Renegging Already !!!

[hypocritexposer]

Now, particularly dumbass liberals often try to argue that George Bush somehow made his war spending "off budget." That is such a pile of crap it is unreal. Who controls the spending? CONGRESS DOES. Congress ALWAYS had the power to cut off funding for the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars any time it wanted. And the simple fact of the matter is that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – who controlled the Senate and House respectively – agreed on how to handle the funding of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It was DEMOCRATS who did not want to be in the position of having to either support war funding and enrage their base or vote against it and enrage the American people. So it was NOT George Bush who took war funding "off budget," it was Democrats who were afraid to be held accountable. And every penny that Bush spent on the war and on everything else ultimately showed up in his spending and in his debt.
The problem is that there are truly stupid people who have no clue how government works and live in a world of lies.[/b]

YEP thought so the article was talking about you Oldtimer.

So Tam are you ignorant- or just a flat out liar- or just too lazy to check out what you post... :???:

Until 2007- neither Reid nor Pelosi controlled anything....The Repubs controlled Congress most that time during which they gave GW a rubber stamp to spend anything he wanted- and questioned nothing he did.. Bill Frist was the Senate Majority Leader from 2003-2007 and Dennis Hastert was Speaker of the House from 1999-2007 (which is supposed to be the appropriations/money controlling body of the Congress)...

Tam- you need to check out your facts before you talk about stupid people :wink: :lol:

Deficits were headed in the right direction, until the Democrats were in charge of the purse strings

 

[Tam]

Now, particularly dumbass liberals often try to argue that George Bush somehow made his war spending "off budget." That is such a pile of crap it is unreal. Who controls the spending? CONGRESS DOES. Congress ALWAYS had the power to cut off funding for the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars any time it wanted. And the simple fact of the matter is that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – who controlled the Senate and House respectively – agreed on how to handle the funding of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It was DEMOCRATS who did not want to be in the position of having to either support war funding and enrage their base or vote against it and enrage the American people. So it was NOT George Bush who took war funding "off budget," it was Democrats who were afraid to be held accountable. And every penny that Bush spent on the war and on everything else ultimately showed up in his spending and in his debt.
The problem is that there are truly stupid people who have no clue how government works and live in a world of lies.[/b]

YEP thought so the article was talking about you Oldtimer.

So Tam are you ignorant- or just a flat out liar- or just too lazy to check out what you post... :???:

Until 2007- neither Reid nor Pelosi controlled anything....The Repubs controlled Congress most that time during which they gave GW a rubber stamp to spend anything he wanted- and questioned nothing he did.. Bill Frist was the Senate Majority Leader from 2003-2007 and Dennis Hastert was Speaker of the House from 1999-2007 (which is supposed to be the appropriations/money controlling body of the Congress)...

Tam- you need to check out your facts before you talk about stupid people :wink: :lol:

Sorry Oldtimer you are the ignorant one :roll:

Senate
the U.S. Senate was split between 50 Democrat-held seats and 50 Republican-held seats while the Republicans had an extremely slim majority in the House of Representatives. The Vice President, however, is given the constitutional authority as presiding officer in the Senate to break 50-50 ties by casting a deciding vote, so this represented a slim majority for the Republicans. However, this situation changed on May 24, 2001, when the liberal Republican Senator Jim Jeffords switched his party affiliation to become the only Independent senator and announced that he would caucus with the Democrats. This gave the Democrats the hope of out-voting the Republicans on some issues in the Senate.

In the 2002 mid-term elections, Bush campaigned strongly in support of some hand-picked Republican Senatorial candidates in states considered marginal, such as New Hampshire, Missouri, Georgia, Minnesota and South Dakota. According to conservative pundit John Podhoretz, Bush was instrumental in helping to revert Senate control back to the Republicans with a two-seat majority, defying the conventional wisdom that the party in power will lose seats mid-term. Of those marginal states visited by the President, only South Dakota retained its incumbent Democratic Senator. Bush helped to install such reliable conservative stalwarts as Norm Coleman, Saxby Chambliss, John E. Sununu and Jim Talent, defeating, respectively, former Vice-President Walter Mondale, incumbent Max Cleland, Governor Jeanne Shaheen and incumbent Jean Carnahan.

