Chit I want to know where the first 63 Billion went Bush got 8 months ago. Now lets do 87 billion more. Dam is no one making these guys accountable for there spending. And Please no more oh chit we need it the war on terror. We could do that for hell of a lot less.
87 Billion Are you Kidding.
- Thread starter djv
- Start date
There were guys here who said this war was just about the oil 
If was just about the Oil then how come we don't use the oil to pay the 87 Billion instead of going into our pockets.:shrug:
If was just about the Oil then how come we don't use the oil to pay the 87 Billion instead of going into our pockets.:shrug:
Now gentlemen, we promised the Iraqi people freedom, and by God George W is going to do it , at the price of our own
these bills and budgets are scrutinized by people probably more informed than madjack people.
someone took down two buildings..
we took two countries..
rebuilding isnt cheap but in the long run its a blessing of an excuse to plant western ideals in the center of the beehive and let the PEOPLE make up their own minds.
this wasnt a 4 year political call it was long term national stability.
finally someone had the balls to step up.
i erased my tom daschle and being concerned comment.
someone took down two buildings..
we took two countries..
rebuilding isnt cheap but in the long run its a blessing of an excuse to plant western ideals in the center of the beehive and let the PEOPLE make up their own minds.
this wasnt a 4 year political call it was long term national stability.
finally someone had the balls to step up.
i erased my tom daschle and being concerned comment.
KENNEDY AND HIS ILK TELL OUR TROOPS TO GO TO HELL
KENNEDY AND HIS ILK TELL OUR TROOPS TO GO TO HELL
And that's the way it is, folks. The ever-disgusting Democrat Ted Kennedy voted against President Bush's funding request for our operation in Iraq. He wasn't alone. John Edwards and John Kerry were right there with him, opposing Bush's $87 billion funding request for the continuation of our efforts in Iraq. Wesley Clark and Howard Dean say that they would have opposed the funding if they had a vote. When has Ted Kennedy been worried about spending?
KENNEDY AND HIS ILK TELL OUR TROOPS TO GO TO HELL
And that's the way it is, folks. The ever-disgusting Democrat Ted Kennedy voted against President Bush's funding request for our operation in Iraq. He wasn't alone. John Edwards and John Kerry were right there with him, opposing Bush's $87 billion funding request for the continuation of our efforts in Iraq. Wesley Clark and Howard Dean say that they would have opposed the funding if they had a vote. When has Ted Kennedy been worried about spending?
I don't think anyone, yet has proven that Iraq was such a huge threat, what I have a problem with is, not using Iraqi oil to help defer the rebuilding costs, you watch, a few years from now Iraq will join OPEC and bend us over at the pumps.
Peace,
ll
Peace,
ll
I guess this is just my day to feel contempt for Ted Kennedy. Of course, that's pretty much been every day since he left Mary Jo Kopechne to die trapped inside his car resting in a few feet of water while he paced up and down the roadside trying to figure out how to salvage his political future.
Here is what Kennedy had to say from the floor of the U.S. Senate last week:
"The American people were told Saddam Hussein was building nuclear weapons. He was not. We were told he had stockpiles of other weapons of mass destruction. He did not. We were told he was involved in 9/11. He was not. We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not. We were told our soldiers would be viewed as liberators. They are not. We were told Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction. It cannot. We were told the war would make America safer. It has not."
Never has a prominent politician made a statement so full of complete and unadulterated BS.
Here is what Kennedy had to say from the floor of the U.S. Senate last week:
"The American people were told Saddam Hussein was building nuclear weapons. He was not. We were told he had stockpiles of other weapons of mass destruction. He did not. We were told he was involved in 9/11. He was not. We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not. We were told our soldiers would be viewed as liberators. They are not. We were told Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction. It cannot. We were told the war would make America safer. It has not."
Never has a prominent politician made a statement so full of complete and unadulterated BS.
Not sure where and what Kennedy said. And he's not part of the spin.. As said above. Watch Iraq now after we saved there poor asses. They were in such bad shape? Ton of BS that was. In few years join opec stick it to us. Or if that does not happen at least we created another Israel. Crash and burn every other day. Turf your a republican where are your roots. You of all people should be joining all those in the congress and senata. Asking where the money went the first time and show me why were blowing more away this time. Please no spin or BS it;s all about the troops. We take care of our troops. If your a true conservative you should be pissed of big time. Whats the rubber stamp crap anyway. It's time a lot more Americans start asking some hard questions.
If were so worried about our troops lets start taking care of them here at home. Fort Stewart 466 wounded and other sickness GI's there. They have 2 Doctors to see to there needs. Way to go Rummy. Start a war with not enough medical staff to go around. We fight in Iraq you say we took over a country. So what were trying to give it back as fast as possiable. I guess we proved Saddam was a SOB. Big deal we all new that 15 years ago. By golly one thing Kennedy may have right above is all those Nots. Have not seen much proof of anything yet. Main thing is someone get those rubber stampers to at least do there job. Ask some tough question of our adminastration. If they do not have the balls to do it. We need to replace alot of them when elections come along.
If were so worried about our troops lets start taking care of them here at home. Fort Stewart 466 wounded and other sickness GI's there. They have 2 Doctors to see to there needs. Way to go Rummy. Start a war with not enough medical staff to go around. We fight in Iraq you say we took over a country. So what were trying to give it back as fast as possiable. I guess we proved Saddam was a SOB. Big deal we all new that 15 years ago. By golly one thing Kennedy may have right above is all those Nots. Have not seen much proof of anything yet. Main thing is someone get those rubber stampers to at least do there job. Ask some tough question of our adminastration. If they do not have the balls to do it. We need to replace alot of them when elections come along.
DJV I'm not sure why you think this isn't about the troops, after all the money to to help them get the hell out of there.
If you are still wanting to know why we went to war this is part of a speech by the president outlining the reasons for going to war with Iraq. I am going to ask you to read this excerpt and then tell me whether or not you think the president made the case. Come on now. This is a serious matter ... give it a read. These are remarks made by the president prior to the beginning of the war to oust Saddam Hussein:
Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. . . .
Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .
Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. . . .
One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. . . .
It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .
Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.
So, what do you think? Did the president made the case? It may well be that you believe that this is just more of the lies being told by George Bush just to get us into a war against Saddam Hussein, all so he can enrich his big corporate friends. Well, you would be wrong. I can prove to you that these are not the lies of George W. Bush, because these are not the words of George W. Bush. These are the words of Bill Clinton delivered in a speech on the steps of the Pentagon on on February 17, 1998.
If you would like to read more, especially if you want some information to use against your friends who think that Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy have made the right call on this one; here's your link to a tremendous article in Front Page Magazine.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=10288
If you are still wanting to know why we went to war this is part of a speech by the president outlining the reasons for going to war with Iraq. I am going to ask you to read this excerpt and then tell me whether or not you think the president made the case. Come on now. This is a serious matter ... give it a read. These are remarks made by the president prior to the beginning of the war to oust Saddam Hussein:
Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. . . .
Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .
Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. . . .
One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. . . .
It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .
Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.
So, what do you think? Did the president made the case? It may well be that you believe that this is just more of the lies being told by George Bush just to get us into a war against Saddam Hussein, all so he can enrich his big corporate friends. Well, you would be wrong. I can prove to you that these are not the lies of George W. Bush, because these are not the words of George W. Bush. These are the words of Bill Clinton delivered in a speech on the steps of the Pentagon on on February 17, 1998.
If you would like to read more, especially if you want some information to use against your friends who think that Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy have made the right call on this one; here's your link to a tremendous article in Front Page Magazine.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=10288
Last edited:
Turf we have heard this crap over and over. And much of what we went there for has just not been found. Both parties are spining chit at us. Thats why I said someone ask some tough questions. This just ok keep rubber stamping it. Well it just plain nuts. And yes Bush will win again. And yes I may even vote for him. But I just wish he would get rid of the crook Cheneny. And the one that causes him evenmore trouble rummhead. And no more landing on aircraft carriers acting like he knows what the chit he's doing. Just be president. Goback to drinking and being cocky when he's done.
