secretary of Defense **** Cheney were trying to sell an invasion of Iraq to the world, one of the key selling points was top-secret Pentagon satellite photos that purportedly showed 250,000 Iraqi troops ready to storm across the border into the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. It sounded ominously convincing, until some Soviet satellite pictures taken at the same time surfaced, revealing an utter absence of Iraqi troops. Twelve years later, the same **** Cheney is assuring us that today Saddam "constitutes as grave a threat as can be imagined."


no, that would be the Democratic party... I think you knew that already though... I'll let you slide on this one.

no sliding and spinnning needed,.. . i guess it was the republicans turn when clinton was in office... so I'd say it's just whomever is not politically in charge at the time - check mate


Hes a good man, don't know of any people taking the next step of getting the hammer and nails out..

Again, I ask you, how do you how good he is as a person? You make that assertion because you like his projected image? or have you had him over for dinner lately and teed up with on the course? Or did you and he grow up together down here in Tx? So, point being here, you make a statement as if it's fact on your own personal belief, nothing more, nothing tangible, nothing validatable or verifyable. Your say so is worthless. Prove his goodness on a personal account, not hearsay or public relations "jedi mindtricks".
...I think I can smell the blood on your keystrokes from the holes in your wrists.... :eek2:
Well with the spin you put on things, you could make ANYTHING ANYONE does sound bad. Your good at it.

Thanks for the compliment,... but touch'e... I don't like rock'n'roll music, thus don't like Elvis Presley or even Jimi Hendrix,... HOWEVER, I would never say because of my personal distaste for that genre of music, they are not talented, and excellent musicians in what they do. Bush hasn't earned that respect, and that is the true trait of whether someone is good at what they are doing.

What minority am I in?? The minority that shows the general consesus for bush's service to suck by way of popularity poll? Some dude is donating 15 million dollars to oust Bush next campaign,... I guess that's the majority you're speaking of?:rolleyes: :eek2:

the question was posed, and in that question arises another.

If the answer to your question asked: Has bush done anything right or what has he done that we like... could one be man enough to accept a no, nothing, or anything similar as well as the yes, or everything that you were looking for?

still yawning...:o

Originally posted by NAZTY97
could one be man enough to accept a no, nothing, or anything similar as well as the yes, or everything that you were looking for?


Blasphemy!!! :yikes:

I believe noone has really answered the question. The question was "What has he done that is RIGHT?". Not "What has he done WELL or SUCCESSFULLY?". Two different things.

Well, he did cheat to get in office. So I have low expectations (the lowest) for our president. Once he doesn't curse on T.V, farts in public and gets 10 hrs rest, he'll be okay and meet my low expectations.

I'm still waiting for some proof of nuclear missles being built. And proof the war is over.

I don't know if this counts, since it might be considered before he was president, but he kept the Clinton regimes little puppet Gore from being president. That's doing right in my book. I guess you can't call stopping the murder of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children in a certain country right, since it's too subjective, and I bet Saddam doesn't think it was right. Tax cuts put a little more money on my paycheck, pretty right by me.

Bush successfully got a calender made in honor of him. 365 quotes that were assinine or just totally stupid made in public speeches during his tenure, and it's not even over. When I find the link, I'll post it in case any of his fan club wants to order and give a few to their children for Christmas.

Originally posted by 1SICKLEX
Well, he did cheat to get in office. So I have low expectations (the lowest) for our president. Once he doesn't curse on T.V, farts in public and gets 10 hrs rest, he'll be okay and meet my low expectations.

I'm still waiting for some proof of nuclear missles being built. And proof the war is over.

How did HE cheat? I thought that was our Electorial system... well, let me guess. He created that problem too huh.

He never said the war was over, he declared major combat over.. big difference, he actually said the war would not be short and we must stay the course.

Also, he never stated that they had nuclear missles, he stated that they were seeking to develop...

Originally posted by Vegassc400
I believe noone has really answered the question.
I've been following this thread and I too have not seen any answers, just sarcasm and rhetoric. If a person here believes he has done absolutely nothing right, then say it outright.

Originally posted by Nazty97
Bush successfully got a calender made in honor of him. 365 quotes that were assinine or just totally stupid made in public speeches during his tenure, and it's not even over. When I find the link, I'll post it in case any of his fan club wants to order and give a few to their children for Christmas.
I already have one :egads: Anyways, does making "assinine" or "totally stupid" speeches mean he has not done right? I didn't expect anymore from him linguistically, did you?

already have one Anyways, does making "assinine" or "totally stupid" speeches mean he has not done right? I didn't expect anymore from him linguistically, did you?

I was just giving the man his "earned" props. He has earned a lot of things people don't want him to have, and ironicly, people like to give him praise and honor in areas where he has not. If I made the comparison 3 or 4 posts ago that I hate rock music, but can respect good rock'n'rollers, then you should gather that if he was doing something credible, correct, or positive outside of gathering support from a bunch of idolizing fans as if he were the latest boy group or pop artist, I WOULD, but as from where I stand, he hasn't. I can think on a state level how he still owes my college 400K+ dollars for something ( can't remember excatly what it is since it's been about 7yrs ), but wonder why he got boo'ed when he spoke at one of our graduations. Most of your experience with Bush just started a few yrs back... he's been f***k'in up in Tx way before he started on a national level.... so please spare us any new found affinity for Mr. Bush.

Hell, I'll say it... I have not seen any good done by Bush himself, soley,... I think the only thought I have positive currently about him is, he hasn't YET started WWW3 and blown us all up .... YET! Everyday seems like he's inching closer to global chaos because he has the most powerful millitary at his disposal. I never cared for Saddam, or what he did to his people, but when I see a man more bent on warring with someone over personal motives and scapegoating others plight to justify it. that is just plain wrong, and I will not for a second listen to some of you try to avert attention away from his foolishness to justify your ikonization of him. What good is selling your car for gas money??? Creating a bigger problem by solving a minor problem never makes any sense nor improves the situation and that's exactly what he has and is doing at American's lives, our money, and our reputation's expense ( whatever remained of that if it ever really had any worth ).

:sleep:

the way some of you sound, Pres Bush could sleep with your wife and you wouldn't find anything wrong with it because there'd be some kind of good in it and he's your favorite President.

STOP MAKING EXCUSES!

One good thing Bush did was allow the Debate Forum to be established on CL.

Bush did give $300 back



























































Only to :agreed: us in the butt in 2010 when the budget shortfalls really kick in

I wonder what the interest will be in 2010 on the $300 he made you borrow against yourself?

dunno how old this thread is, found it in a search. im notthe person to step around peeps toes so eres how i look at it.

Busch did what Pansy-A s s Bill clinton didnt, that is go after sadam, since bill called it off.

He reopened military bases so we could defend our countrie, WHICH clinton closed

He proved Iraq would have been a deadly threat, [ on the enws about a week ago intellagence of nuclear and chemical weapons were found]

He went after al-quaida which i know gore the ***** would not have done. Also gave the country taxcuts, and now if you noticed the stocks are doing alot better.

And to whoever said he ruined alliances with other countries, well you know what ?, THERER WAS VERY FEW VOTES TO NOT GO TO WAR, almost all the house Democrats -_- and republicans voted.

Why dont you get your **** strait instead of jsut criticizing it for a fad

Oh btw he also gave money to schools of iraq, so kids just like yours can go to school and make something of themselves. Also people dont have to walk in fear 24/7 now. Women arent outcasts of society, rape-rooms closed down and a Horrible regime is gone.


-tanx ^_^

Please feel free to flame, argue,or get mad at this psot ^_^

Busch did what Pansy-A s s Bill clinton didnt, that is go after sadam, since bill called it off.

You probably meant, he did what his dad couldn't / didn't do,... because I don't recall Desert Storm occuring during Clinton's administration.

And if you want to be technical about it, he didn't capture Saddam, our millitary did. If anything, they deserve praise,... not the president.

He reopened military bases so we could defend our countrie, WHICH clinton closed
If we weren't trying to go to war with everybody all the time, we wouldn't need more base!:egads:

He proved Iraq would have been a deadly threat, [ on the enws about a week ago intellagence of nuclear and chemical weapons were found]
What news??? I haven't heard this... ( not sayin' it's not true, but with as many bush lovers, I'm sure there would have been 100 posts about it )


I think I'll stop here,.. I'm tired, but there's more that could be questioned if I really wanted to.

What news??? I haven't heard this... ( not sayin' it's not true, but with as many bush lovers, I'm sure there would have been 100 posts about it )

don't worry, you were correct in assuming that his statement is not true. I'm wondering where he got that information from, or if he was just completely making it up in order to state his case? BTW, as of today, not a SHRED of evidence of weapons of mass destruction have been found. Some of the old factories that were originally believed (or hoped :rolleyes: ) by the administration to have been WMD facilities have been proven to have been otherwise. $87 billion, nearly 500 lives, and 9 months later, the primary case for war in Iraq has yet to of been justified.....but oh well, who gives a ***** right?