So by this they had a very small to no majority in the Senate and a very small majority in the House under Bush. Sounds like they had the power to do anything they wanted to me OLDTIMER. :roll:

Think of this way Oldtimer we have listened to Obama claim the Republicans are the party of NO when he had a Large Majority in the House and a Filibuster Proof Senate and he could not get anything he want through because the Republicans wouldn't vote for it. Ask yourself what was the likelyhood Bush got anything he wanted when the Senate was split 50 50 and the House was a VERY small majority? :?


Now let's put the make up of the Senate and House for the first 6 years of Bush's Administration aside shall we. :wink: You know the funding you blame BUSH for did not stop when Reid and Pelosi took over power either. It sure the H*LL didn't stop when the Dems under Reid and Pelosi had a large majority in the House and A FILIBUSTER PROOF SENATE something the REPUBICANS NEVER HAD you idiot. You can try blame Bush all you want but it still does not change the facts that the Dems had the controling votes on ANY SPENDING BUSH DID for the entire time Bush was in Office. :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Tam

And the simple fact of the matter is that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – who controlled the Senate and House respectively

That was your statement/post--and it is flat out wrong--- neither Reid nor Pelosi controlled either house of Congress until 2007....Upon the commencement of the Bush administration on January 20, 2001, Dick Cheney became President of the Senate, thereby returning Democrats to the minority in that body....And except for June 6, 2001 – January 3, 2003 when Tom Daschle became Senate Majority Leader-- Bill Frist was the Senate Majority Leader until 2007... NEVER HARRY REID as you claimed.... :roll:

And Dennis Hastert was Speaker of the House from 1999-2007- NEVER NANCY PELOSI as you falsely claimed.. :roll:



I remember quite well because it is one of the main reasons I voted for GW- thinking that with a Republican led Senate and House he would be able to fulfill his campaign promises- such as : tort reform, Health care and Health Insurance reform, a humble foreign policy with no nation building- and no more sending our troops around the world on nation building missions (which he was so critical of Bill Clinton about)....

Which he and the Repub controlled Congress reneged on every one of-- which then brought about many Repubs being booted in 06- and the Dems taking control of both houses of Congress in 07...

 

[Whitewing]

Sounds like politicians who don't keep their word really upset OT.

 

[Tam]

Tam

And the simple fact of the matter is that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – who controlled the Senate and House respectively

That was your statement/post--and it is flat out wrong--- neither Reid nor Pelosi controlled either house of Congress until 2007....Upon the commencement of the Bush administration on January 20, 2001, Dick Cheney became President of the Senate, thereby returning Democrats to the minority in that body....And except for June 6, 2001 – January 3, 2003 when Tom Daschle became Senate Majority Leader-- Bill Frist was the Senate Majority Leader until 2007... NEVER HARRY REID as you claimed.... :roll:

And Dennis Hastert was Speaker of the House from 1999-2007- NEVER NANCY PELOSI as you falsely claimed.. :roll:



I remember quite well because it is one of the main reasons I voted for GW- thinking that with a Republican led Senate and House he would be able to fulfill his campaign promises- such as : tort reform, Health care and Health Insurance reform, a humble foreign policy with no nation building- and no more sending our troops around the world on nation building missions (which he was so critical of Bill Clinton about)....

Which he and the Repub controlled Congress reneged on every one of-- which then brought about many Repubs being booted in 06- and the Dems taking control of both houses of Congress in 07...

Well Oldtimer you caught me Pelosi and Reid were not the ones running the show in the beginning of the Bush Administration. But then the Dems were not in majority control yet were they? :roll: But then Unlike what you would have us believe the Republicans did not have total control either did they? :? They had a extremely slim House majority and a split Senate. Not exactly the do anything you want type of control you keep commenting about. :roll: True BIPARTISAN SUPPORT had to happen to get anything done when Bush was in office and that included on spending bills.

I do have to say though Oldtimer Bush must have been a better leader than your hero Obama as he was able to get the Dems to support things they campaigned AGAINST. But then I'm guessing the Dems lied about the spending as when they had a large Majority under Pelosi, a filibuster proof Senate under Reid and the Oval House in Obama's hands they still were not able to stop the war spending or the tax cuts you keep beating Bush up over. :wink:

 

[redrobin]

And I say "good", because I've yet to see you utter a single negative word about the Messiah.

He excuses the big eared do nothing senator from ill.


"He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else"

Benjamin Franklin quote

 

[hopalong]

Sounds like politicians who don't keep their word really upset OT.

Unless of course that politician is a liberal, then it is fine to lie and cheat, as evidenced by his actions on here.