87 Billion could do wonders for addressing the health care crisis in this nation. Then again why would that be important to War mongering Right Wingers? I forgot, let's nation build third world countries while millions are without proper coverage here and struggle to make ends meet. :banghead:
Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards and every other politician who voted against this funding request was sending a message to our troops in Iraq, their families at home, Saddam Hussein and his supporters, Islamic terrorists and the international community.
The messages these Democrats are sending are clear:
To our troops in Iraq -- while we may pay homage to "supporting our troops" in reality, we don't. We are not going to provide the funds that are necessary to continue caring for you in the field. What's more, we do not approve of what you have accomplished thus far.
To Saddam and his supporters -- you had us pretty much figured out. Once you showed that you were willing to wage a war of attrition against our troops, killing a few here and a few there, we folded. We want out. You can now proceed with your plans to return Saddam to the seat of power in Baghdad. What's more, once you have achieved your victory over America you will be free to reinstitute your weapons programs as you see fit. There will be no more inspections, no more cruise missiles, and no more pressure from the United States to halt your weapons programs.
To the people of Iraq -- brace yourselves. As you may have suspected, America does not have the resolve and courage to stick to this campaign. Soon your ruthless dictator will return. This means that the midnight disappearances, the torture, the killings and the mass graves will soon return. If you cooperated with the Americans during our aborted attempt to rid you of this devil, we're sorry. You will most assuredly be targeted by Saddam's thugs and murdered. They have been watching, knowing that soon we would turn tail and run and leave you to their revenge.
To Islamic terrorists around the world -- the way is clear. We will no longer bring the war to you on your soil. We will simply wait for you to bring your jihad to us, or, if you like, we will do whatever is in our power to appease you at every turn. We do not have the stomach for a fight. Appeasement is by far our preferred course of action.
To the International Community -- The United States herewith withdraws from any responsibility to work with our allies in fighting terrorism. We are henceforth going to follow the path of appeasement. You would be well-advised to do the same.
And to the American people -- Brace yourselves. Islamic terrorists around the world will soon be celebrating the return of Saddam Hussein and the Baath party to power in Iraq. We have abandoned the path of confrontation and eradication and have chosen instead the path of appeasement and withdrawal. Saddam will soon renew his production of weapons of mass destruction and his attempts to build nuclear weapons. At some time it is certain that these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists, and eventually make their way to our country. This will undoubtedly increase the probability of a terrorist attack on our home soil. To prevent such an attack we will be taking even more draconian security measures in our homeland. In short order we will be issuing national identity cards which you will be required to have on your person at all times. You will also be subject to searches of your home, your automobiles and your person at any time. Sorry, but in the face of the terrorist threat we are going to have so suspend nuisances such as "probable cause" or warrants before we conduct these searches, or before we tap your telephone lines and internet computers.
This is the future waiting for America and the world if these appeasers ever regain their much-coveted political power in Washington. Our nation is in far more danger now than it has even been since the Civil War --- and the choice has never been more clear for the voters.
We either confront these Islamic terrorists and those who have and would support them, or we don't. We either confront them on foreign soil, or we enact draconian measures here at home to avoid the confrontation on our own soil. We fight or run. If the party of appeasement takes control after next year's elections many of you will be instituting your escape plans. The rest of you will be wishing you had one.
The messages these Democrats are sending are clear:
To our troops in Iraq -- while we may pay homage to "supporting our troops" in reality, we don't. We are not going to provide the funds that are necessary to continue caring for you in the field. What's more, we do not approve of what you have accomplished thus far.
To Saddam and his supporters -- you had us pretty much figured out. Once you showed that you were willing to wage a war of attrition against our troops, killing a few here and a few there, we folded. We want out. You can now proceed with your plans to return Saddam to the seat of power in Baghdad. What's more, once you have achieved your victory over America you will be free to reinstitute your weapons programs as you see fit. There will be no more inspections, no more cruise missiles, and no more pressure from the United States to halt your weapons programs.