Originally posted by BAWLEX94
..., not a SHRED of evidence of weapons of mass destruction have been found.

If you would have cared to read the full report from the weapon inspectors it includes that statement that there is no proof that he Doesn'tt have WMD. There are 100's of thousands of gallons of missing chemicals that the Washington Post failed to report in their biased reporting. So much so, that David K.? (not sure of his last name) wrote an editorial letter to them criticizing them for only reporting what they wanted in their haste to bash Bush.

In addition, are you that foolish to believe that railroad cars buried in the sands of Iraq, fashioned into chemical factories had nothing to do with WMD?

Some of you are probably the same people who, if this administration did nothing (i.e, let Saddam be) and then he helped orchestrate and attack would be the 1st ones in court suing our gov't (Bush) because they failed to act. What is worse, removing him and not finding WMD, or leaving him be, letting him create them and use them against us, and then say Oh we should have done something!

On the Clinton note. What he failed to do was respond to the embassy bombing in Africa or the bombing of the USS Cole. Had we done something then, something forceful and strong, then maybe 9/11 would never have happened. But foreign countries saw that Clinton was weak and pounced upon the opportunity feeling that there would be no retribution. Oops 5000 people dead! I don't hear any of the liberally biased media mentioning this.

Or the fact that **** Morris, one of Clinton's advisor's noted that in the mid 90's the Saudi's called the White House and told the Clinton Administration that the had Bin Laden in custody and that they were willing to extradite him to the US and Clinton said Bin who? A direct quote.

And on the economy, if any of you would have happened to look at the facts, the recession started 6 months before Clinton left office. He failed to take appropriate steps at the right time to help avert the recession, yet Bush gets blamed.

One more point, if any of you would care to look back in history when Federal and State taxes are lowest, total Federal Revenues are the highest. Taxation stiffles growth of the economy, it's a plain simple fact.


I believe Bush has done a number of things right

Tax cuts as evidenced by the greatest quarter of economic growth in 20 year, 8.2%
The war in Iraq has caused many rogue countries to re-think their ways, as Libya has voluntarily agreed to weapons inspections (something that Gore would be too much of a ***** to do!)
In addition, you now see that North Korea is willing to step back from their hard line, no this had nothing to do with us capturing Saddam (yeah you believe that).

There are others, but I think you get my point.

I don't think Bush is that great, but he is better than any of the alternatives that we have. And if you don't think that Kerry, Dean, Gephardt, or the others lie, cheat, or steal, than you are a fool!

Kerry lied about his war record and has flip flopped on his Iraq position more than once.
Gephardt is about to be indicted by Judicial Watch (judicialwatch.org) (I think) They have a number of cases pending against both Clintons, Gephardt, Gore, etc. But again the liberal media fails to report the work of this non-profit group since it doesn't serve their purpose. They are more interested in having a Democrat elected at all costs rather than having the best person elected.

You wonder why we don't have the best candidates to choose from. Well when the salary is $200K and CEO's of corporations make millions and have just as much power behind the scenes. Well you do the math. Duh!

In addition, are you that foolish to believe that railroad cars buried in the sands of Iraq, fashioned into chemical factories had nothing to do with WMD?

First of all, you're awfully new here to be calling me foolish. You'll find out eventually that you can't do that on this forum. Secondly, instead of trying to refute something I never said, try to create a rebuttle to what i actually did say .. i said that NO evidence of WMD's have been found. Period. I believe that the Bush administration would tell you that one. Traincars, treehouses, caverns, doghouses, factories, ect....nothing has been proven yet to have been a center for the creation of WMD's and nuclear weapons, and as we all know, no WMD's have been found. Don't assume that I'm foolish, and don't make broad assumptions as to whether or not i would sue the US government if Iraq had attacked us first :rolleyes: that statment was just ludicrous. I've made this argument before, and I'm not sure about you, but i rely on facts. A case for war was made by the Bush administration on the premise of Weapons of Mass Destruction - do i need to spell that out for you? You can spout off a list of what-if's to me all day, but the fact of the matter remains that Saddam Hussein has not been proven to have been an imminent danger to the security of the United States. We have pumped thousands of soldiers and billions of dollars into what was supposed to have been an imminent threat that never materialized. As i said before, i am/was against this war for two reasons 1) the Bush Administration lied about the justification for the war and 2) the adminstration was completely unprepared for the aftermath of the war. Please forgive me for having a problem with that.

And another thing, let's not forget that Bush's case for war was not merely reliant on biological and chemical weapons, but also on the supposed FACT that they possessed nuclear weapons. This war was not about mustard gas or scuds, we went to war becasue Bush told the nation that Iraq had, or might already have, a nuclear bomb. It's now obvious that Saddam did not have a nuclear bomb, and there's no solid evidence that it was true at the time Bush said it. In August of 2002, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, **** Cheney declared that he had "no doubt" that Saddam Hussein was preparing to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States. It's now clear that at the very least, there was doubt. And lastly , in reference to the war, it's funny that you mentioned David Kay (Kay is his last name by the way), seeing as how he has since stepped down from his post in Iraq.

Again, we've talked about the economy and taxation on this board before. But this "booming economy" you speak of really doesn't look so hot against the backdrop of record-breaking deficits. The government and federal reserves is doing everything they can to artifically support this economy (i.e. ridiculously low interest rates) and that does nothing to assist in long term stimulus. When tax cut's do nothing more than accelerate wealth to the top 5% of Americans, something about that train of thought seems very uncharacteristic of a democracy to me. Tax breaks, during a recession and a war, are irresponsible.

btw...I did not understand your last comment about corporations and CEO's .. you really shouldn't forget about who is in bed with those people

...and your assumptions about Gore and how he would have acted pre and post 9/11 are just absurd. As VP, Al Gore actually read all of his daily intelligence briefings, and made notes of questions he wanted answered in the margins. Gore's would-be national security adviser probably wouldn't have ignored Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, when he advised the Bush administration to "spend more time on terrorism generally, and on alQaeda specifically, than any other subject" - that quote comes from Aug 12, 2002 edidtion of Time magazine. All of this was stated pre 9/11. I'll reiterate, don't make assumptions on things, especially on how Gore would have handled 9/11 and terrorism in general.

I found a dead horse names WMD, let's beat it, since we can't be president :D :D :D

darh har har.....i'll hand it to you Sduqette, you have found me out.....I want to be President! :D

stop laughing....it's actually a goal of mine to be a member of congress at some point


but really it's kind of pathetic that you view WMD's as beating a dead horse, yet ironically enough, it was a reason for war.....such a stupid thing to question aye?

The fact of the matter is, there are probably thousands of reasons to go to war, and probably thousands of good things will come out of it. You cannot tell nothing good has come of this, if you do, you are either lying, or just lying to yourself. So what if one of the reasons hasn' been made a fact yet, what about the umpteen other reasons? Look at the chain reaction that is taking place. I'm sure if you were president, you would grant Saddam a pardon, and send him back to his country with his money and give an apology? You would stop the hunt on Bin Laden, and not to mention, free up the borders again so that anyone can do whatever they want inside the US? The point is, be it freedom, technology, an economic boost, a higher level of patriotism, no matter how you look at it, it helped the US and a lot of the world, not to mention a good number of Iraquis.

Don't I don't you would like to be in government, and maybe if Howard Dean ever gets elected, he'll be recruiting a few good kooks.

bahahahaha... I'll never figure out where you come up with those pathetic assumptions. Sweet god in heaven, no i do not support the legalization of homicide (being sarcastic here), nor do i condone the actions of a brutal dictator. That is NOT THE ISSUE. None of the democratic candidates for president have given praise to Saddam Hussein and what he did in Iraq. It's funny to me how in your last comment, you tried as hard as you could to make the search for WMD's as minor of an aspect as possible for the war in Iraq. No matter how hard you try to hide that premise behind a facade of other lesser mentioned justifications, the search for WMD's - be it weapons from the past or advanced development of new ones - was the PRIMARY MOTIVE for war in Iraq. By god that argument was made by the president, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the deputy sec of defense, the national security advisor....i mean, you NAME it, they said it......Iraq was primarily about WMD's. Yet you throw up some despicable reasoning, such as...""there were thousands of reasons for war, who cares if they were wrong, we're all better off"". Please, spare me of the typical Republican chant of ""i must hate America, adore Saddam, and wipe Osama's a$$ because i believed the war in Iraq to have been a war of lies"". It's all been said before, and it's really just not true.

lastly, don't give me this "free up the borders" bulls**t. Your man is about to sign into law a bill that will make it much easier for immigrants to come into this country and be employed. And i wonder why Mr. Pro-business/corporation himself would do such a thing like that? hmmmm.....

Even though I could, I'm not going to touch on every point you make. And my comments were made in general to everyone, don't be so full of yourself BAWLEX94. Yes I quoted your one comment, but that was just to get an intro into my diatribe.

Some things I do want to comment on.....