 

[Anonymous]

I do have to say though Oldtimer Bush must have been a better leader than your hero Obama as he was able to get the Dems to support things they campaigned AGAINST.

Or were they just gullible like many of the Repubs and trusted the new President to be giving them reliable honest information during a very turbulent and emotional time -- which later turned many of both parties away from him/his administration when it was shown he had not only presented unreliable info on the WMD's- but had altered several parts of the NSC report on the true threat Iraq posed in the first place- and had given false reports to Congress ...

But as far as the spenditures- the economy was already on a fast track to the Bush Bust long before the Dems (Reid/Pelosi) took control of Congress in 2007...

If you remember- instead of being like some stick by your man cultists- I warned you the Bush Bust was coming in 2005....

 

[Larrry]

Remind us ot of what o did accomplish in his three years. Tell us how things are better or even look better. o owns the economy now, is it better. o owns the respect or lack of respect from other countries. Please list his campaign promises fulllfilled.

obamas accomplishments and proof:

obamas campaign promises fullfilled:

 

[hopalong]

oldtimer never offers proof, only more lies and conjecture and accusations without tangible proof, when that fails he tries to change the subject!@!!! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Whitewing]

- but had altered several parts of the NSC report on the true threat Iraq posed in the first place- and had given false reports to Congress ...

You've made this assertion before, we've challenged it, and I don't recall you ever posting any evidence that supports what you're saying. Are you going to put up or shut up this time or just keep repeating it in the hopes that it'll some day pass as the truth?

I'll hold my breath waiting for your supporting evidence.

 

[Anonymous]

- but had altered several parts of the NSC report on the true threat Iraq posed in the first place- and had given false reports to Congress ...

You've made this assertion before, we've challenged it, and I don't recall you ever posting any evidence that supports what you're saying. Are you going to put up or shut up this time or just keep repeating it in the hopes that it'll some day pass as the truth?

I'll hold my breath waiting for your supporting evidence.

Go read the Senate Intelligence Committee's unanimous, bipartisan "Report on Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq-- and the transcripts of the testimony that led up to their condemnation of the Bush administrations claims of Iraqs Al Quaeda relationship, WMD's existence, and Iraqs imminent threat to American security (which the report said did not exist- but which was conveniently left out of the copy Congress got) was exaggerated or distorted (and presented to Congress) as a pretext to justify the war....

During the hearings- the National Security Administrations original report On Iraq was introduced-- and when compared to the copy that the Administration had delivered to Congress during the runup to war was shown to have been altered- or important parts deleted/left out (which could have totally changed the whole vote in Congress)...

You should have seen the mouths drop, red faces, and anger expressed on on some of the Senators faces (especially the Republicans) - and the whispering back and forth between them as they compared the correct report with the one they had received... As I remember- even one red faced Repub Senator walked out of the hearings....

The following nine Republicans were members of the Committee at the time the investigation was launched: Committee Chairman C. Patrick Roberts (R-KS), Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), R. Michael DeWine (R-OH), Christopher S. "Kit" Bond (R-MO), C. Trent Lott (R-MS), Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME), Charles Hagel (R-NE), C. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), and John W. Warner (R-VA).

The following eight Democrats made up the rest of the Committee: Vice-Chairman John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-WV), Carl Levin (D-MI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ronald L. Wyden (D-OR), Richard J. Durbin (D-IL), B. Evans "Evan" Bayh III (D-IN), Johnny R. "John" Edwards (D-NC), and Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD).

 

[Whitewing]

As usual you're talking out your ass again OldMan.

There was a proven relationship between Saddam's regime and al Queda....don't believe me, it's in the Senate 9-11 Report...another bipartisan report.

As for your "imminent threat" reference, it's often repeated by useful idiots like you and attributed to Bush or his administration. Again, I challenge you to provide a link to a single quote of the words being used by Bush. You won't do it because it doesn't exist.

During the hearings- the National Security Administrations original report On Iraq was introduced-- and when compared to the copy that the Administration had delivered to Congress during the runup to war was shown to have been altered- or important parts deleted/left out (which could have totally changed the whole vote in Congress)...

Not that I'd have any reason to distrust something you might write here OT :lol: , but please, link me to this proven event. Should be a piece of cake.

 

[Tam]

I do have to say though Oldtimer Bush must have been a better leader than your hero Obama as he was able to get the Dems to support things they campaigned AGAINST.

