SEALS Respond to Obama Campaign

Originally Posted by BigLouie

Well yes the mission was accomplished. The mission was to remove Saddam Hussein from power. That's what the banner was referencing. Liberals tried to pretend that Bush was claiming that the war was over. He never said that. Also Bush's representatives said that the mission accomplished banner was posted by the military and not at Bush's request.

Well yes the mission was accomplished. The mission was to remove Saddam Hussein from power. That's what the banner was referencing. Liberals tried to pretend that Bush was claiming that the war was over. He never said that. Also Bush's representatives said that the mission accomplished banner was posted by the military and not at Bush's request. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Thank you for the interpretive dance.

I think the rest of the flight probably went something like this. Originally Posted by Doove

That movie still kills me. Right up there with History of the World Part 1.

That movie still kills me. Right up there with History of the World Part 1. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Munchie, I knew you weren't all bad!

Well yes the mission was accomplished. The mission was to remove Saddam Hussein from power. That's what the banner was referencing. Liberals tried to pretend that Bush was claiming that the war was over. He never said that. Also Bush's representatives said that the mission accomplished banner was posted by the military and not at Bush's request. Originally Posted by joe bloe

No, Joe! You're wrong. Bush actually said while standing on the deck of the carrier (QUITE ERRONEOUSLY) that they had reached the "end of major combat operations in Iraq!"

That was wrong. It was barely the beginning as both our money and our brave forces saw far more MAJOR COMBAT OPERATIONS and even an increase in troop strength and casualties.

You Teapublicans try to practice revisionist history to place the blame elsewhere and you're not even good at practicing that!

I think Stevie is right on that one. I'm not sure the public realized at the time that there was still a lot of money to be made and thought the war was essentially over. Bush knew there was, and lied. I guess he hoped no one would notice that we were going to keep fighting until Halliburton and friends made enough money, or the Iraqis kicked us out. They kicked us out.

That's why we need a new war, pronto! Somewhere like Syria or Iran will do.

It looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue

I think Stevie is right on that one. I'm not sure the public realized at the time that there was still a lot of money to be made and thought the war was essentially over. Bush knew there was, and lied. I guess he hoped no one would notice that we were going to keep fighting until Halliburton and friends made enough money, or the Iraqis kicked us out. They kicked us out.

That's why we need a new war, pronto! Somewhere like Syria or Iran will do. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yep, that is how it works. It is a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the Defense Industry. The Tea Cats are not really on to how to follow the money. We have spent their SS and Medicare surplus paying for these wars while giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy. In fact we should have not enacted the Bush tax cuts at all. Why do ya'll think Bush basically fired Paul O'Neal, his Treasury Sec? Below is the link




If anyone would listen to him, Paul O'Neill thought, Dick Cheney would. The two had served together during the Ford Administration, and now as the Treasury Secretary fought a losing battle against another round of tax cuts, he figured that his longtime colleague would give him a hearing.
O'Neill had been preaching that a fiscal crisis was looming and more tax cuts would exacerbate it. But others in the White House saw a chance to capitalize on the historic Republican congressional gains in the 2002 elections. Surely, Cheney would not be so smug. He would hear O'Neill out. In an economic meeting in the Vice President's office, O'Neill started pitching, describing how the numbers showed that growing budget deficits threatened the economy. Cheney cut him off. "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said. O'Neill was too dumbfounded to respond. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms. This is our due." A month later, Paul O'Neill was fired, ending the rocky two-year tenure of Bush's first Treasury Secretary,


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...#ixzz1u07J8Bhz

I don't think the tax cuts had a major effect on the deficit. Congress spent considerably more than was lost in the tax cuts. Spending is the problem, not taxes.

And we will never fix our current situation if we rely on the income tax. There isn't enough income to tax to get us out of the trouble we're in.

I don't think the tax cuts had a major effect on the deficit. Congress spent considerably more than was lost in the tax cuts. Spending is the problem, not taxes.

And we will never fix our current situation if we rely on the income tax. There isn't enough income to tax to get us out of the trouble we're in. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Bush started two wars, gave a huge tax cut and did nothing while the housing bubble exploded. He used the housing bubble to cover for the shitty economic growth.

So while spending is a huge problem, tax cuts are too. Half the stimulis was tax cuts!

If you do not tax your citizens for what they want, then of course they will spend like crazy. Bush should have taxed us for these wars and then our citizens would have taken a longer look at just what we were willing to spend money on. It is really a very simple concept...

Paul O'Neal had is right and history bore it out.

Do the math.

Do the math. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Do you understand that had we not fought two wars and had a huge tax cut we would not be in the deficit problem we are.

There would have been no need for a stimulis. Hell maybe instead of Obama , McCain would have been elected.

Bush's tax cuts created the Obama factor. Now the GOP counters with Obama Lite ( Mitt )

Not a whole bunch of difference. None will change the tax code, nor fix to big to fail. The Fed runs the country.

No, Joe! You're wrong. Bush actually said while standing on the deck of the carrier (QUITE ERRONEOUSLY) that they had reached the "end of major combat operations in Iraq!"

That was wrong. It was barely the beginning as both our money and our brave forces saw far more MAJOR COMBAT OPERATIONS and even an increase in troop strength and casualties.

You Teapublicans try to practice revisionist history to place the blame elsewhere and you're not even good at practicing that! Originally Posted by Little Stevie

I believe that Bush spoke in good faith when he said that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended". He also said in the same speech that "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous."

Bush's military advisors did not foresee the level of insurgency that would have to be dealt with. Blaming Bush for not having a crystal ball is typical low class behavior for the left.

It's the nature of war that many expectations are proven wrong once the battle begins. New battle plans have to be formulated as the situation changes. The war in Iraq has been no different in presenting unforeseen challenges.

Bush's military advisors did not foresee the level of insurgency that would have to be dealt with. Blaming Bush for not having a crystal ball is typical low class behavior for the left.

. Originally Posted by joe bloe

That was the job of the intelligence community I do believe. Bush ignored any intelligence that did not mesh with what he wanted. He wanted to take out Saddam. He thought everything else would fall in place. He was wrong.

He is responsible for being wrong as much as Obama is for missing the unemployment numbers that he forecast. You do still hold Obama responsible for that failed prediction? Yet you make excuses for Bush? It remains to be seen if Obama can get re-elected like Bush.

Do you understand that had we not fought two wars and had a huge tax cut we would not be in the deficit problem we are.

There would have been no need for a stimulis. Hell maybe instead of Obama , McCain would have been elected.

Bush's tax cuts created the Obama factor. Now the GOP counters with Obama Lite ( Mitt )

Not a whole bunch of difference. None will change the tax code, nor fix to big to fail. The Fed runs the country. Originally Posted by WTF

You are right about the wars and the Fed. However, the tax cuts are miniscule compared to what was spent. However, you are right that we should never have been involved in the wars.