You comment about the economy and the cuts benefiting the top 5% is absolutely ludicrious. Before the tax cut the wealthy paid 52% of the tax burden, after 54%. How does that make the wealthy, wealthier?

Besides the wealthy are the ones paying the freaking taxes. Those that make a little over a $100K a year have averaged over $40K a year in just Federal Income Taxes alone. Imagine what those making millions pay. That is why they get a Lexus back and the schleps that pay $2-3K a year in taxes get a muffler. Just think how many people making $30-$40K you need to equal that! In addition, the wealthy are not the enemy, yet those that can't get there treat them as such. In addition, the wealthy are not the ones on welfare and utilizing most of our gov't services, but those that pay very little just abuse the system relentlessly. If you would do your homework on the tax cuts, those in the lowest brackets got the largest percentage breaks. Just because those that pay more get more back is not in and of itself unfair. As a percentage, we actually get less back. Learn your facts!

So what if we have deficits, you need to look at it as a % of our Gross Domestic Prioduct, which is a very manageable number. Remember all the rhetoric when Reagon had deficits and we said we would be paying for them for years. Well low and behold less than 10 years later we were back to surpluses w/o much problem. Trust me, we are not bankrupting our children because of deficits today.

Hey if Saddam isn't such a terrible guy, why don't you adopt him and have him live with you?

On the rest of it, well yes, some of what you say it true, yes chemical WMD haven't been found, but do you want to take the chance that they aren't there? And what will people like you say if we leave and then these weapons surface? Who is to say that they weren't moved to Syria or some other place since there was ample time to move them. Yes that is a fact! In addition, my definition of WMD is a weapon that kills more than 1,000 people. What do you call those torture chambers and mass grave sites. Just because it wasn't done with chemicals or nuclear weapons doesn't mean that we didn't find WMD! And why do you think that one guy was called Chemical Ali. He used them on his own people.

And to think that the war in Iraq is not a good thing, then yes those that believe otherwise are fools in my mind. They need to stop reading the liberal BS in Time and other publications. Maybe pick up a copy of the Investor Business Daily and read the editorial page for a week or two and I think your eyes will be opened. It includes people discussing all these issues from a variety of think tanks (CATO Institute, etc.), they talk about everything from the foolish global warming concepts, to the truth about the economy, to the mass hatred for George Bush and how that hatred has clouded too many peoples' thought process. Too many just feed on the liberal media w/o ever actually standing back and analyzing it to determine if it makes any sense.

Where was all this uprising against lies when Clinton and Gore were in office? (Chinagate, Travelgate, Whitewater, etc.) No Gore had nothing to do with that, yet he invented the internet. Clinton lied under oath, yes over a sex scandal (big deal), but it goes more to what else has he lied about that the American Public has yet to find out? I bet you weren't upset when Clinton pardoned all those criminals when he left office and then received a $1.7M house on Long Island for free? No, no funny business there, no Al Gore was not part of that. Do you think the Chinese thought the coffee and donuts were so good that that is why they paid $250K a piece to have breakfast with Clinton and Gore. Yeah, that's it!

Lastly, the Iraq war compared to all wars prior has been very successful, regardless of peoples opinions about what we were and weren't prepared for. Our death toll, I believe is still under 500, compare that to Korea, WWII, Vietnam, etc. It isn't even close and the cost as a % of GDP is phenomenally less. WWI took more than 100% of the GDP while this war has taken less than 10%. Yes $87 Billion is a big number, but it needs to be looked at in perspective and not just raw numbers.

Hey if Saddam isn't such a terrible guy, why don't you adopt him and have him live with you?

I find it hard to believe that someone who reads Investor Business Daily would make such an infantile comment, one which i have already addressed roughly two posts ago. Therefore, I don't need to say anything else about this.

Secondly, I wasn't being full of myself when i responded to having been called foolish. Even though you say it was meant generally, when you say....."are YOU so foolish to believe blah blah blah....", what am I to infer?

Again, I'm going to disagree with your comments about my statements being ludicrous in reference to the tax cuts....i want you to prove to me where i was wrong, and want you to show me the source if you can. Secondly, I would like to know where you got the information that the tax cut's have increased the tax burden for the wealthy by 2%. I heard a comment made on Crossfire once - maybe it was made by Robert Novack - but I do know the man was debating as a conservative. Whomever it was, they made the point that any politician can gain support by cutting taxes. But the Bush tax cuts were much different, and much slicker than those past. They set out to reap the political benefits of tax cuts without really reducing taxes for most Americans, but by merely shifting the tax burden - from the federal, to state-local governements(which is why so many states are now on the verge of bankruptcy) and from the higher to middle/lower income americans. Now this was a conservative that made that comment. Bush touts the support of conservatives alike, but you gotta ask yourself if he's really the poster child for conservative ideology? Traditional conservatives wanted to reduce, and even eliminate, the federal governement and cut taxes. Bush, Cheney and Co., however, want the government to continue to collect taxes - but turn the proceeds over to private industry. Bush and his people also wanted to and have sought in some way to drastically reduce or eliminate taxes on investment income, such as dividends and capitol gains, which are overwhelmingly paid by the wealthy. For christ sake, some people LIVE off their investments, and it's not going to be taxed??? You have the second wealthiest man in the world, Warren Buffet, that spoke out against such proposals. My father and grandfather, both men with money in the stock market, viewed that proposal as unfair.

According to the Citizens for Tax Justice, by mid 2003, Bush had passed 3 tax cuts in 3 years with a total cost to the Treasury of about $2.4 Trillion. In 10 more years, it's likely to become double that amount. In the first round of tax cuts in the summer of 2001, 38% of the benefits went to the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers. Overall, this group, that owns 40% of the nations wealth, received benefits averaging $100,000 a year, while the bottom half of all households were to receive around $200. Bush's January 2003 tax cuts, of which 70% went to the richest 5% of Americans, consisted of $674 billion in cuts. That break has actually been called the "Leave No Millionaire Behind Act". It included the provision to elminate the dividend tax, again, something that is overwhelmingly associated with the wealthy. It's as if the tax cuts were designed to give as little as possible to those who need the money, and as much as possible to those who don't. This is something I will never be able to decipher when it comes to conservative ideology. I've argued about this many times, and i've come to the conclusion that the root of my disagreement with this line of thinking comes down to mere train of thought. I've heard the line - "I made the money so i should get to keep it" - a thousand times. Of course you made the money, and your not being robbed blind. I intend on "making the money" someday, my parents have "made the money" for years, and they continue, as myself will continue, to see taxation as a part of our civic duty. When i start making ( which i fully hope to) $400,000 a year, I'm not going to complain about the prospect of $100,000 or more going to taxes, because my sense of reality is not jaded to the point in which i don't believe i can live comfortably on $250,000 or $300,000 a year. Maybe i'm a big softy push-over, but i do believe in helping those that can't help themselves, and i do believe in social welfare, and i also believe in basic principles of equity. My family is not exceptionally wealthy, but they do well. There are plenty of people that do better than us, but we realize there are a lot more that do worse, and my father has never forgotten that, and he's never let me forget that.....I know that i'm about to be lambasted for my views on taxation, cause it's all been said before. I know I'm just a liberal softy that wants to "hand money" to those that don't want to help themselves. I will concede to the fact that those people, the ones riding welfare for all it's worth, do exist. But I don't want their existence to be embellished. There's a fine line to be drawn somewhere, and if I can someday assist in propping up lower to middle class america, than by god i will do it.

Your comments on how deficits essentially don't matter again goes to show how manipulated by the comments of Bush/Cheney you have become. It's funny that you said that now, cause I'm reading a book by James Carville that addresses that exact problem, because it doesn't take an rocket scientist to explain that it's generally not a good idea to spend what you don't have. Deficit reduction in the 90's led to a national first: 7 consecutive years of double digit investment growth, as a result of lower long term interest rates. The investment growht led to increased productivity and new job creation, and it was just one big happy cycle. However, large deficits naturally mean that the government is borrowing money, which means less money available for other people who want to invest and innovate. It's been estimated that within the next 10 years, these deficits will take $1,000 out of the pocket of each working American because increasing deficits will decrease national savings and increase long-term interest rates, which will have the effect of lowering incomes. I'll agree that small deficits aren't necessarily bad. But people borrow money with the intention that it will impove your financial situation someday, such as paying for college. But when the deificit is large, long lasting, and your future financial situation is uncertain, then a deficit can be a bad thing. The Committee for Economic Development concluded that massive deficits actually reduce our future standard of living, so your comments on how it needs to be viewed in "perspective" and such really is a bunch of hogwash, because deficits do matter.

The Iraq war comments have been milked for all they're worth. I already heard the what-if's from Sduqette, and i don't need to hear them from you. We could invent cool little scenario's all day of what might have happened. The simple fact is, we went to war on a false premise. The End.

And you stating that Iraq moved weapons to Syria is a fact is laughable, and false, because that's not a fact, just another assumption you've made. And your definition of a WMD really doesn't matter, since we didn't go to war based on YOUR definition of a WMD.