Or were they just gullible like many of the Repubs and trusted the new President to be giving them reliable honest information during a very turbulent and emotional time -- which later turned many of both parties away from him/his administration when it was shown he had not only presented unreliable info on the WMD's- but had altered several parts of the NSC report on the true threat Iraq posed in the first place- and had given false reports to Congress ...

But as far as the spenditures- the economy was already on a fast track to the Bush Bust long before the Dems (Reid/Pelosi) took control of Congress in 2007...

If you remember- instead of being like some stick by your man cultists- I warned you the Bush Bust was coming in 2005....

Talk about gullible stick by your man cultist Oldtimer even tingle up his leg Chris Matthews has jumped off the Obama sinking ship and you are still blinded by the effects of the koolaid. :roll:

BTW Is this where Bush got the unreliable info on Iraq'a WMD Oldtimer? :?

"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

That should teach Bush for trusting the intelligents coming out of the Clinton Administration :wink:

And the economy was on the road to a bust because of the Dems thinking everyone in the US deserved to live in their own house even when they couldn't afford one. And If I remember right Carter started it, Clinton put his foot on the gas by appealing the Glass Steagull Act and Obama got in on it when he sued Citibank to force the issue. I seem to remember Bush warning the Dems sh*t was going to hit the fan if Fanny and Freddy wasn't reined in but the Dems filibustered any attempts to rein in Barney Frank's boyfriend. So please stop trying to feed me your crap as I'm not a mushroom. :roll:

 

[Whitewing]

and when compared to the copy that the Administration had delivered to Congress during the runup to war was shown to have been altered- or important parts deleted/left out (which could have totally changed the whole vote in Congress)...

Just one little linky to this story OldCrustyOne. Surely it's there somewhere on the vast internets. I looked but google keeps routing me back to Rancher's Forum and your posts. :lol:

Alternately, you could try the, "this was told to me during a private conversation with the Head of the Arms Services Committee"....or something along those lines.

 

[hopalong]

Tam
oldtimer has seen that list before!!
He does not rely on fact, we all know that, he rely s on hearsay, something not allowed in any court in the country ,(except his) and then makes up his own idea of what is real!!!!! THen blames BUsh :wink: :wink: :wink:

 

[TSR]

- but had altered several parts of the NSC report on the true threat Iraq posed in the first place- and had given false reports to Congress ...

You've made this assertion before, we've challenged it, and I don't recall you ever posting any evidence that supports what you're saying. Are you going to put up or shut up this time or just keep repeating it in the hopes that it'll some day pass as the truth?

I'll hold my breath waiting for your supporting evidence.

Go read the Senate Intelligence Committee's unanimous, bipartisan "Report on Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq-- and the transcripts of the testimony that led up to their condemnation of the Bush administrations claims of Iraqs Al Quaeda relationship, WMD's existence, and Iraqs imminent threat to American security (which the report said did not exist- but which was conveniently left out of the copy Congress got) was exaggerated or distorted (and presented to Congress) as a pretext to justify the war....

During the hearings- the National Security Administrations original report On Iraq was introduced-- and when compared to the copy that the Administration had delivered to Congress during the runup to war was shown to have been altered- or important parts deleted/left out (which could have totally changed the whole vote in Congress)...

You should have seen the mouths drop, red faces, and anger expressed on on some of the Senators faces (especially the Republicans) - and the whispering back and forth between them as they compared the correct report with the one they had received... As I remember- even one red faced Repub Senator walked out of the hearings....

The following nine Republicans were members of the Committee at the time the investigation was launched: Committee Chairman C. Patrick Roberts (R-KS), Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), R. Michael DeWine (R-OH), Christopher S. "Kit" Bond (R-MO), C. Trent Lott (R-MS), Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME), Charles Hagel (R-NE), C. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), and John W. Warner (R-VA).

The following eight Democrats made up the rest of the Committee: Vice-Chairman John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-WV), Carl Levin (D-MI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ronald L. Wyden (D-OR), Richard J. Durbin (D-IL), B. Evans "Evan" Bayh III (D-IN), Johnny R. "John" Edwards (D-NC), and Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD).

Bottomline Otimer, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that you go after the "Specific Person(s)" that attacked you. You deal with his (supposed) allies afterwards.

 

[Tam]

WOW jingy must be sick as I posted to this thread last night and he/she/it hasn't jumped all over me for using Appealling instead of Repealling when talking about the Glass Steagull Act. Somebody better call 911 and see if they can send someone to check on him/her/it. :wink: