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

President Barack Obama’s job approval rating is at a histori

Steve

Well-known member
and polls indicate that somehow no one is surprised? :lol: :roll:

President Barack Obama’s job approval rating is at a historic low, according to a new poll.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/obama-approval-rating-poll-104563.html#ixzz2vrhdqeL1

The results indicate that Obama might not be of much help to Congressional candidates seeking reelection. Nearly half of survey respondents said they would be less inclined to support a candidate if he or she were considered a “solid supporter” of the Obama administration.

Disapproval among Democrats is higher than ever, with 20 percent disapproving of Obama.
 

Tam

Well-known member
A vote buying executive order here and a vote buying executive order there and before you know it he will buy back all the support he lost over Obamacare just leave it to the give me give me give me crowd. :x
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Poll: Hillary Clinton Not Hurt by Obama in Iowa


Thursday, 13 Mar 2014 09:36 AM

By Drew MacKenzie



Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has "substantial leads" over GOP contenders in the presidential race in Iowa, according to a new poll that show she's not being hurt by President Barack Obama's troubles.

The Quinnipiac University Poll shows that Iowa voters back Clinton 49 percent to 39 percent over Sen. Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican who won a straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference last week of potential GOP nominees for the White House.

Clinton also had a 48 percent to 35 percent lead over embattled New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. The figures reverse the 45 percent to 40 percent lead Christie had over Clinton in mid-December.

The former secretary of state's lead over Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz was 51 percent to 35 percent, and Clinton leads former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush by 51 percent to 37 percent.

There was more good news in Iowa for Clinton, as the survey showed that 55 percent thought she would make a good president with only 41 percent giving Christie a potential presidential approval rating.

The rest of the GOP contenders also received a negative score, under 50 percent, on whether they would do a good job as commander-in-chief.

The Quinnipiac poll also found that Obama is not very popular in Iowa, with a negative 39-57 percent approval rating.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Hillary-Clinton-Iowa-poll-Rand-Paul/2014/03/13/id/559303#ixzz2vzmCajZG


Thing is- Obama isn't running again... But Hillary probably will....
 

Mike

Well-known member
OT wrote:Thing is- Obama isn't running again... But Hillary probably will...

Makes no sense. Hillary will be a referendum on ObamaCare and all things Buckwheat/Dems. Only a few of that 47% of the handout wanting uninformed voter will vote for her.

You know, people such as yourself.

Benghazi will slap her in her fat azz too..................
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Poll: Hillary Clinton Not Hurt by Obama in Iowa


Thursday, 13 Mar 2014 09:36 AM

By Drew MacKenzie



Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has "substantial leads" over GOP contenders in the presidential race in Iowa, according to a new poll that show she's not being hurt by President Barack Obama's troubles.

The Quinnipiac University Poll shows that Iowa voters back Clinton 49 percent to 39 percent over Sen. Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican who won a straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference last week of potential GOP nominees for the White House.

Clinton also had a 48 percent to 35 percent lead over embattled New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. The figures reverse the 45 percent to 40 percent lead Christie had over Clinton in mid-December.

The former secretary of state's lead over Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz was 51 percent to 35 percent, and Clinton leads former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush by 51 percent to 37 percent.

There was more good news in Iowa for Clinton, as the survey showed that 55 percent thought she would make a good president with only 41 percent giving Christie a potential presidential approval rating.

The rest of the GOP contenders also received a negative score, under 50 percent, on whether they would do a good job as commander-in-chief.

The Quinnipiac poll also found that Obama is not very popular in Iowa, with a negative 39-57 percent approval rating.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Hillary-Clinton-Iowa-poll-Rand-Paul/2014/03/13/id/559303#ixzz2vzmCajZG


Thing is- Obama isn't running again... But Hillary probably will....

When you have a liberal bias media willing to cover up the truth about what is REALLY going on with this Democrat Administration that Hillary was a part of , is it any surprise that the next media picked liberal darling, no matter how corrupt she is, would have their support too? :roll:

Face it the media sold their souls to get Obama elected to the point their credibility is as low as yours Oldtimer. DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND and when that doesn't work out DISTRACT. Any Republican front runner is going to have a very large target on their backs as every liberal hack will be digging up anything they can to take him/her down WHILE IGNORING THE REAL CORRUPT HAG HILLARY. I take that back they will not be ignoring her they will be putting her on a pedestal and praising her every friggin move while ignoring her dirt like they ignored BENGHAZI. :mad:

And you, Oldtimer, will vote right along with the rest of the nitwits that vote TO MAKE HISTORY. :roll: And then defend your vote with a boat load of crap about if you dislike/hate Hillary's policies you are woman hating sexist.

If Hillary is elected in 2016, nothing is going to change. People will still not be able to disagree with Democrat Policies on their merits as if you dare you will be a Sexist according to the supporters of the disgraceful Administration of Hillary where Bill will have his pick of the White House Intern pool AGAIN while Pres. Hillary looks the other way and blames the interns for her sick husband's actions. :roll:

You would think 8 years of this embarrassing couples sex lives playing out on the public stage would have been ENOUGH. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
You would think 8 years of this embarrassing couples sex lives playing out on the public stage would have been ENOUGH. :roll:

From what you watch of the countries celebrities, movie stars, family values spokesmen politicians (McCain, Guiliani, Gingrich, Rush) the country must like public sex lives.... :???: And according to the Hypocrites the Repub Party picks as their family values advocates- apparently the juicier the better .... :wink:

I didn't care for or vote for Bill Clinton---But I know I'd rather see some President getting a little strange stuff- and even lying about it--- than a President lying to get backing to invade a sovereign nation and taking the country into a 10 year war that cost the country 38,000 killed or wounded and $7 Trillion of the taxpayers dollars...
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
You would think 8 years of this embarrassing couples sex lives playing out on the public stage would have been ENOUGH. :roll:

From what you watch of the countries celebrities, movie stars, family values spokesmen politicians (McCain, Guiliani, Gingrich, Rush) the country must like public sex lives.... :???: And according to the Hypocrites the Repub Party picks as their family values advocates- apparently the juicier the better .... :wink:

I didn't care for or vote for Bill Clinton---But I know I'd rather see some President getting a little strange stuff- and even lying about it--- than a President lying to get backing to invade a sovereign nation and taking the country into a 10 year war that cost the country 38,000 killed or wounded and $7 Trillion of the taxpayers dollars...

OT is a special kind of stupid to keep spouting that "Bush lied!"

Says a LOT about what kind of LEO and JP your sorry azz is, that you would support an administration with more dead bodies piled up around it than at Khe Sanh.
Bush had the full support of Congress to do what he did. I'm sure that Mike or Tam or Steve would have no problem bringing up all your fellow libtard's remarks supporting the war.

You are Sofa King Wee Todd Ed.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
loomixguy said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
You would think 8 years of this embarrassing couples sex lives playing out on the public stage would have been ENOUGH. :roll:

From what you watch of the countries celebrities, movie stars, family values spokesmen politicians (McCain, Guiliani, Gingrich, Rush) the country must like public sex lives.... :???: And according to the Hypocrites the Repub Party picks as their family values advocates- apparently the juicier the better .... :wink:

I didn't care for or vote for Bill Clinton---But I know I'd rather see some President getting a little strange stuff- and even lying about it--- than a President lying to get backing to invade a sovereign nation and taking the country into a 10 year war that cost the country 38,000 killed or wounded and $7 Trillion of the taxpayers dollars...

OT is a special kind of stupid to keep spouting that "Bush lied!"

Says a LOT about what kind of LEO and JP your sorry azz is, that you would support an administration with more dead bodies piled up around it than at Khe Sanh.
Bush had the full support of Congress to do what he did. I'm sure that Mike or Tam or Steve would have no problem bringing up all your fellow libtard's remarks supporting the war.

You are Sofa King Wee Todd Ed.

You seem to forget all the Bush propaganda (LIES) the Bush Administration put out to get the support of the public and therefore Congress...

Did any of this BS Bush boys fed us hold up? Were them there fellows lying to us?

CAKEWALK!

"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 2/13/02

"Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"Desert Storm II would be in a walk in the park... The case for 'regime change' boils down to the huge benefits and modest costs of liberating Iraq."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 8/29/02

"Having defeated and then occupied Iraq, democratizing the country should not be too tall an order for the world's sole superpower."
- William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor, and Lawrence F. Kaplan, New Republic senior editor, 2/24/03



HOW MANY TROOPS WILL BE NEEDED?

"I would be surprised if we need anything like the 200,000 figure that is sometimes discussed in the press. A much smaller force, principally special operations forces, but backed up by some regular units, should be sufficient."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"I don't believe that anything like a long-term commitment of 150,000 Americans would be necessary."
- Richard Perle, speaking at a conference on "Post-Saddam Iraq" sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, 10/3/02

"I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required."
- Gen. Eric Shinseki, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/25/03

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/27/03

"I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us keep [troop] requirements down. ... We can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark...wildly off the mark."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to image."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave."
- President George W. Bush, 6/28/05

"The debate over troop levels will rage for years; it is...beside the point."
- Rich Lowry, conservative syndicated columnist, 4/19/06

WHAT ABOUT CASUALTIES?

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
- President George W. Bush, response attributed to him by the Reverend Pat Robertson, when Robertson warned the president to prepare the nation for "heavy casualties" in the event of an Iraq war, 3/2003

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
- Barbara Bush, former First Lady (and the current president's mother), on Good Morning America, 3/18/03

"I think the level of casualties is secondary... [A]ll the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war... What we hate is not casualties but losing."
- Michael Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute, 3/25/03

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02

"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03

"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction."
- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03

HOW LONG WILL IT LAST?

"Now, it isn't gong to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 11/15/02

"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?"
- Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could be six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/7/03

"It won't take weeks... Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there's no question that it will."
- Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03

"There is zero question that this military campaign...will be reasonably short. ... Like World War II for about five days."
- General Barry R. McCaffrey, national security and terrorism analyst for NBC News, 2/18/03

"The Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts."
- David Frum, former Bush White House speechwriter, 2/24/03

"I think it will go relatively quickly...weeks rather than months."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." --

~Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Yet all the senate voted to give him the right to invade,,, all of them felt there were WMD there be care when you start bringing up OLD news oldtimer will come back and bite you in your extremely large posterior,, probably just fat anyway wonder what color ??? ,,, most alcohol is made from grain,,, you claim barley has a lighter color fat than corn fed does does that hold true in the booze you drink????
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
You would think 8 years of this embarrassing couples sex lives playing out on the public stage would have been ENOUGH. :roll:

From what you watch of the countries celebrities, movie stars, family values spokesmen politicians (McCain, Guiliani, Gingrich, Rush) the country must like public sex lives.... :???: And according to the Hypocrites the Repub Party picks as their family values advocates- apparently the juicier the better .... :wink:

I didn't care for or vote for Bill Clinton---But I know I'd rather see some President getting a little strange stuff- and even lying about it--- than a President lying to get backing to invade a sovereign nation and taking the country into a 10 year war that cost the country 38,000 killed or wounded and $7 Trillion of the taxpayers dollars...

Funny how you would name four Republicans that have never been the President to defend a Democrap President's SEX Sickness. I guess that tells you who gets the pass on their immoral behavior and who doesn't Oldtimer. :roll:

As for who gets away with lying?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

And just how much did Bush have to say to get these Democrats to support the War in Iraq Oldtimer? AND FUND IT? :? :roll:

Clinton, BOTH CLINTONS, Bill, the one getting the "STRANGE STUFF" and lied about it and his Political ***** wife, Hillary that sold her self respect for Political Power both swore up and down Saddam had WMD and was going to use them Oldtimer. And the Dems voted to support the invasion of Iraq until the WMD was not found then THEY ALL LIED ABOUT THEIR SUPPORT AND YOU BELIEVED THEIR LIES. :roll:

Oh and the only one that has put $7 trillion on the tax payers debt was a Democrap named OBAMA. The same Obama that you have been defending for the last 5 years :wink: . You know, the one that bought your vote with a Campaign stance of nation building in the US not in Foreign sandpits and reneged on his promise by giving even more Foreign aid to a Country that HATES THE US. The same one that won the Nobel PEACE Prize then invaded Libya, continued to drop bombs by drone and set a useless red line on Syria that encouraged even more Foreign leaders to push for more power over their citizens and citizens IN OTHER COUNTRIES. Oh and has had more Soldiers come home in Caskets because of HIS INCOMPETENT FOREIGN POLICIES in 5 years than Bush did in 8 years. But you still will not say a damn thing about him and continue to BLAME BUSH. :roll:

Do you even realize how pathetic you look anymore in your bashing of Republicans to defend the immorality of the Democrat party leaders? :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
You would think 8 years of this embarrassing couples sex lives playing out on the public stage would have been ENOUGH. :roll:

From what you watch of the countries celebrities, movie stars, family values spokesmen politicians (McCain, Guiliani, Gingrich, Rush) the country must like public sex lives.... :???: And according to the Hypocrites the Repub Party picks as their family values advocates- apparently the juicier the better .... :wink:

I didn't care for or vote for Bill Clinton---But I know I'd rather see some President getting a little strange stuff- and even lying about it--- than a President lying to get backing to invade a sovereign nation and taking the country into a 10 year war that cost the country 38,000 killed or wounded and $7 Trillion of the taxpayers dollars...

Funny how you would name four Republicans that have never been the President to defend a Democrap President's SEX Sickness. I guess that tells you who gets the pass on their immoral behavior and who doesn't Oldtimer. :roll:

As for who gets away with lying?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

And just how much did Bush have to say to get these Democrats to support the War in Iraq Oldtimer? AND FUND IT? :? :roll:

Clinton, BOTH CLINTONS, Bill, the one getting the "STRANGE STUFF" and lied about it and his Political ***** wife, Hillary that sold her self respect for Political Power both swore up and down Saddam had WMD and was going to use them Oldtimer. And the Dems voted to support the invasion of Iraq until the WMD was not found then THEY ALL LIED ABOUT THEIR SUPPORT AND YOU BELIEVED THEIR LIES. :roll:

Oh and the only one that has put $7 trillion on the tax payers debt was a Democrap named OBAMA. The same Obama that you have been defending for the last 5 years :wink: . You know, the one that bought your vote with a Campaign stance of nation building in the US not in Foreign sandpits and reneged on his promise by giving even more Foreign aid to a Country that HATES THE US. The same one that won the Nobel PEACE Prize then invaded Libya, continued to drop bombs by drone and set a useless red line on Syria that encouraged even more Foreign leaders to push for more power over their citizens and citizens IN OTHER COUNTRIES. Oh and has had more Soldiers come home in Caskets because of HIS INCOMPETENT FOREIGN POLICIES in 5 years than Bush did in 8 years. But you still will not say a damn thing about him and continue to BLAME BUSH. :roll:

Do you even realize how pathetic you look anymore in your bashing of Republicans to defend the immorality of the Democrat party leaders? :roll:

BUT Tam- its not Democrats or Independents or Libertarians that go around putting themselves out to be the party of family values and preaching the morals and ethics everyone should live under... And having government legislate morality... Its the Republican Party- which then makes it such a hypocritical joke when they can't walk the talk...

As far as the cost of the Iraq War here is a study from a year ago- altho I saw another just a few weeks ago that has updated that figure to $7 Trillion mainly upon the estimated increase of ongoing expenses of caring for the veterans who came back with massive physical and psychological injuries...


$6 Trillion or $7 Trillion-- I won't argue the trivial Trillion-- because the way GW passed it out and blew it up in Iraq it must just be paper- EH? :wink:


Total Cost of the Iraq War Over $6 Trillion?


Budget and Taxes, Military

by Ed Brayton


As we “celebrate” the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, a new report says that the total cost of the war is over $2 trillion when you add together not only the immediate expenses but the ongoing expenses of caring for the veterans who came back with massive physical and psychological injuries. And that’s just the beginning:



The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

The war has killed at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians and may have contributed to the deaths of as many as four times that number, according to the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.
 

Tam

Well-known member
What Senators voted to support the invasion of Iraq

YEAs ---77
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

77 yes votes and 23 no votes Oldtimer that looks like pretty strong BIPARTISANSHIP SUPPORT for the invasion. Has Obama ever got that many Senators to agree on anything. Oh forget I asked that as he had 99 Senators to agree to vote NO on his budget proposal didn't he Oldtimer? :wink:

Want to tell us just how many of these upstanding Democrats Senators that vote to support the Invasion are willing to admit it was Hillary, Bill, Kerry, Levin, Daschle, Pelosi, Bob Graham, Gore, Kennedy, Byrd, Rockefeller and Waxman's comments that convinced them to support the invasion and not something Bush might have told them? :wink:

77 to 23 and you want to BLAME BUSH :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oh and again the Congress holds the Purse strings so if Bush spent anything he had BIPARTISANSHIP SUPPORT, OLDTIMER :roll:

SO PLEASE STOP PLAYING STUPID AS YOU ARE WINNING BIG TIME. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Anyway- I still say this country would rather have a President who's fault is getting a little stray stuff -- rather than one that takes us into two 10+ year wars (that will end up accomplishing nothing) - and brings on the Bush Bust during their watch...


Poll: Bill Clinton is as popular as Pope Francis

By Charlie Spiering | MARCH 12, 2014 AT 8:50 AM


While President Obama is suffering from a new low in his job approval ratings, one former president is enjoying sky-high approval ratings: Bill Clinton.

According to a new WSJ/NBC poll, the former president is now tied with Pope Francis with a 55-percent approval rating.


The popular pope's negatives, however, are only 7 percent, which pushes him above Clinton — who has a 24-percent negative rating.
 
Top