Something to think about next time a President pursues a war so ferverously. The sad part is that I've been questioning Bush's intelligence for almost a year now and at the time, no one here believed me despite my meticulously outlined explanations. Some doubt me even now, and some will continue to deny the facts after reading the article. Some people even called me a communist, unpatriotic, saddam-lover, and various other garbage names just for stating the truth of the matter. Well here it is now from a Republican-controlled wing of Congress specialized in these matters. I'd like to see you call them the same names ;)....

And before you right-wing fanatics pull the ever so popular "media bias" card, look at the source: Washington Post (as in moderate-to-right wing bias!) referenced on MSNBC (as in moderate-to-right wing bias also!). And then take note of the letter's author: House Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Porter J. Goss (Republican from Florida.), "a former CIA agent and a longtime supporter of Tenet and the intelligence agencies"...

Enjoy :): http://www.msnbc.com/news/972886.asp?vts=092820030119

The only 'data' I need to know is that Hussein was basically a 'Hitler-like' individual in the Middle East, controlling some of and a threat to a significant portion of the world's oil supply on which the global economy depends.

I think Bush would have better off just saying the above rather than trying to link Hussein to Al Queda, etc. Because by that logic we should have invaded Saudi Arabia first.

Originally posted by bitkahuna
The only 'data' I need to know is that Hussein was basically a 'Hitler-like' individual in the Middle East, controlling some of and a threat to a significant portion of the world's oil supply on which the global economy depends.

I think Bush would have better off just saying the above rather than trying to link Hussein to Al Queda, etc. Because by that logic we should have invaded Saudi Arabia first.

You know Bit, if Bush just based his war on that principle alone, stated it openly and upfront, and if the majority of America and the world approved of such a war, I wouldn't have much to say :). If our economy wasn't simultaneously in the toilet, I wouldn't even object to the war at all. What frustrates me is that (1) most people still think it's a matter of terrorism, WMD, and homeland security, (2) our domestic issues are going neglected as our funds are being channelled overseas, (3) we've lost international support and influence and gained a growing amount of resentment.

I'm simply amazed by the support that Pres. Bush still has.

.............And I thought people were 'sheep' in the 'Car scene' :egads:

thats something that has baffled me over the last year as well. It's really sad to see how many people are still misinformed. There was a statistic that i heard on MSNBC that said something like 60% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.... its amazing that the president can paint someone else as the man responsible, and most of America will fall for it

Originally posted by BAWLEX94
There was a statistic that i heard on MSNBC that said something like 60% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.... its amazing that the president can paint someone else as the man responsible, and most of America will fall for it

I think the poll said 70% of Americans believe Saddam was directly involved in 9/11. The sad part is that there is no proven ties between Saddam and al Qaeda, there's never been mention of any evidence or paper trail that would even remotely indicate such a relationship, and George Bush himself publically stated "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11".


When Donald Rumsfeld was asked about the poll results, he said: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."

When Cheney was asked about the poll, he replied: "No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection,"

When Condoleezza Rice was asked about the same poll numbers, she said: "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11."

Then Condoleezza Rice said that one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged."

Slimy politicians.... :rolleyes:

Maybe he just wanted to finish what his Dad didn't do. :rolleyes:
LA Times (today's issue) says that Bush is seking another Senate approval for $87 billion for the ongoing war in Iraq, $100 million witness protection program in Iraq and $9 million to upgrade the postal service.
Yeah right !!!! The nation budget spending is already deficit. How does he think the money would come from? :egads:

Bush would rather spend $87 billion revitializing another country than our own. Today in a press briefing with the interim leader of Iraq, Bush announced that he would not be seeking loans to be repaid by Iraq for the $87 billion we are dumping into their country. He wants the $87 billion to be a grant----as in free money at our expense! :mad:

Originally posted by LS400Dom
Maybe he just wanted to finish what his Dad didn't do. :rolleyes:

Good.

Originally posted by lex400sc
Bush would rather spend $87 billion revitializing another country than our own. Today in a press briefing with the interim leader of Iraq, Bush announced that he would not be seeking loans to be repaid by Iraq for the $87 billion we are dumping into their country. He wants the $87 billion to be a grant----as in free money at our expense! :mad:

Tell me how much a year we already spend helping other countries??? What's a little more, I mean do your hearts not bleed when someone else is spending the money?

Originally posted by SDuquette
Tell me how much a year we already spend helping other countries??? What's a little more, I mean do your hearts not bleed when someone else is spending the money?

Let me give you a quick-over education on the purpose of foreign aid:

The US government doesn't parse out discretionary budget for foreign aid because we want to be noble and righteous spreaders of good. When we give a country, such as Brazil, foreign aid, we are making them dependent on us in a number of aspects. The Brazilian people rely on us to feed them and fund them, and we do this through a central bank called the World Banc and an institution called the International Monetary Fund. Along with our billion dollar loans these little things called "conditions on aid" and "mandates" are applied to the Brazilian government, which allows our American foot into the door of their economy. Did you know that the United States has more control over some national economies than the own nation's government does?

If we really wanted to "help" these other countries, we wouldn't just drop them 200 tonnes of food and medical supplies every month. We would teach them modernized farming techniques, water sanitation, central planning, revitalize their schools to build a base of skilled workers, etc. Why don't we do that? Because once a nation like Brazil becomes successful, prosperous, and self-sufficient, they become competitors to our markets and our economy. Our goal is to pool all the wealth of the world into our banks and our industries because that gives us power. And thus we create a relationship of dependance on other developing nations so that we can strip them of all their resources, in the process denying them the tools for substantial internal progress, and ultimately we remain Top Dog of the world.

Originally posted by lex400sc
Let me educate you on the purpose of foreign aid: it is not because we want to be noble and righteous spreaders of good. When we give a country, such as Brazil, foreign aid, we are making them dependent on us. The Brazilian people rely on us to feed them, and thus these little things called "conditions on aid" and "mandates" are applied to the Brazilian government, which allows our American foot into the door of their economy. Did you know that the United States has more control over some nation economies than the own nation's government does? If we really wanted to "help" these other countries, we wouldn't just drop them 200 tonnes of food and medical supplies every month. We would teach them modernized farming techniques, water sanitation, central planning, revitalize their schools to build a base of skilled workers, etc. Why don't we do that? Because once a nation like Brazil becomes successful, prosperous, and self-sufficient, they become competitors to our markets and our economy. We want to pool all the wealth of the world into our banks and our industries, and thus we create a relationship of dependance on other developing nations so that we can strip them of all their resources, in the process denying them the tools for substantial progress, and ultimately remaining Top Dog of the world.

Understandable when the US has been primarily run by democrats, I mean, isn't that what social services is, accruing dependency and the power that comes with it?? Let me ask a question again, why is the $87 billion any different?

Originally posted by SDuquette
Understandable when the US has been primarily run by democrats, I mean, isn't that what social services is, accruing dependency and the power that comes with it?? Let me ask a question again, why is the $87 billion any different?

$87 billion is different because $89 billion is the collective deficit of all the United States. If we could redirect that money to relieving the state deficits by all but $2 billion, that is a much more managable debt spread across 49 states. But because the states aren't being helped by the federal government under Bush, $89 billion worth of services such as health care, county funding, education funding, social security, government pensions, is being drained from the system and additional taxes as ridiculous as a coffee tax are being enforced to compensate.

Ask yourself what happens when $89 billion worth of social services are cut? $89 billion of American consumer dollars are inserted to fill the gap. That is $89 billion less spending money to cycle back into the economy. Why shouldn't that money go to Iraq and instead to America? Because that $87 billion is American dollars paid for by American taxpayers who are now Americans in need!

An additional $87 billion in foreign aid is one thing when the national economy is prosperous, the markets are growing steadily, unemployment is at an all time low, and the federal budget is in surplus--but none of those conditions currently exist!!!

Explain to me how this country has been run by Democrats..... since 1932

Roosevelt - 13 or so years (unsure as to the exact amount) Democrat
Truman- 7 years i believe from 45-52 Democrat
Eisenhower- 8 years Republican
Kennedy - 2 years Democrat
Johnson - 5 Years Democrat
Nixon - 5 Years Republican
Ford - 2 years Republican
Carter - 4 Years Democrat
Reagan 8 Years Republican
Bush 4 years Republican
Clinton 8 Years Democrat
Bush 4 years (only hopefully) Republican


lets tally it up.........39 years of a Democratic leader in the White House since the 1930's
- 31 years (and possibly 35) of Republican rule since the 1930's

sounds fairly even to me

Keep in mind Roosevelt single handedly carries the Democrats in the number of years they've been in power.....that was just one man


im not exactly sure what it is that your blaming on them, but i'd say from the info above that your argument that they have run the country over the last several years is pretty weak

Wow, sounds like $87 billion for Iraq is a lot of money to give the Iraqis. But, $66 billion is going to pay the DOD for the costs of the war and the occupation. $20 billion is for the reconstruction of Iraq, which Congress is debating about and may block.