And again, i wasn't arguing on the merits of what has happened in Iraq and what might happen, and every good thing that is going to come of it. I have been arguing the justification for the war, so stop putting words in my mouth. But if you want to go down that path, i'll say something about it. When American troops stop dying, when American troops stop being injured, When american troops start being sent home, when insurgency attacks stop, when a constitution has been written, when Iraq becomes a functional democracy, when Iraq is turned over to a non-dictorial leader - all of these facets will be commendable. Nobody is denying that. But when you examine everything put into that war, the opportunity cost of what's happened, all stacked up against an uncertain future, I don't believe it was worth it. There is no guarantee that Iraq will have a democracy, eventhough given all we've gone through to acheive one, i hope they do. But when we start creating wars for the purpose of nation building and overthrowing tyrants, then we have a long list to go through.

I can't figure out your continued references to Clinton/Gore. There really doesn't seem to be anything else to go into on that subject, since it's been mentioned before. Clinton did not take us into a war founded on false intelligence with Iraq. Bottomline. We can discuss Clinton's BJ and what a threat to national security it was all day, and we have. I'm sorry, but the balance of scales for me when it comes to lying is tipped in the favor of GW Bush. I mean- WAR vs. BLOWJOB.......as you said earlier "do the math, duh!"

You missed my point about Clinton lying about sex. The concept was that if he was willing to lie about that under oath, what else has he lied about that we don't know yet. The sex is not the issue, character is!

And that 54 vs 52% was detailed in IBD in case you missed it. And that includes the capital gains and dividends issue. In addition, most investments come from income that already been taxed. Why should it be taxed twice? I don't disagree that there is a civil duty to pay taxes, but paying more than one's fair share is not right either. I guess you failed to respond to the fact that the lowest tax brackets received the highest breaks percentage wise in Bush's tax cut. Hmmm..

No matter how many facts you or I pull out, neither will change the other opinions.

Have a nice day.

P.S. the adoption thing was sarcasm, I repeat sarcasm.

agreed...i really had no intention in changing your opinion. I was only interested in defending mind. Sorry for missing the sarcasm in the adoption comment.

since you are going to edit your post and start adding comments after you alluded that our debate was over, i'll do the same.

The issue you brought up of double taxation is really being taken too far. What you don't seem to know is that the measure of taking away the so-called "double taxation" of dividends will cost over $300 billion over the next 10 years, while it stands to primarily benefit the top 5% of wealthiest Americans, those who earn more than $300,000 year - more than it benefits the bottom 95% percent of tax payers COMBINED. Millionaires would receive an average of $27,100 over 10 years, while the average tax payer earning $30,000 - $40,000 would save $42.

Taxes on dividends were dubbed double taxation, because in theory, corporations first pay corporate taxes on their profits, then pay out part of those profits as dividends to shareholders, who in effect pay taxes on the same profits again. But realistically, no one can deny that corporations have become so adept at exploiting tax loopholes that fewer and fewer pay taxes at all; LIKE ENRON that paid no taxes for years, depsite declaring enormous profits! So double taxation really is far from what they say it is...in some cases, it can only be looked at as half taxation. The government could have made a much more convincing case for elimination of taxes on dividends if the ridiculous number of corporate loopholes were closed.

Thanks for the welcome and I always enjoy good debate.

....now if these forum debates could always end so peacefully....

Originally posted by BAWLEX94
I find it hard to believe that someone who reads Investor Business Daily would make such an infantile comment, one which i have already addressed roughly two posts ago. Therefore, I don't need to say anything else about this.

Secondly, I wasn't being full of myself when i responded to having been called foolish. Even though you say it was meant generally, when you say....."are YOU so foolish to believe blah blah blah....", what am I to infer?

Again, I'm going to disagree with your comments about my statements being ludicrous in reference to the tax cuts....i want you to prove to me where i was wrong, and want you to show me the source if you can. Secondly, I would like to know where you got the information that the tax cut's have increased the tax burden for the wealthy by 2%. I heard a comment made on Crossfire once - maybe it was made by Robert Novack - but I do know the man was debating as a conservative. Whomever it was, they made the point that any politician can gain support by cutting taxes. But the Bush tax cuts were much different, and much slicker than those past. They set out to reap the political benefits of tax cuts without really reducing taxes for most Americans, but by merely shifting the tax burden - from the federal, to state-local governements(which is why so many states are now on the verge of bankruptcy) and from the higher to middle/lower income americans. Now this was a conservative that made that comment. Bush touts the support of conservatives alike, but you gotta ask yourself if he's really the poster child for conservative ideology? Traditional conservatives wanted to reduce, and even eliminate, the federal governement and cut taxes. Bush, Cheney and Co., however, want the government to continue to collect taxes - but turn the proceeds over to private industry. Bush and his people also wanted to and have sought in some way to drastically reduce or eliminate taxes on investment income, such as dividends and capitol gains, which are overwhelmingly paid by the wealthy. For christ sake, some people LIVE off their investments, and it's not going to be taxed??? You have the second wealthiest man in the world, Warren Buffet, that spoke out against such proposals. My father and grandfather, both men with money in the stock market, viewed that proposal as unfair.

According to the Citizens for Tax Justice, by mid 2003, Bush had passed 3 tax cuts in 3 years with a total cost to the Treasury of about $2.4 Trillion. In 10 more years, it's likely to become double that amount. In the first round of tax cuts in the summer of 2001, 38% of the benefits went to the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers. Overall, this group, that owns 40% of the nations wealth, received benefits averaging $100,000 a year, while the bottom half of all households were to receive around $200. Bush's January 2003 tax cuts, of which 70% went to the richest 5% of Americans, consisted of $674 billion in cuts. That break has actually been called the "Leave No Millionaire Behind Act". It included the provision to elminate the dividend tax, again, something that is overwhelmingly associated with the wealthy. It's as if the tax cuts were designed to give as little as possible to those who need the money, and as much as possible to those who don't. This is something I will never be able to decipher when it comes to conservative ideology. I've argued about this many times, and i've come to the conclusion that the root of my disagreement with this line of thinking comes down to mere train of thought. I've heard the line - "I made the money so i should get to keep it" - a thousand times. Of course you made the money, and your not being robbed blind. I intend on "making the money" someday, my parents have "made the money" for years, and they continue, as myself will continue, to see taxation as a part of our civic duty. When i start making ( which i fully hope to) $400,000 a year, I'm not going to complain about the prospect of $100,000 or more going to taxes, because my sense of reality is not jaded to the point in which i don't believe i can live comfortably on $250,000 or $300,000 a year. Maybe i'm a big softy push-over, but i do believe in helping those that can't help themselves, and i do believe in social welfare, and i also believe in basic principles of equity. My family is not exceptionally wealthy, but they do well. There are plenty of people that do better than us, but we realize there are a lot more that do worse, and my father has never forgotten that, and he's never let me forget that.....I know that i'm about to be lambasted for my views on taxation, cause it's all been said before. I know I'm just a liberal softy that wants to "hand money" to those that don't want to help themselves. I will concede to the fact that those people, the ones riding welfare for all it's worth, do exist. But I don't want their existence to be embellished. There's a fine line to be drawn somewhere, and if I can someday assist in propping up lower to middle class america, than by god i will do it.

Your comments on how deficits essentially don't matter again goes to show how manipulated by the comments of Bush/Cheney you have become. It's funny that you said that now, cause I'm reading a book by James Carville that addresses that exact problem, because it doesn't take an rocket scientist to explain that it's generally not a good idea to spend what you don't have. Deficit reduction in the 90's led to a national first: 7 consecutive years of double digit investment growth, as a result of lower long term interest rates. The investment growht led to increased productivity and new job creation, and it was just one big happy cycle. However, large deficits naturally mean that the government is borrowing money, which means less money available for other people who want to invest and innovate. It's been estimated that within the next 10 years, these deficits will take $1,000 out of the pocket of each working American because increasing deficits will decrease national savings and increase long-term interest rates, which will have the effect of lowering incomes. I'll agree that small deficits aren't necessarily bad. But people borrow money with the intention that it will impove your financial situation someday, such as paying for college. But when the deificit is large, long lasting, and your future financial situation is uncertain, then a deficit can be a bad thing. The Committee for Economic Development concluded that massive deficits actually reduce our future standard of living, so your comments on how it needs to be viewed in "perspective" and such really is a bunch of hogwash, because deficits do matter.

The Iraq war comments have been milked for all they're worth. I already heard the what-if's from Sduqette, and i don't need to hear them from you. We could invent cool little scenario's all day of what might have happened. The simple fact is, we went to war on a false premise. The End.

And you stating that Iraq moved weapons to Syria is a fact is laughable, and false, because that's not a fact, just another assumption you've made. And your definition of a WMD really doesn't matter, since we didn't go to war based on YOUR definition of a WMD.

