• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

McCain = Four more years of George W. Bush

fff

Well-known member
Try as he might, McCain can't deny his policies are a continuation of George W. Bush's failed policies. And look where they've got us.

His health care plan is basically the one Bush came up with a few years ago. He's tweeked it a bit, but it's the same one. Except he's added that he'll make big cuts in Medicare and Medicade to pay for it. Those Republicans love to go after the weak members of our society.

He will continue Bush's tax cuts that mainly benefit the rich.

He'll continue Bush's failed policies in Iraq. According to McCain, we just need a few more years of patience and everthing there will be fine. I say in another year, two more years, three, four, five, Iranians won't be any more willing to take care of themselves than they are today. Get our toops out as soon as possible; stop throwing $10billion a month down a black hole.

He'd put Social Security money in the stock market. Hey, maybe that would be enough to rescue the financial gurus that have driven our financial markets in the ground. Probably not. They'd just go on a $million spending spree and ask for more.

McCain has supported Bush on GitMo. Now the courts have ruled that the Administrtion has to release some prisoners INTO THE US because of the way they've been treated!

If you think the last eight years have been good and want four more just like them, go ahead and vote for McCain.
 

Vision

Well-known member
Liar.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_social_security_spin.html

More Social Security Spin
October 2, 2008
Obama-Biden ad misrepresents the Social Security plan McCain supported. Again.
Summary
An Obama-Biden TV ad once again twists McCain's position on Social Security.

It claims he backed a "plan to risk your Social Security in the stock market." In fact, the plan McCain endorsed in 2005 would have been voluntary, and workers could have put only one-third of their Social Security pension fund taxes into private accounts.

The new ad also asks viewers to imagine "your future retirement benefits" invested in Lehman Brothers, AIG or Merrill Lynch, three firms that collapsed recently. In fact, the accounts in the plan McCain backed could not have invested in any of those stocks directly. They would have been allowed to invest only in a few government-run stock or bond funds with risks spread over many companies and industries..
Analysis

This is becoming a pattern. In a Sept. 19 article we criticized an Obama-Biden ad for its false insinuation that Sen. John McCain favored massive cuts in current Social Security benefits. And in a Sept. 20 article we criticized Obama for claiming in a stump speech that Social Security recipients would have had their money tied up in the stock market if the plan McCain once endorsed had been enacted. That was also false. Nobody who is now older than 58 would have been allowed to invest in Bush’s proposed private accounts.

Doubly Deceptive


Now the Obama-Biden campaign is out with a new ad, which first aired Oct. 1 on a station in Miami, Fla. It is worded a bit more carefully to avoid claiming that any current retiree would have been affected. It refers to "future retirement benefits," which is an improvement over previous attempts to frighten retirees.

But the new ad is still deceptive, and doubly so.

A plan to risk your benefits? This ad says McCain “campaigned for Bush’s plan to risk your Social Security in the stock market.” That is deceptive. Bush’s plan would have allowed younger workers, born in 1950 or afterward, to divert some of their Social Security taxes into private accounts managed by the government. Those accounts would indeed have been exposed to the risk (and the potential rewards) of the stock market. But nobody would have been required to put money into private accounts, which would have been voluntary. And by no means would all of “your Social Security” have been put at risk, since less than one-third of Social Security taxes could have been invested.

Investing at Lehman? Even more deceptive is this bit: “Imagine if McCain and Bush had gotten their way, and invested your future retirement benefits at Lehman Brothers. Bankrupt. AIG, bailed out. Merrill Lynch, Sold.”

No such thing could have happened under the Bush plan. No account holder would have been allowed to directly buy stocks of Lehman, AIG, Merrill Lynch or any other company. The only choices would have been a few, broadly diversified stock funds and made up of investments in a large number of companies, with risks spread widely over different firms and industries. And at least one of the choices would have been to avoid stocks entirely, and invest only in interest-bearing government bonds.


One more thing


We should also point out that the term "privatize" is one Democrats use, but which Bush himself came to discourage. It could easily give listeners the wrong impression. What Bush proposed in 2005 would have left the private accounts under government management.
 