Originally posted by BAWLEX94
Explain to me how this country has been run by Democrats..... since 1932

lets tally it up.........39 years of a Democratic leader in the White House since the 1930's
- 31 years (and possibly 35) of Republican rule since the 1930's

sounds fairly even to me

Keep in mind Roosevelt single handedly carries the Democrats in the number of years they've been in power.....that was just one man


im not exactly sure what it is that your blaming on them, but i'd say from the info above that your argument that they have run the country over the last several years is pretty weak

That's not an entirely fair assessment Baw... The US Congress is the legislative body, the body of politicians that makes the laws, decides how much money to tax us, and where the money goes. And since 1995, both houses of Congress have been controlled exclusively by the Republicans!

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
Wow, sounds like $87 billion for Iraq is a lot of money to give the Iraqis. But, $66 billion is going to pay the DOD for the costs of the war and the occupation. $20 billion is for the reconstruction of Iraq, which Congress is debating about and may block.

Does it matter how the money is divied up? $87 billion is being funnelled into the frivilous Iraq effort. Without the Iraq War, there wouldn't even be the issue of handing away such money, it'd automatically be cycled into the American government, American economy, or back to the American taxpayers--any of the three which could desperately use the money. But instead it is going over to Iraq to manage the gigantic mess we created over there. And let's not forget that Bush has already exhausted $80 billion of taxpayer money in the War Spending Bill that isn't even six months old!

Originally posted by lex400sc
And since 1995, both houses of Congress have been controlled exclusively by the Republicans!

I think that's wrong. Wasn't Daschle Senate Majority leader until Fall '02?

I think that's wrong. Wasn't Daschle Senate Majority leader until Fall '02?

actually, it went back and forth for a while......Republicans have led the House since 95, and Republicans have in the Senate too for the most part, with a few interruptions.

For the first 17 days of the 107th congress in Jan 2001, Daschule was Majority leader, cause Al gore still presided as VP over the Senate in tie breaking votes. When Cheney took office on Jan 20, Trent Lott (R) became majority leader, even though it was a 50/50 split, cheney Presided over the Senate. Then later that year, Jeffords (unhappy with GOP policy) from Vermont switched political parties from Republican to independent, and ended up caucusing with the Democrats, which made Daschule the majority leader again. Then in Nov 2002, Republicans won more seats, which made 49 dems and 49 Repubs, with 1 independent. Lott then again became majority leader. Then everyone one remembers Lott's asinine, racist comments (commending Thurmands run for president in 1948 on the segregationist platform), and then he stepped down, and Frist took over.....point being, its been close in the senate over the last several years, with Republicans holding the majority for the most part

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/02/politics/02WEAP.html?th

The Administration has already spend $300,000,000 taxpayer dollars fruitlessly searching for WMD in Iraq. Now the Administration has run out of money and is asking for double that amount. Bush is asking for an additional $600,000,000 to continue the search for WMD. I don't understand how the search at this point can cost twice as much as it did in the first six months of searching. Shouldn't they have covered most of the most probable sites by now, or are they going to start turning over every rock and stone? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by lex400sc
Does it matter how the money is divied up? $87 billion is being funnelled into the frivilous Iraq effort. Without the Iraq War, there wouldn't even be the issue of handing away such money, it'd automatically be cycled into the American government, American economy, or back to the American taxpayers--any of the three which could desperately use the money. But instead it is going over to Iraq to manage the gigantic mess we created over there. And let's not forget that Bush has already exhausted $80 billion of taxpayer money in the War Spending Bill that isn't even six months old!

How much of that money will go back into our economy as income for builders, manufacturers, Suppliers, companies, and corporations in OUR country? You make it sound as if we are Giving ALL that money to the Iraqi people and none of the rebuilding materials and jobs will come from this country.

Most of that money will go to Troops who live in the US and will spend the money when they get back.

Hey Lex400sc

Tell me if you can figure out what the following figures represent

1. $36,000,000,000,000.00
2. $275,000,000,000.00
3. $87,000,000,000.00
4. $170,000,000,000.00

Now, when you figure out what those figures represent, tell me why this effects us so much.

He won't get it with his liberal math, all the decimals are in the wrong places according to him.

Originally posted by SDuquette
He won't get it with his liberal math, all the decimals are in the wrong places according to him.


You're developing a bad habit of speaking for me. You should work on speaking for yourself, since you already have enough trouble doing that much.

Originally posted by BAWLEX94
thats something that has baffled me over the last year as well. It's really sad to see how many people are still misinformed. There was a statistic that i heard on MSNBC that said something like 60% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.... its amazing that the president can paint someone else as the man responsible, and most of America will fall for it

My $.02 is that peple believe because the media in the US is very biased both ways, and the american public (the majority) Don't read or pay attention to what different sources from different countries say. You can't base an opinion on what the NY times or the LA times say about a subject and then believe it. That is why alot of people in the US as well as in Canada are misinformed. I personally read newspapers from europe listen to foreign news (they are also biased one way or another) and I take bits and peices and form an opinion rather than believe what the Paris morning paper says. I'm simply saying don't beleive everything you hear or read. I'm pretty sure for example that these been more casualties and injuries than what they are reporting (2-3 attacks a day which ir most likely about 5-8) but not as many as what some european newspapers are reporting (15 :rolleyes: ). Just have an open mind. And don't ever believe either Bush or Clinton they will say whatever helps their screwed up thinking.
I didn't mean anything bad with this. I know i'm a newer member so my opinion is probably useless but i'd just thought i'd say it anyways.

Bias in the media is one thing, but the statement that you quoted from Bawlex is just flat out American ignorance. Political ignorance is a FACT in America. Sociologic studies have been proving this steady decline for the last 60 years. The problem is the system, a bipartisan controlled government of representative democracy, instead of an open multipartisan direct democracy. Americans have lost faith that they can effect change, so they stop paying attention period.

Hmm, Idea.... You know how our bombs and munitions cost so much? We should fly over and drop old cars countries we are at war with. Whats scarier than seeing a 88 Pontiac Grand Am Falling towards you at 300+ mph? If that doesn't scare them, we can (to save money) drop Fire Ants from 30,000 ft. Then again you can always drop Legos. Imagine a Lego Hitting you at 300 mph!!!!! OUCH!!!!!

LOL I guess the only good thing that can come from that besides cleaning up the streets is that poeple in those countries don't have to deal with unexploded shells and bombs on the ground.....

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Hmm, Idea.... You know how our bombs and munitions cost so much? We should fly over and drop old cars countries we are at war with. Whats scarier than seeing a 88 Pontiac Grand Am Falling towards you at 300+ mph? If that doesn't scare them, we can (to save money) drop Fire Ants from 30,000 ft. Then again you can always drop Legos. Imagine a Lego Hitting you at 300 mph!!!!! OUCH!!!!!

You know what we have an excess of? Violent felons. We should just drop all of them off in Iraq and have them fight it out with the dirty Saddam regime. And if they refuse to fight, they will integrate into the wretched totalitarian society and spread the word of free-market capitalism and democracy. Kill two birds with one stone. A cheap stone at that!...

Originally posted by lex400sc
You know what we have an excess of? Violent felons. We should just drop all of them off in Iraq and have them fight it out with the dirty Saddam regime. And if they refuse to fight, they will integrate into the wretched totalitarian society and spread the word of free-market capitalism and democracy. Kill two birds with one stone. A cheap stone at that!...

I'm surprised that you’re not saying "I'm sure some of them were wrongly convicted, so we should never expose them to this treatment. Wait, we can't be sure which ones were wrongly convicted, so therefore we shouldn't send any of them."

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
I'm surprised that you’re not saying "I'm sure some of them were wrongly convicted, so we should never expose them to this treatment. Wait, we can't be sure which ones were wrongly convicted, so therefore we shouldn't send any of them."

What was the point of this childish, condescending post of yours? Is there any point to it? Please answer these questions.

Originally posted by lex400sc
You know what we have an excess of? Violent felons. We should just drop all of them off in Iraq

Worked for Australia. But then a bunch of whiney libs would complain that it is inhumane, and find a way to use it to discredit bush.

Originally posted by SDuquette
But then a bunch of whiney libs would complain that it is inhumane, and find a way to use it to discredit bush.

I think you and SCLex love the 'idea' of hating liberals more than you actually hate them. But then again, why hate diversity? :confused:

"Worked for Australia. But then a bunch of whiney libs would complain that it is inhumane, and find a way to use it to discredit bush. "

Face the fact. Bush is not that smart to manage this Nation. OK, fine he went after Osama. Good job !!
How about Saddam? Hmm let me think? Should I give him a credit ?