To the people of Iraq -- brace yourselves. As you may have suspected, America does not have the resolve and courage to stick to this campaign. Soon your ruthless dictator will return. This means that the midnight disappearances, the torture, the killings and the mass graves will soon return. If you cooperated with the Americans during our aborted attempt to rid you of this devil, we're sorry. You will most assuredly be targeted by Saddam's thugs and murdered. They have been watching, knowing that soon we would turn tail and run and leave you to their revenge.
To Islamic terrorists around the world -- the way is clear. We will no longer bring the war to you on your soil. We will simply wait for you to bring your jihad to us, or, if you like, we will do whatever is in our power to appease you at every turn. We do not have the stomach for a fight. Appeasement is by far our preferred course of action.
To the International Community -- The United States herewith withdraws from any responsibility to work with our allies in fighting terrorism. We are henceforth going to follow the path of appeasement. You would be well-advised to do the same.
And to the American people -- Brace yourselves. Islamic terrorists around the world will soon be celebrating the return of Saddam Hussein and the Baath party to power in Iraq. We have abandoned the path of confrontation and eradication and have chosen instead the path of appeasement and withdrawal. Saddam will soon renew his production of weapons of mass destruction and his attempts to build nuclear weapons. At some time it is certain that these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists, and eventually make their way to our country. This will undoubtedly increase the probability of a terrorist attack on our home soil. To prevent such an attack we will be taking even more draconian security measures in our homeland. In short order we will be issuing national identity cards which you will be required to have on your person at all times. You will also be subject to searches of your home, your automobiles and your person at any time. Sorry, but in the face of the terrorist threat we are going to have so suspend nuisances such as "probable cause" or warrants before we conduct these searches, or before we tap your telephone lines and internet computers.
This is the future waiting for America and the world if these appeasers ever regain their much-coveted political power in Washington. Our nation is in far more danger now than it has even been since the Civil War --- and the choice has never been more clear for the voters.
We either confront these Islamic terrorists and those who have and would support them, or we don't. We either confront them on foreign soil, or we enact draconian measures here at home to avoid the confrontation on our own soil. We fight or run. If the party of appeasement takes control after next year's elections many of you will be instituting your escape plans. The rest of you will be wishing you had one.
Without a doubt the War in Iraq was the wrong one to fight. But the question is now "How do we handle this mess we find ourselves in?" All though it is clear that crooks like Cheney and guys like Rummy, who did business with and propped up Saddam while he was doing these acts that we find so repulsive today are not the guys to deal with it. I have not heard any acceptable exit plan put forth by the Dems.
Last edited:
THE MEDICAL TREATMENT OF OUR SOLDIERS
THE MEDICAL TREATMENT OF OUR SOLDIERS
The Pentagon is now saying that it is going to investigate the stories about hundreds of sick and wounded National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers waiting, sometimes for weeks or months, to see doctors at Ft. Stewart in Georgia. Some of these soldiers served in Iraq and may well be suffering from injuries suffered there. United Press International reports that one document shows that there are no more available appointments to see doctors until after Veterans Day.
Are you watching what's happening to these reserve and guard soldiers in Georgia? Well, look hard, my friends. Today it's National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers at Ft. Stewart. Tomorrow it's you. This is government health care. This is what happens when you turn the health care of these people over to government ... and this is the future of health care in the United States.
This is the future of health care in America because you believe that your health care isn't your business. No ... it's up to your employer or the government to take care of your health needs, certainly not you. Life insurance, auto insurance, homeowners insurance .. that's fine. You'll go out there and competitively shop for those products. But health insurance? No way! That's not your responsibility, is it? Noooooo. That's your employer's responsibility.
Unless there is a huge and very quick change of attitude on the part of the American people, socialized medicine is inevitable in the United States. Right now these soldiers at Ft. Stewart have to wait weeks or months to see a doctor. Wait until the politicians get their way way with some sort of national health care plan. What makes you think they can do any better administering health care on a national basis than they can on one Army post?
Read the stories about Ft. Stewart closely. It's your medical future they're talking about down there.