Vision

Well-known member
More Lies from FFF debunked....


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_social_security_whopper.html


Obama's Social Security Whopper
September 20, 2008
Updated: September 22, 2008
He tells Social Security recipients their money would now be in the stock market under McCain's plan. False.
Summary
In Daytona Beach, Obama said that "if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week." He referred to "elderly women" at risk of poverty, and said families would be scrambling to support "grandmothers and grandfathers."

That's not true. The plan proposed by President Bush and supported by McCain in 2005 would not have allowed anyone born before 1950 to invest any part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. All current retirees would be covered by the same benefits they are now.

Obama would have been correct to say that many workers under age 58 would have had some portion of their Social Security benefits affected by the current market turmoil – if they had chosen to participate. And market drops would be a worry for those who retire in future decades. But current retirees would not have been affected.

Analysis
In our "Scaring Seniors" article posted Sept. 19 we took apart a claim in an Obama-Biden ad that McCain somehow supported a 50 percent cut in Social Security benefits, which is simply false. Then, on Saturday Sept. 20, Sen. Barack Obama personally fed senior citizens another whopper, this one a highly distorted claim about the private Social Security accounts that McCain supports.


What Obama Said


In Daytona Beach, Florida, Obama said in prepared remarks released by the campaign:

Obama, Sept. 20: And I'll protect Social Security, while John McCain wants to privatize it. Without Social Security half of elderly women would be living in poverty - half. But if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week. Millions would've watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes. Millions of families would've been scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers, the secure retirement that every American deserves. So I know Senator McCain is talking about a "casino culture" on Wall Street - but the fact is, he's the one who wants to gamble with your life savings.

That's untrue. All current retirees would be covered by exactly the same Social Security benefits they are now under what the Obama campaign likes to call the "Bush-McCain privatization plan," which Bush pushed for unsuccessfully in 2005.
 

Vision

Well-known member
But wait - Tax cuts that benefit the rich he says... the Rich payed more in real dollars after the tax cuts... evidence flood INCOMING.....

Reducing the capital gains tax rate from 20% to 15% increased capital gains tax receipts by 79% from 2000 to 2004. Cutting the dividend tax rate by more than half–from 39.6% to 15%–increased dividend tax receipts by 35% from 2002 to 2004. And corporate tax receipts have nearly tripled since 2003, reaching $250 billion for the past nine months, 26% higher than the same period last year. (WSJ July 25, 2006)


WASHINGTON — The federal deficit in the budget year that just ended fell to a four-year low of $247.7 billion _ a figure President Bush touted Wednesday as “proof that pro-growth policies work.” The deficit for the budget year that ended Sept. 30 was 22.3 percent lower than the $318.7 billion imbalance for 2005, handing Bush a welcome economic talking point as Republicans battle to hold onto control of Congress in the midterm elections. (AP Oct. 11, 2006)



One place it has come from are corporations, whose tax collections have climbed by 76% over the past two years thanks to greater profitability. Personal income tax payments are up by 30.3% since 2004 too, despite the fact that the highest tax rate is down to 35% from 39.6%. The IRS tax-return data just released last month indicates that a near-record 37% of those income tax payments are received from the top 1% of earners — “the rich,” who are derided regularly in Washington for not paying their “fair share.” (WSJ Oct. 6 2006) - The rich are paying more in real dollars since the tax cuts.



US Treasury Sets New 1-Day Tax Receipt Record Of $85.8 Billion
Tuesday September 19th, 2006 / 0h04

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. government recorded record-high overall and corporate tax receipts on Sept. 15, which was a quarterly deadline for tax payments, the Treasury said Monday.

Total tax receipts were $85.8 billion on Friday, compared with the previous one-day record of $71 billion on Sept. 15 of last year, the Treasury said.
Within the overall figure, corporate tax receipts Friday were $71.8 billion, up from $63 billion in September of last year.

Treasury Undersecretary for Domestic Finance Randal Quarles said Friday’s numbers provided a “continuing demonstration of the strength of the U.S. economy.”

“In fact, Friday’s gross receipts were the largest in a single day in the nation’s history - 20% higher than receipts on the same quarterly tax payment date last year,” Quarles said in a statement.


October 27, 2006 at 10:30 pm e
Laffer's Victory - July 10, 2006 - The New York Sun
July 10, 2006 Edition
Laffer’s Victory
New York Sun Staff Editorial
July 10, 2006

It’s official — Arthur Laffer wins. New data show federal revenues surged in the first three quarters of the current fiscal year. Corporate tax receipts are up more than 26% over the same period last year, ringing in at $250 billion. Individual income tax collections, at $791 billion, are up 14% over the first nine months of fiscal 2005. The Congressional Budget Office projects corporate tax receipts will total $330 billion by the end of the fiscal year. As a result, the deficit for the year is expected to be about $300 billion, down from $318 billion last year and $412 billion the year before.

What, you ask, has led to this miraculous event? A tax cut, it turns out. Or rather, an array of tax cuts, on corporate income, personal income, and capital gains. These tax cuts, passed in 2001 and 2003, appear to be having the desired effect of spurring economic growth by creating addition incentives for work and entrepreneurship. The latest numbers, moreover, offer some hard data to challenge some of the charges leveled against President Bush and congressional Republicans in respect of tax cuts. These tax cuts haven’t exactly benefited “the rich.” A third of those higher income-tax revenues came from the highest-earning 1% of households, according to the New York Times.





Budget Deficit Drops $296B Under Estimate
Jul 11, 11:01 AM (ET)
By ANDREW TAYLOR
My Way
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush touted new deficit figures Tuesday showing considerable improvement upon earlier administration predictions, saying it shows the wisdom of his tax cuts.

Bush himself announced the figures - a task that for the most part has been left to lower-ranking administration officials in the past. The new figures show the deficit for the budget year ending Sept. 30 will be $296 billion - much better than the $423 billion that Bush predicted in February and a slight improvement over 2005.



October 27, 2006 at 10:33 pm e
Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit
Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit - New York Times
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 9, 2006

WASHINGTON, July 8 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.

Graphic: Mixed Signals On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year’s levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.

Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.


A flood of income tax payments pushed up government receipts to the second-highest level in history in April, giving the country a sizable surplus for the month. In its monthly accounting of the government’s books, the Treasury Department said Wednesday that revenue for the month totaled $315.1 billion as Americans filed their tax returns by the April deadline. The gusher of tax revenue pushed total receipts up by 13.4 percent from April 2005. (AP May 10, 2006)


WASHINGTON, July 8 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief. (NYT July 9, 2006)
 

Vision

Well-known member
Here is a Video of JFK talking about how tax cuts increase revenue.

YouTube - Income Tax Cut. JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/08/13 (1962)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU


FFF if you are going to lie to us, try to make them lies that we cant debunk in 15 seconds ok?
 

fff

Well-known member
You haven't debunked anything.

From the Center on Budget and Policy Issues:

The new Congressional Budget Office budget projections released today show that the nation faces a fourth consecutive year of substantial budget deficits. Some seek to portray “runaway domestic spending” or growth in the costs of entitlement programs as the primary cause of the shift in recent years from sizeable surpluses to large deficits. Such a characterization is incorrect. In 2005, the cost of tax cuts enacted over the past four years will be over three times the cost of all domestic program increases enacted over this period.

The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for nearly half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs.[1] Increases in program spending make up the other 52 percent and have been primarily concentrated in defense, homeland security, and international affairs.

Link:
http://www.cbpp.org/1-25-05bud.htm

All that tax money that came in 2006? We just gave it to back to Wall streeet. :roll:

And bragging about a budget deficity of $296B less than your own administration projected is hardly something a sensible person would do. Especially when Bush came into office with a SURPLUS. :D

Got anything else? :D
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
fff said:
You haven't debunked anything.

From the Center on Budget and Policy Issues:

The new Congressional Budget Office budget projections released today show that the nation faces a fourth consecutive year of substantial budget deficits. Some seek to portray “runaway domestic spending” or growth in the costs of entitlement programs as the primary cause of the shift in recent years from sizeable surpluses to large deficits. Such a characterization is incorrect. In 2005, the cost of tax cuts enacted over the past four years will be over three times the cost of all domestic program increases enacted over this period.

The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for nearly half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs.[1] Increases in program spending make up the other 52 percent and have been primarily concentrated in defense, homeland security, and international affairs.

Link:
http://www.cbpp.org/1-25-05bud.htm

All that tax money that came in 2006? We just gave it to back to Wall streeet. :roll:

And bragging about a budget deficity of $296B less than your own administration projected is hardly something a sensible person would do. Especially when Bush came into office with a SURPLUS. :D

Got anything else? :D

Did you even notice that TAX CUTS accounted for 48% of this? We could go back to Clinton, increase taxes and have a surplus...oh wait..that's what Obama is going to do anyway. Yippee...we'll have a surplus at the national level...but what about your bank account? And for whatever it's worth "Wallstreet" IS "Mainstreet".
 

fff

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
fff said:
You haven't debunked anything.

From the Center on Budget and Policy Issues:

The new Congressional Budget Office budget projections released today show that the nation faces a fourth consecutive year of substantial budget deficits. Some seek to portray “runaway domestic spending” or growth in the costs of entitlement programs as the primary cause of the shift in recent years from sizeable surpluses to large deficits. Such a characterization is incorrect. In 2005, the cost of tax cuts enacted over the past four years will be over three times the cost of all domestic program increases enacted over this period.

The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for nearly half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs.[1] Increases in program spending make up the other 52 percent and have been primarily concentrated in defense, homeland security, and international affairs.

Link:
http://www.cbpp.org/1-25-05bud.htm

All that tax money that came in 2006? We just gave it to back to Wall streeet. :roll:

And bragging about a budget deficity of $296B less than your own administration projected is hardly something a sensible person would do. Especially when Bush came into office with a SURPLUS. :D

Got anything else? :D

Did you even notice that TAX CUTS accounted for 48% of this? We could go back to Clinton, increase taxes and have a surplus...oh wait..that's what Obama is going to do anyway. Yippee...we'll have a surplus at the national level...but what about your bank account? And for whatever it's worth "Wallstreet" IS "Mainstreet".

Of course tax cuts are a major cause of our deficit! That's the point of the post! Yep, it's remarkable how well Wall Street worked when Clinton was President! Add that to FEMA, the Justice Dept, Saddam was keeping Iran under control, gasoline prices, a long list of things that worked when Clinton was President and have gone to crap under Bush. No wonder the McCain campaign is struggling. :D
 

Mike

Well-known member
it's remarkable how well Wall Street worked when Clinton was President!
It's also remarkable how well it worked until just two years ago when the House and Senate became Dem controlled.

Wasn't the all-time Dow 30 high in Oct of last year? Wasn't gas prices just above $2.00?

Didn't take long for the Dems to wreck the entire world's economy. :lol: :lol:
 

fff

Well-known member
Oops. I missed the Social Security. McCain supported and still supports Bush's plan to privatize SS accounts. There are a lot of people today who are watching their retirement date slip further and further away as their 401Ks and IRAs go down the drain on the stock market. Not to mention those folks who are already retired and looking to that income to supplement their Social Security. Social Security, which has not been hit by the collapse on Wall Street, is a supplemental retirement income program brought to you by the Democrats and strongly protected by the Democratic Party.

Obama might have technically mis-represented McCain's stand on SS, but the fact is McCain supported Bush's plan and a lot of people would be out a lot more money if it had taken effect four years ago when Bush proposed it. I do believe that proposal was the beginning of the slide for Bush and the Republican Party.
 

Yanuck

Well-known member
fff said:
TexasBred said:
fff said:
You haven't debunked anything.

From the Center on Budget and Policy Issues:



All that tax money that came in 2006? We just gave it to back to Wall streeet. :roll:

And bragging about a budget deficity of $296B less than your own administration projected is hardly something a sensible person would do. Especially when Bush came into office with a SURPLUS. :D

Got anything else? :D

Did you even notice that TAX CUTS accounted for 48% of this? We could go back to Clinton, increase taxes and have a surplus...oh wait..that's what Obama is going to do anyway. Yippee...we'll have a surplus at the national level...but what about your bank account? And for whatever it's worth "Wallstreet" IS "Mainstreet".

Of course tax cuts are a major cause of our deficit! That's the point of the post! Yep, it's remarkable how well Wall Street worked when Clinton was President! Add that to FEMA, the Justice Dept, Saddam was keeping Iran under control, gasoline prices, a long list of things that worked when Clinton was President and have gone to crap under Bush. No wonder the McCain campaign is struggling. :D

Are you serious with this statement about Saddam??!! :???: :???: what about what he was doing to all the people in his own country??? they don't matter??!!perhaps .Frankie isn't the only strange one here!! :shock: :shock: :shock: :roll:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Well then why worry and grieve over only what Saddam was doing? What about Ruwanda, Sudan, etc....and we do NOTHING about that?


Know why? They didn't make a threat to Daddy Bush....that's why.
 

Yanuck

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Well then why worry and grieve over only what Saddam was doing? What about Ruwanda, Sudan, etc....and we do NOTHING about that?


Know why? They didn't make a threat to Daddy Bush....that's why.

I agree with you... :shock: :shock: :shock: , BUT....Rwanda happened in 1994, George W. Bush wasn't in charge, so that is one you can't blame on him, not that he hasn't done enough dumb ass things of his own! :eek: :eek: :eek:
 

fff

Well-known member
Yanuck said:
Are you serious with this statement about Saddam??!! :???: :???: what about what he was doing to all the people in his own country??? they don't matter??!!perhaps .Frankie isn't the only strange one here!! :shock: :shock: :shock: :roll:

Of course I'm serious. Ronald Reagan supported Saddam. He gave him neat "stuff" to use in his war with Iran, most of the technology he used on his own people! Was it right? Probably not, but we've supported tyrants forever if they were enemies of our enemies. It was only when Saddam went into Kuwait that George HW Bush got tough with him.

The United States was wary of the Tehran regime since the Iranian Revolution, not least because of the taking hostage of its Tehran embassy staff in the 1979–81 Iran hostage crisis. Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying weapons.[6] In 1983, President Ronald Reagan initiated a strategic opening to Iraq, Reagan chose Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Hussein, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984. Support for Iraq gradually became the order of the day. Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 4-82. [7] According to the Boston Globe, The Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations saw Iraq could be a strategic partner to the United States, a counterweight to Iran, a force for moderation in the region, and possibly help in the Arab-Israel peace process.[8]

In 1982, Iraq was removed from the U.S. Department of State list of terrorist-supporting nations to ease the transfer of dual-use technology to that country. According to investigative journalist and award-winning author Alan Friedman, Secretary of State Alexander Haig was "upset at the fact that the decision had been made at the White House, even though the State Department was responsible for the list."[9] "I was not consulted," Haig is said to have complained.

Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. According to his 1995 affidavit and other interviews with former Regan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and dual-use technology to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other private military companies to do the same:

[T]he United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.[10]

The full extent of these covert transfers is not yet known. Teicher's files on the subject are held securely at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and many other Reagan era documents that could help shine new light on the subject remain classified. Teicher refused to discuss details of the affidavit with the Washington Post shortly before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[11]

About two of every seven licenses for the export of "dual use" technology items approved between 1985 and 1990 by the US Department of Commerce "went either directly to the Iraqi armed forces, to Iraqi end-users engaged in weapons production, or to Iraqi enterprises suspected of diverting technology" to weapons of mass destruction according to an investigation by House Banking Committee Chairman Henry B. Gonzalez. According to the investigation, confidential Commerce Department files also reveal that the Reagan and Bush administrations approved at least 80 direct exports to the Iraqi military. These included computers, communications equipment, and aircraft navigation and radar equipment. Many of these exports were made before Iraq's eight-year war with Iran ended in 1988, a period in which Washington maintained an official policy of neutrality toward the combatants but vigorously worked to block foreign military purchases by Iran.[12]

In March 1983, Reagan signed a NSDM with the originally classified title, "U.S. Policy toward the Iran–Iraq War".[5] This placed the highest priority on keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, a goal around which other U.S. policy, such as foreign basing and rules of engagement for combat.

In conformance with the Presidential directive, the U.S. began providing tactical battlefield advice to the Iraqi Army. "The prevailing view", says Alan Friedman, "was that if Washington wanted to prevent an Iranian victory, it would have to share some of its more sensitive intelligence photography with Saddam."[9]

At times, thanks to the White House's secret backing for the intelligence-sharing, U.S. intelligence officers were actually sent to Baghdad to help interpret the satellite information. As the White House took an increasingly active role in secretly helping Saddam direct his armed forces, the United States even built an expensive high-tech annex in Baghdad to provide a direct down-link receiver for the satellite intelligence and better processing of the information... p. 27

The American military commitment that had begun with intelligence-sharing expanded rapidly and surreptitiously throughout the Iran–Iraq War. A former White House official explained that "by 1987, our people were actually providing tactical military advice to the Iraqis in the battlefield, and sometimes they would find themselves over the Iranian border, alongside Iraqi troops." p. 38


According to retired Army Colonel W. Patrick Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose."[13] Lang cautioned that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival. Despite this claim, the Reagan administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians.[14][15]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Ronald Reagan supported Saddam

Yes and once there was a gal that did the horizontal bounce(kola) with her hubby. Since she did that does that mean she can't later find out that he was a jerk(or vise versa)
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Yanuck said:
kolanuraven said:
Well then why worry and grieve over only what Saddam was doing? What about Ruwanda, Sudan, etc....and we do NOTHING about that?


Know why? They didn't make a threat to Daddy Bush....that's why.

I agree with you... :shock: :shock: :shock: , BUT....Rwanda happened in 1994, George W. Bush wasn't in charge, so that is one you can't blame on him, not that he hasn't done enough dumb ass things of his own! :eek: :eek: :eek:


Sudan...Darfur is happening RIGHT NOW and on GW watch!!!...as we type back and forth....women raped....children beaten/starved......and we have ignored it & the GW Admn has hardly even mentioned it.

It didnt' even catch your attention.....

Ya know why no one cares....no oil.
 

Yanuck

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Yanuck said:
kolanuraven said:
Well then why worry and grieve over only what Saddam was doing? What about Ruwanda, Sudan, etc....and we do NOTHING about that?


Know why? They didn't make a threat to Daddy Bush....that's why.

I agree with you... :shock: :shock: :shock: , BUT....Rwanda happened in 1994, George W. Bush wasn't in charge, so that is one you can't blame on him, not that he hasn't done enough dumb ass things of his own! :eek: :eek: :eek:


Sudan...Darfur is happening RIGHT NOW and on GW watch!!!...as we type back and forth....women raped....children beaten/starved......and we have ignored it & the GW Admn has hardly even mentioned it.

It didnt' even catch your attention.....

Ya know why no one cares....no oil.

Did you read my post Kola? did I say Bush was innocent? did I not say he does some dumb ass stuff on his own? I realize it is happening RIGHT NOW!! does Clinton get a free pass for not doing anything either???!!! tell your mother for me that you didn't get nearly enough spankings when you were a kid!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Larrry said:
Ronald Reagan supported Saddam

Yes and once there was a gal that did the horizontal bounce(kola) with her hubby. Since she did that does that mean she can't later find out that he was a jerk(or vise versa)

Yikes..Kola did this? heck I could never get her to respond to whether or not she was a swallower or a spitter.
 
Top