And again, i wasn't arguing on the merits of what has happened in Iraq and what might happen, and every good thing that is going to come of it. I have been arguing the justification for the war, so stop putting words in my mouth. But if you want to go down that path, i'll say something about it. When American troops stop dying, when American troops stop being injured, When american troops start being sent home, when insurgency attacks stop, when a constitution has been written, when Iraq becomes a functional democracy, when Iraq is turned over to a non-dictorial leader - all of these facets will be commendable. Nobody is denying that. But when you examine everything put into that war, the opportunity cost of what's happened, all stacked up against an uncertain future, I don't believe it was worth it. There is no guarantee that Iraq will have a democracy, eventhough given all we've gone through to acheive one, i hope they do. But when we start creating wars for the purpose of nation building and overthrowing tyrants, then we have a long list to go through.

I can't figure out your continued references to Clinton/Gore. There really doesn't seem to be anything else to go into on that subject, since it's been mentioned before. Clinton did not take us into a war founded on false intelligence with Iraq. Bottomline. We can discuss Clinton's BJ and what a threat to national security it was all day, and we have. I'm sorry, but the balance of scales for me when it comes to lying is tipped in the favor of GW Bush. I mean- WAR vs. BLOWJOB.......as you said earlier "do the math, duh!"



I must say dude after reading all your posts. I truly feel you have your facts straight.

thank you, i appreciate that. Since it was practically a frickin essay, i kinda secretly hoped someone would mention it.

Hey BAWLEX94 (sorry I don't know your 1st name), not trying to refuel the debate but there was an interesting commentary in IBD yesterday (1/7/04) regarding Wesley Clark's economic plan that tends to address the "no millionaire left behind" comment you made. I thought you might find this interesting and have re-typed most of the article below. (I left out some of the intro that wasn't really relevant)
__________________________________

"....It focuses on raising taxes on the rich-now almost an unquestioned matter of faith among Democrats.

Clark like so many other politicians, has discovered the wonderful electoral arithmetic of taxes: If you tax just a few rich people, the rest of the nontaxpaying world will be forever grateful to you. That means votes. That's why Clark's simple tax reform cuts taxes on families under $100,000 in income, while jacking rates up to 45% for those above. Why not make the rich pay?

The problem is, they already do. the top 1% of all taxpayers paid 34% of all taxes in 2001. That's up from 18% in 1981. And the top 5%, those with roughly $125,000 that Clark wants to go after, now pay over half (50%) of all taxes.

That's a thin tax base. And these people, being well-educated high earners and all, aren't stupid. If you tax them hard and heavy, they'll find a way to protect their money from the tax man. That's what President Clinton discovered in 1993 when he imposed the "millionaire's surtax." Taxable income from the rich fell.

It was entirely predictable. People will protect their capital, one way or another. They do so by stopping all but necessary investment, thus killing jobs. Or they shift investments to other locales-remember the Asia boom of the early 1990's fed by US investors?

It took a GOP Congress in 1994 and a capital gains tax cut in 1996 to fully undo the damage Clinton did in his early term. Then the whole thing got going-the stock market, economy, jobs, everything.

Now it seems some Democrats have forgotten what should have been a bitter lesson for their party. And after President Bush's own success in reversing a sliding economy by cutting taxes, you'd expect something a little more astute from the leading candidates. but you'd be wrong."
______________________________

To put the 1%-34% thing in concept. There are roughly 200 million Americans eligible to vote (not sure of the total US population (maybe 400M). That means that 2,000,000 taxpayers cover the burden for 76,000,000 members of the population (double both numbers if 400M is the population).

And the 5%-50% concept of those making more that $125K means that 10,000,000 Americans cover the Burden for 100,000,000.

Does that seem fair?. Yes, the wealthy should pay more, but should it be that much more?

It appears that for the last 20 years, No miilionaire was left "UNPUNISHED" and the "No Millionaire Left Behind" tax cut was only attempting, in it's small way, to rectify the error of our past ways.

Anyway, I thought you might find this interesting and I am curious to see your perspective on this.

since we're bring up facts here,... HERE'S ONE FOR YA! I figure this to be timely, since so many people want to embellish irrelevant opinions on bush's good in the area of his war vs. the reality of how we got there, and how you can downplay the FACTS for support of your OPINION :ban:

Think Tank Report: Iraq WMD Not Imminent Threat
Thu Jan 8, 8:13 AM ET Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Bush administration officials "systematically" misrepresented the danger of Iraq (news - web sites)'s weapons of mass destruction programs, which were not an immediate threat to the United States and the Middle East, a report from a U.S. think tank said on Wednesday.


The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said in its study, "WMD IN IRAQ: Evidence and Implications," that there was "no convincing evidence" Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear program and that U.N. weapons inspectors had discovered that nerve agents in Iraq's chemical weapons program had lost most of their lethal capability as early as 1991.


There was greater uncertainty about Iraq's biological weapons, but that threat was related to what could be developed in the future rather than what Iraq already had, the study by the liberal-leaning think tank said.


The missile program appeared to have been in active development in 2002 and Iraq was expanding its capability to build missiles with ranges that exceeded U.N. limits, it said.


The United States justified going to war against Iraq last year citing a threat from Baghdad's weapons of mass destruction.


Since the U.S. occupation of Iraq, American forces hunting for weapons of mass destruction have not found any stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons or any solid evidence Iraq had resurrected its nuclear weapons program.


It was unlikely Iraq could have destroyed, hidden, or moved out of the country hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons, dozens of SCUD missiles, and facilities producing chemical and biological weapons without the United States detecting some sign of that activity, the report said.


"Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile programs," the report said.


They lumped nuclear, chemical and biological weapons together as a single threat, despite the "very different" danger they posed, which distorted the cost/benefit analysis of the war, the study said.


Administration officials also insisted without evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) would give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, the report said.


"There was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred WMD to al Qaeda and much evidence to counter it," the report said. There was also no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, it said.


'UNDULY INFLUENCED'


Prior to 2002, intelligence agencies appeared to have overestimated the chemical and biological weapons in Iraq but had a generally accurate reading of the nuclear and missile programs, the study said.


But from 2002 until the war in Iraq, there appeared to have been an environment of intense political pressure in which an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's banned weapons was hurriedly put together and included a high number of dissents in what was supposed to be a consensus document of the various intelligence agencies, the study said. The Pentagon (news - web sites) created a separate intelligence office during that time.


Those factors suggested "the intelligence community began to be unduly influenced by policymakers' views," the study said.


Stuart Cohen, vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which produced the National Intelligence Estimate, told ABC's "Nightline" on Tuesday, "Assertions, particularly that we had shaded our judgments to support an administration policy, were just nonsense."

The Clark tax plan was something that I had been waiting on, and still have mixed feelings on how it will resonate with most of America. Like you said, taxes are a sensitive subject, and you can gain support for your policies through a number of tax cutting methods. Bush opted to cut taxes, even though the only people really enjoying the tax cutting were the wealthy. But still, look at the number of people that supported his policy - because they were dooped into believing it would be a major source of financial relief. Well, it wasn't, and the rich saw relief they didn't need. Clark has stumbled onto an even more progressive tax system than what has existed in the past, by completely alleviating the sector of America in need of the greatest financial relief of any income-tax burden. One thing i noticed about a statistic in that article was that IBD is claiming that clark wants to boost the tax bracket for those making over $100,000 to 45%. That's untrue, because i'm on the Clark mailing list and have a copy of his tax plan. Clark plans to increase the taxable income of those people making $1,000,000 or more (not $100,000 or more) by FIVE percentage points. Thus, these 5 percentage points, which will affect ONLY 1/10 of 1% of Americans, will be able to rectify eliminating taxes for some odd 40 million families in america, and would rectify CUTTING taxes for those people that actually needed relief, those people that would have pumped the relief back into the economy, and i'm referring to those families with incomes of $50,000 - $100,000. These families, and those making less than $50,000, will experience true tax relief. While 1/10 of 1% of Americans, the richest of the richest, will experience a tax hike of five percentage points.

I understand that the wealthiest 1% of tax payers pays 34% of all taxes, but you must remember that they also own 40% of America's wealth. And while the top 5% pays over half the tax burden, yet they own over half of our nations wealth. You also have to keep in mind, that while the wealthiest 1% of tax payers that are paying 34% of the current tax burden now, in 2010, that percentage will have been reduced drastically as a result of the Bush tax plan. By 2010, the Bush tax plan will have 52% of a share of the Bush tax plans going to the 1/10 of 1 percent of Americans (those with incomes of a million dollars, up to Oprah status). Gross taxation of the wealthy probably want resonate well with the wealthy CEO's, but those people with MULTI-million dollar savings don't seem to mind - people like Gates or Buffet, or the mega-rich hollywood stars. It's tough to determine, but the Clark tax plan could have a promising pay off, or at worst, mixed results.Middle class America has the potential of spending more than ever, at the possibility of seeing the greatest tax relief they've ever seen.

Just a couple of questions on your comments:

Originally posted by BAWLEX94
Bush opted to cut taxes, even though the only people really enjoying the tax cutting were the wealthy. But still, look at the number of people that supported his policy - because they were dooped into believing it would be a major source of financial relief. Well, it wasn't, and the rich saw relief they didn't need.

Have you heard the quote that under Bush's plan a Family of 4 making $40,000 will see it's tax burden eliminated. How is that not relief for the middle class? Also does not the middle class benefit from the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief? And if so, how is that duping people? Yes, maybe it doesn't amount to what the top 5% get, but they also didn't pay that much in to begin with. And you shouldn't get back what you don't pay in except for those in the lowest brackets that qualify for the child tax credit or the earned income credit.

Originally posted by BAWLEX94
One thing i noticed about a statistic in that article was that IBD is claiming that clark wants to boost the tax bracket for those making over $100,000 to 45%. That's untrue, because i'm on the Clark mailing list and have a copy of his tax plan. Clark plans to increase the taxable income of those people making $1,000,000 or more (not $100,000 or more) by FIVE percentage points.

I'm a little lost for words as to why IBD would misquote this? That seems to be a pretty substantial error. Can you send me a copy of his plan? White.tigert56@juno.com is my e-mail

Originally posted by BAWLEX94
I understand that the wealthiest 1% of tax payers pays 34% of all taxes, but you must remember that they also own 40% of America's wealth. And while the top 5% pays over half the tax burden, yet they own over half of our nations wealth. You also have to keep in mind, that while the wealthiest 1% of tax payers that are paying 34% of the current tax burden now, in 2010, that percentage will have been reduced drastically as a result of the Bush tax plan. By 2010, the Bush tax plan will have 52% of a share of the Bush tax plans going to the 1/10 of 1 percent of Americans (those with incomes of a million dollars, up to Oprah status). Gross taxation of the wealthy probably want resonate well with the wealthy CEO's, but those people with MULTI-million dollar savings don't seem to mind - people like Gates or Buffet, or the mega-rich hollywood stars. It's tough to determine, but the Clark tax plan could have a promising pay off, or at worst, mixed results.Middle class America has the potential of spending more than ever, at the possibility of seeing the greatest tax relief they've ever seen.

Wealth does not equal income and our tax system is based on income. Much of the wealth that many generated was at one time or another taxed as income. So why would you tax that wealth a 2nd time? Haven't they already paid their civic duty once?

As I understand it, some of Bush's tax cuts have sunset provisions that eliminate them after 10 years. Yes, this is after 2010, but not that far after. And very few are in the range of Gates or Oprah and to them what is an extra $1M here or there. I think many of them get the guilt and philanthropist complex trying to create legacies for themselves. These are very untypical class of folks. My concern is more with many of those in the $100-$500K range that tend to bear a large brunt of the burden. Some of these that live in the Northeast, San Francisco, and other high cost of living markets get nailed by these wealth class concepts yet don't have any greater lifestyle than say someone making $60-$70K living in Des Moines.

Hey if Oprah and Gates and Buffet and others like them want to pay more, fine. But leave those of us making less than $500K out of their Billionaire concepts. We are nowhere near them in terms of our ability to fund services for the masses, nor will our names be left on any non-profit organizations.I think that is an unfair comparison for many.

Anyway, thanks for the commentary and keep them coming.

I'll copy and paste a version of Wes Clark's tax plan so everyone can form an opinion. I'm in no way a tax specialist yet, but i'm learning slowly. I like his plan. Don't worry, cause it's short and easy to read (i opted to copy and paste the short version of the plan from his website) Please note the last couple of paragraphs where he mentions the 5% increase on families with an income of one million dollars or more. Please understand that this comes from his campaign website, so try not to be distracted or infuriated by the tounge-and-cheek "vote for me" type of comments. Any campaign website has those.




Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform
Restoring Progressivity, Relieving the Working-family Squeeze, and Reducing Poverty

Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform is a major tax simplification proposal that will restore progressivity to the tax code, relieve the working-family squeeze and reduce poverty. Under Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform, a family of four making up to $50,000 would pay no federal income taxes, and all taxpaying families with children making up to $100,000 would get a tax cut.

Wes Clark's plan will accomplish all this by consolidating and expanding on an existing confusing and uneven set of tax benefits for children, creating a new tax credit of $2,250 for each child available for families making $20,000 or $50,000 or $100,000.

Wes Clark's Plan is Fair. Under President Bush, typical families have seen their incomes fall by nearly $1,500 - while President Bush provided an average tax cut of $128,000 to taxpayers making over $1 million. Under Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform:

A married couple with two children making $50,000 would get a $1,583 tax break.
A married couple with three children both earning the minimum wage, or $21,000 annually, would get a tax break of $2,287.
A married couple with two children making $85,000 would get a $975 tax cut.
A single mother raising one child on $30,000 a year would get a $793 tax break.
31 million working families would get tax relief, with the typical family getting a $1,477 tax cut.

Wes Clark's Plan is Progressive. Wes Clark's proposal not only provides relief for middle-income parents struggling not to fall behind in the Bush economy, but to the working poor struggling to work their families out of poverty and into economic independence.

Hundreds of thousands of children will be lifted out of poverty.

Wes Clark's Plan is Simple. Under Wes Clark's plan, families will only need to fill out a simple, three-line form to find out if they need to pay federal income taxes, providing their income, number of children, and marital status. And the majority of families will no longer be required to file tax forms.

Wes Clark's Plan is Responsible. The plan will provide $33 billion annually in tax relief for working families. This will be paid for without increasing the deficit by:

A 5 percentage point increase in the tax rate only on income over $1 million per year. This surcharge, which could be used only for working family tax relief, would not apply to the first $1 million of income or to any capital gains - so it will not affect 99.9 percent of taxpayers.

Have you heard the quote that under Bush's plan a Family of 4 making $40,000 will see it's tax burden eliminated.

To be perfectly honest i have heard absolutely nothing about this. I hope this is true, but I can't imagine that such a progressive provision from a conservative politician wouldn't have made a stir in the news. Could you give me a source to that? I would be pleasantly surprised to have proof that this provision really does exist. I do know that families with that level of income do see some tax relief, but i did not know that they saw their tax burden completely eliminated.

Also, your right about our tax system being based on wealth and not income, but the value of the dollar to a human being or the ability vs. willingness to pay is not blind to mere income. Many wealthy people accumulate most of their wealth and income through investments and playing the stocks, which under Bush's tax plan will no longer be taxed. Wealth also comes into play when considering the marginal utility theory of economics, which basically says the more you have of something, the less value that object holds....be it a softdrink on a hot day, or the dollar, the marginal utility theory essentially says that for each dollar you have, every additional dollar you gain after that holds increasingly LESS value to you. And if you really consider the theory, it makes sense.

I echo your sentiments when you were comparing the billionaires to the "hundred-thousandaires." Oprah really is in a completely different league than those of us here at Clublexus, but you seemed to be making your point under the assumption that Wes Clark was going to increase the taxable income of those people making between $100.000 and $500,000. He clearly isn't (he even includes tax relief for those families making up to $100,000). Although the people making that amount of money went largely unmentioned in the short version of his tax plan proposal, they do not share the burden of taxation that those making 1 million do, or of the Oprah/Gates/Buffet type of entities.

Originally posted by 92lexy400
dunno how old this thread is, found it in a search. im notthe person to step around peeps toes so eres how i look at it.

Busch did what Pansy-A s s Bill clinton didnt, that is go after sadam, since bill called it off.

He reopened military bases so we could defend our countrie, WHICH clinton closed

He proved Iraq would have been a deadly threat, [ on the enws about a week ago intellagence of nuclear and chemical weapons were found]

He went after al-quaida which i know gore the ***** would not have done. Also gave the country taxcuts, and now if you noticed the stocks are doing alot better.

And to whoever said he ruined alliances with other countries, well you know what ?, THERER WAS VERY FEW VOTES TO NOT GO TO WAR, almost all the house Democrats -_- and republicans voted.

Why dont you get your **** strait instead of jsut criticizing it for a fad

Oh btw he also gave money to schools of iraq, so kids just like yours can go to school and make something of themselves. Also people dont have to walk in fear 24/7 now. Women arent outcasts of society, rape-rooms closed down and a Horrible regime is gone.


-tanx ^_^

Please feel free to flame, argue,or get mad at this psot ^_^

Are you running for office? If so, I'll vote for you! WAY TO GO!

Originally posted by NAZTY97
If we weren't trying to go to war with everybody all the time, we wouldn't need more base!:egads:

True, we could keep closing bases like Clinton, only do things for PR purposes, and wait for another 9/11.

Presidents Tax Relief Plan (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbudget/blueprint/bud02.html)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbudget/blueprint/images/2-2.gif
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbudget/blueprint/images/2-3.gif
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbudget/blueprint/images/2-1.gif

Highlights of the President's Tax Plan

Replaces the current marginal income tax rates of 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent with a simplified rate structure of 10, 15, 25, and 33 percent.

-Doubles the child tax credit to $1,000 per child and applies the credit to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

-Reduces the marriage penalty by reinstating the 10 percent deduction for two-earner couples.

-Eliminates the death tax.

-Expands the charitable deduction to non-itemizers.

-Makes the Research and Experimentation (R&E) tax credit permanent.

The President's tax plan is fair and balanced. It addresses two important elements—the need to reduce inequities in the tax code and the need to foster economic growth.

The President's plan gives a tax cut to every American who pays income taxes—the typical family of four will be able to keep at least $1,600 more of their own money when the plan is fully effective. It increases tax fairness by giving the lowest income families the largest percent reduction.

The President's tax plan also recognizes the important role that constructive tax policy plays in generating high rates of long-term growth. Reductions in marginal tax rates encourage greater work effort and provide more inducement to save and invest in business enterprises. The tax plan should also help to shore up near-term growth, acting as an insurance policy against further weakening of the economy.

Rising Individual Tax Burdens
There is a great need for tax relief today. Total Federal revenues have surged as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) since the mid-1990s. In fact, individual income taxes now take up the largest share of GDP on record—even above World War II levels. (See Chart 2–1.)


Recent gains in real wages account for roughly 20 percent of this individual income tax surge. Most of the individual tax code is indexed only for inflation. Thus, when wages gain in excess of inflation, taxpayers' effective tax rate rises. This results from a dilution in the effect of the standard deduction/exemptions/credits and from the fact that some individuals are bumped into higher tax brackets altogether. It is unfortunate that the reward for higher productivity is a higher effective tax rate.

Rising tax burdens limit families' ability to dedicate resources to their most pressing concerns. This is unfortunate since families are the best stewards of their resources, and the best judges of their own needs. Some families need more for education, some need more for child care, some need more for other things entirely—things that no Government or bureaucrat can possibly predict. The wise choice is to put families, not bureaucrats, in charge of these decisions. The President's tax relief plan would do just that.

The President's tax plan provides relief for every income taxpayer; however, it gives the lowest income families the greatest percentage reduction. Indeed, higher income individuals will pay a higher share of income taxes after this plan takes effect. (See Chart 2–2.)

Lower marginal rates will help remove barriers that lower income families face as they try to enter the middle class. It is an unfortunate quirk of the present tax code that many low-income families are now facing higher marginal tax rates than wealthy individuals, due to the combined effect of phase-out of the Earned Income Credit and the Income and Payroll Tax. The President's plan will provide them with vital relief. For instance, the marginal Federal income tax rate for low-income families with two children would fall by over 40 percent and by nearly 50 percent for families with one child. This reduction stems from the establishment of the new 10-percent income tax bracket and the doubling of the child tax credit. (See Chart 2–3.)

The President's tax plan addresses other inequities in the present tax code as well. In particular, it substantially reduces the marriage penalty—a phenomenon whereby couples often have to pay more tax after they get married. It does so by reinstating the deduction for two-earner families which allows the lower-earning spouse to deduct 10 percent—up to $3,000—of the first $30,000 of income.

The President's plan allows all income taxpayers to deduct their charitable gifts, even if they do not itemize. Wealthier individuals have long had the ability to do so. This provision will help the families who give and will likely spur an increase in charitable giving to families in need. This is a win-win outcome.

Enhancing Prosperity
While individuals see the most direct benefit of tax relief in the form of higher take-home pay, tax policy also has an enormous effect on their lives by affecting the economic environment they live in. Well designed tax policy boosts the economy's sustainable long-term growth rate, which ultimately is the governor for how rapidly standards of living will rise over time.

Reduced tax burdens give workers a greater incentive to work harder. It gives entrepreneurs a greater incentive to reinvest in their businesses and in turn, to hire more workers. Cross-country studies have shown the direct link between lower tax burdens and higher rates of economic growth.

The marginal rate cuts contained in the President's plan will be a powerful force in helping to boost long-term growth. Bringing the top marginal rate down from 40 percent to 33 percent will help to reduce the "success tax" on entrepreneurs and lead to more investment. Government should not penalize success. The plan will give over 20 million owners of small business—sole proprietorships, S corporations and partnerships—a tax cut that will increase cash flow and allow them to add jobs.

The President's commitment to eliminating the death tax will also boost risk-taking and wealth creation. The present system is unfair—it taxes income that was already taxed when it was earned and makes it difficult for many families to pass on their business or farm to the next generation. The death tax is wrong both from an equity and economic perspective. Elimination of the death tax will help family businesses and give seniors renewed incentive to save for their children.

The President's tax plan also supports a permanent extension of the Research and Experimentation (R&E) Credit. This credit supports the type of technological developments that have fuelled the recent boom in productivity growth. By making the credit permanent, the President will give firms the incentive to undertake long-term research projects that could well provide the next round of technological breakthroughs for future generations.

nice, unbiased, independent website you posted their. Straight from the president's cabinet. Surprise, Surprise. If you want to see a real website that's not out to PROMOTE Bush's tax cut, go to www.ctj.org (http://www.ctj.org)

Originally posted by BAWLEX94
nice, unbiased, independent website you posted their. Straight from the president's cabinet. Surprise, Surprise. If you want to see a real website that's not out to PROMOTE Bush's tax cut, go to www.ctj.org (http://www.ctj.org)

ctj.org does not appear to be that unbiased since they fail to address that fact that increases in discretionary (23%) and non-discretionary spending (Iraq war, etc.) incurred over the same time period have had as much, if not more to do with increased deficits than the tax cuts. Yet no where on their site is that addressed. And the increased spending is a by-product of Pork by both parties and the war.

I.E. In California, Tax Receipts are up 25%, but spending under Davis was up 48%. You can't spend faster than you earn, that is why the have a $15 Billion shortfall.

Yes tax rates are at the lowest amounts, but that does not mean that Federal Receipts are lower.

Maybe Bush's site is biased towards the tax cut, I don't doubt that, but.....

I know a number of personal friends with kids making in the $40K to $70K range who are very happy with their reduced tax bill (edited for: "don't know why the hell I put 15-25%, it was more than that")(and this is measured at the end of the year) and not just by the $300/$600 check that was rec'd. I make much more than them and yet my bill was only reduced by 6%.

Most people should have seen a decline in withholding amounts for the last year as well. The best way to measure this is to take your 2001 tax return and/or 2002 tax return and run those same numbers under the 2003 tax code and most people under $80K of taxable income will notice a significant reduction, especially if they have kids. This will measure it for each individual rather than dealing in Gross national figures. (Also doing this for a family of 4 making $40K will show the elimination of their tax burden, I'd have to go back and find the source of this since it came out right around the time of the enactment of the legislation, but it was one of the not-for-profit goups that I receive literature from. They used averages for mortgage deductions, charitable contriburtions, etc.)


I dare each person to test this for themselves to see their true benefit (or lack thereof) under Bush's tax cuts.

Originally posted by BAWLEX94
.. i said that NO evidence of WMD's have been found. Period. I believe that the Bush administration would tell you that one. Traincars, treehouses, caverns, doghouses, factories, ect....nothing has been proven yet to have been a center for the creation of WMD's and nuclear weapons

You're obviously seeing what you want to see. Powell and Bush at least have come out a few times and said the mobile chemical weapons trucks and thousands of gas masks all over the place are at least 'smoking guns'.

1) the Bush Administration lied about the justification for the war

Mistaken perhaps, by believing information provided by U.S. and British intelligence, but lying is incorrect.

And another thing, let's not forget that Bush's case for war was not merely reliant on biological and chemical weapons, but also on the supposed FACT that they possessed nuclear weapons. This war was not about mustard gas or scuds, we went to war becasue Bush told the nation that Iraq had, or might already have, a nuclear bomb.

As you know, that came from British Intelligence who believed Saddam was trying to get some parts for nukes from Africa I believe.

It's now clear that at the very least, there was doubt.

There is always doubt. We could sit back and just get whacked by a nuke though. There is NO doubt though that Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda have declared war against the West and the U.S. in particular. And 9/11 was clear evidence of their intent and capabilities. Of course they blew a 100ft hole in the World Trade Center in '93 but we barely did anything about that.

You're obviously seeing what you want to see. Powell and Bush at least have come out a few times and said the mobile chemical weapons trucks and thousands of gas masks all over the place are at least 'smoking guns'.

I disagree. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60340-2004Jan6.html

here are some highlights from the article:
Tamimi's covert work, which he recounted publicly for the first time in five hours of interviews, offers fresh perspective on the question that led the nation to war. Iraq flouted a legal duty to report the designs. The weapons they depicted, however, did not exist. After years of development -- against significant obstacles -- they might have taken form as nine-ton missiles. In March they fit in Tamimi's pocket, on two digital compact discs.

The nine-month record of arms investigators since the fall of Baghdad includes discoveries of other concealed arms research, most of it less advanced. Iraq's former government engaged in abundant deception about its ambitions and, in some cases, early steps to prepare for development or production. Interviews here -- among Iraqi weaponeers and investigators from the U.S. and British governments -- turned up unreported records, facilities or materials that could have been used in unlawful weapons.

But investigators have found no support for the two main fears expressed in London and Washington before the war: that Iraq had a hidden arsenal of old weapons and built advanced programs for new ones. In public statements and unauthorized interviews, investigators said they have discovered no work on former germ-warfare agents such as anthrax bacteria, and no work on a new designer pathogen -- combining pox virus and snake venom -- that led U.S. scientists on a highly classified hunt for several months. The investigators assess that Iraq did not, as charged in London and Washington, resume production of its most lethal nerve agent, VX, or learn to make it last longer in storage. And they have found the former nuclear weapons program, described as a "grave and gathering danger" by President Bush and a "mortal threat" by Vice President Cheney, in much the same shattered state left by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s.

A review of available evidence, including some not known to coalition investigators and some they have not made public, portrays a nonconventional arms establishment that was far less capable than U.S. analysts judged before the war. Leading figures in Iraqi science and industry, supported by observations on the ground, described factories and institutes that were thoroughly beaten down by 12 years of conflict, arms embargo and strangling economic sanctions. The remnants of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile infrastructures were riven by internal strife, bled by schemes for personal gain and handicapped by deceit up and down lines of command. The broad picture emerging from the investigation to date suggests that, whatever its desire, Iraq did not possess the wherewithal to build a forbidden armory on anything like the scale it had before the 1991 Persian Gulf War.



.................seems as if you have some well respected institutions that disagree, as well as people that were actually on the field in Iraq. Not only was the case that Iraq possesses the weapons false, but the extent to the danger of the weapons was also embellished. So yes, I disagree with yours, and Powell/Bush's insinuations. You seem to keep seeing what you want to see as well.

There is always doubt. We could sit back and just get whacked by a nuke though. There is NO doubt though that Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda have declared war against the West and the U.S. in particular. And 9/11 was clear evidence of their intent and capabilities. Of course they blew a 100ft hole in the World Trade Center in '93 but we barely did anything about that.

Exactly! There is NO doubt that Osama and Al Quaeda were responsible for the death of thousands of Amercians. They should have remained our primary focus, and it's downright disturbing that Iraq took their place, wouldn't you agree? And really, it seems now that the apparent of threat of being whacked by an Iraqi nuke was amazingly far fetched. What i don't understand, -and i don't see why you don't wonder this also, bitkahuna - is why countries such as N.Korea, Pakistan, India, and ISREAL for heavens sake, aren't under the same scrutiny as Iraq was. These countries have professed to having Nukes, WMD's and whatnot, and IRAQ somehow managed to be on our priority list. It's so blatant it's ridiculous. Iraq didn't have these weapons, didn't have the technology for these weapons, and apparently didn't have the intent to create them, YET WE INVADE! The countries i just mentioned possess the weapons, and we don't so much as shake our fist at them. WHY????

You're obviously seeing what you want to see. Powell and Bush at least have come out a few times and said the mobile chemical weapons trucks and thousands of gas masks all over the place are at least 'smoking guns'

you must not be seeing what you want to see,..... obviously didn't read the article I posted, since the administration is admitting the fraudulent reports to falsely justify going to war and how the truth was stretched, omitted, or fabricated ( oh, extrapolated ).

:rolleyes:

If we are going to talk about other justifications for the war, then we really need to bring up the fact that Powell just said two days ago in the NY Times that there never was, nor IS there HARD evidence of Al Qaeda having ties to Iraq. So, there evidently was no "smoking gun" there. But what the hell, no one on this board will give a flying flip that the administration lied, falsified, mislead, deceived, fabricated -whatever term you want to use, because everytime i use one, someone jumps on me and says i should have used another one)

Originally posted by BAWLEX94
If we are going to talk about other justifications for the war, then we really need to bring up the fact that Powell just said two days ago in the NY Times that there never was, nor IS there HARD evidence of Al Qaeda having ties to Iraq. So, there evidently was no "smoking gun" there. But what the hell, no one on this board will give a flying flip that the administration lied, falsified, mislead, deceived, fabricated -whatever term you want to use, because everytime i use one, someone jumps on me and says i should have used another one)

Actually some do care, and yes, the information was incorrect and was used, either knowingly or unknowingly (depending on who we are talking about) to provide justification for the war. This includes people from both parties, not just Bush and his administration. There is probably a mixture of what happened. Some lies, some feeling pressured, some bad information from other countries, and some bad information from the scientists and people that defected from Iraq, just to name a few. Yes Bush takes the brunt of this, but he is not 100% to blame.

The question is, we know that this is what has happened in the past. It's done and granted justifying that the war is a good thing doesn't change the deception that occurred related to this. But as a country we need to move forward and deal with the situation that is at hand. This doesn't mean forgiving him or forgetting about it. But continuing to berate Bush over this does no one any good in my opinion. We need to ensure this doesn't happen in the future and that more of the right people ask the right questions at the right time prior to justifying anything.

Just a note on the tax issue.

I went back and figured the tax on a family of 4 making $40,000 for 2002 and 2003. I used the standard deduction and the personal exemptions as the only changes for simplification under the married filed jointly status. Someone who itemizes will see a greater reduction and this does not also account for any child credits.

Gross Income $40,000

Std Deduction
2002 -- $7,850
2003 -- $9,500

Personal Exemptions
4 times $3,000 = $12,000

Taxable Income
2002 -- $20,150
2003 -- $18,500

Tax Liability
2002 -- $1,222.50
2003 -- $675

That equates to a reduction of 44% ($547) on a very simple example.

Remember also that the median income around the US varies from between $30,000 and $40,000 depending on your location. For Miami it is approx. $33K. This is a very middle class example and does not account for any of the prior 2 tax law changes. If I get a chance I will do the same comparison for 2001 vs. 2003.

In addition, there is some very good information on taxes, the changes, and other general information at The National Taxpayers Union website www.ntu.org

Also one final fact. The bottom 50% of taxpayers only pay 4% of the total US tax liability. Versus the top 5% paying 50% of the total US tax liability. That means the middle 45% pays 46% of the total tax liability. Is this really that unfair in the overall perspective of things?

Originally posted by BAWLEX94
You seem to keep seeing what you want to see as well. ...

Exactly! There is NO doubt that Osama and Al Quaeda were responsible for the death of thousands of Amercians. They should have remained our primary focus, and it's downright disturbing that Iraq took their place, wouldn't you agree? And really, it seems now that the apparent of threat of being whacked by an Iraqi nuke was amazingly far fetched. What i don't understand, -and i don't see why you don't wonder this also, bitkahuna - is why countries such as N.Korea, Pakistan, India, and ISREAL for heavens sake, aren't under the same scrutiny as Iraq was. These countries have professed to having Nukes, WMD's and whatnot, and IRAQ somehow managed to be on our priority list. It's so blatant it's ridiculous. Iraq didn't have these weapons, didn't have the technology for these weapons, and apparently didn't have the intent to create them, YET WE INVADE! The countries i just mentioned possess the weapons, and we don't so much as shake our fist at them. WHY????

OK, several points there. First on seeing what we want to see. The whole task of gathering 'intelligence' is murky gray at best. You rarely get clear crisp evidence. You see shadows, hints, of things. So many can interpret things differently. It seems Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz among others believed Saddam was a continuing threat to the stability of that whole region and the world's oil supply even before 9/11, and there was probably 'intelligence' that terrorist operatives were in Iraq, as well as Iran, etc., whether or not they were directly assisted by Saddam. 9/11 gave Bush and crew the 'excuse' (sure I'll say it) to take out Saddam by aggressively promoting any hint that Saddam is a threat to the world and provided a haven for terrorists to operate. I don't doubt there was also a sense (conscious or otherwise) of GW Bush wanting to finish off what 'Daddy' did in '91 either. They saw what they wanted to see: Saddam as a threat to the region, that he had already used chemical weapons, that there was intelligence that said he still sought parts and was intent on building more weapons (even though it now seems like Saddam's own people were lying to him and had built a facade), that he probably didn't mind terrorists operating in his nation, and that it was possible that those terrorists might get hold of Saddam's weapons (even if he didn't want them to). Now the same 'info' can be interpreted another way, that Saddam was not really a threat to the region, that he no longer had chemical weapons, that his efforts to build new weapons were failing, and that while terrorists might come in and out of Iraq, that didn't make it worth toppling his regime. So there's plenty of gray here. I'm seeing the gray nearer white, and you're seeing it nearer black. :)

But frankly, I don't give a rats ass about Bush's 'propoganda' / sales job to justify the war in Iraq. I *do* believe Saddam was a threat to the whole region that we had contained for a dozen years but that it couldn't go on indefinitely, and moreover, that it was important that we take out this vicious dictator to WARN other nations that they had better not try threatening the world or even not cooperating. That's why I supported the war. So was there a direct link from Al Quaeda / Bin Laden to Iraq? Not that I can see directly, but I don't care.

To answer your question about why Iraq while others are as bad or worse, I'd say primarily it was easier, and might make those other nations rethink their plans.