THE MEDICAL TREATMENT OF OUR SOLDIERS
The Pentagon is now saying that it is going to investigate the stories about hundreds of sick and wounded National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers waiting, sometimes for weeks or months, to see doctors at Ft. Stewart in Georgia. Some of these soldiers served in Iraq and may well be suffering from injuries suffered there. United Press International reports that one document shows that there are no more available appointments to see doctors until after Veterans Day.
Are you watching what's happening to these reserve and guard soldiers in Georgia? Well, look hard, my friends. Today it's National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers at Ft. Stewart. Tomorrow it's you. This is government health care. This is what happens when you turn the health care of these people over to government ... and this is the future of health care in the United States.
This is the future of health care in America because you believe that your health care isn't your business. No ... it's up to your employer or the government to take care of your health needs, certainly not you. Life insurance, auto insurance, homeowners insurance .. that's fine. You'll go out there and competitively shop for those products. But health insurance? No way! That's not your responsibility, is it? Noooooo. That's your employer's responsibility.
Unless there is a huge and very quick change of attitude on the part of the American people, socialized medicine is inevitable in the United States. Right now these soldiers at Ft. Stewart have to wait weeks or months to see a doctor. Wait until the politicians get their way way with some sort of national health care plan. What makes you think they can do any better administering health care on a national basis than they can on one Army post?
Read the stories about Ft. Stewart closely. It's your medical future they're talking about down there.
Turf your still spining. Nobody voted against the 60 Billion part of the package. Thats for our guys. At least thats what is being said. It's the next 27 billion the votes are against and questions are being asked as they should be. Even 12 republicans have the guts to ask. So just dont say those Dems. And what the hell has sick soldiers got to do with our screwed up health care system. Planning would have taken care of our Soldiers. But no one planned very good. Our Services health care system is not all that bad. Ask Marine he has it. But when there is no plan from the Df's department. Then you get what they got in Fort Stewart. A big screw up. Hey only one guys at the top of all this and the buck stops there. No need to try and drop it everyplace else. Have the guy in charge take charge. Or vote or fire his butt. Some guys we dont get to vote for. So you hope the Pres takes care of them with a kick in the ass. It's like funds for all us Vets. They keep cuting the heck out of them. I cant believe the cuts in last two years. Maybe second time they asked for my help I should have said screw you. What you done for the Vets lately. But you see we didn't think that way. It's God and Country. And someone better start thinking about the country soon.
do people honestly believe that Saddam was a good boy and destroyed his weapons? you don't think he possibly sold ,traded or hid these weapon's ? why would he give up his presidency and his power if had really cooperated with all of the united nations demands?:shrug:
"Without a doubt the War in Iraq was the wrong one to fight"
Without a doubt to whom??????
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...e=5&u=/usatoday/20031024/ts_usatoday/11919603
If you want a truely without a doubt scenario
Try: We should have taken Bin Laden when offered in pryor admisistration when we had opportunity.
I am glad we finally don't take the sit back and do nothing attitude and its nice to have someone with some balls that will visit these volitole countries "against sercret service"s advice" to get to the heart of the matter. He's trying despite the risk or perils in these countries.
However I am sure the same 4 or 5 here along with the rest of the left are much more impressed with our previous administration travel intinerary.
"The jet-setting, globe-trotting Hillary Clinton has created a rare breed of arrogance in American politics; a new set of standards, for the First Lady of the White House. She is the first First Lady to have ever testified before a federal grand jury (Whitewater). She is the first First Lady to have been subject to federal criminal investigations (Travelgate, Filegate, et. al.) Now, she wants to set another marker and become the first First Lady to run for political office while her husband is still in office. And she believes she has every right to conduct her campaign on the taxpayers dime.
Actually, the taxpayers may have paid as much as $17 million to $34 million, for the 66 solo trips in the last six years and another $16 million for the additional 16 trips with her impeached husband Bill. This fixation with New York was reported in the June 11th Washington Times"
Without a doubt to whom??????
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...e=5&u=/usatoday/20031024/ts_usatoday/11919603
If you want a truely without a doubt scenario
Try: We should have taken Bin Laden when offered in pryor admisistration when we had opportunity.
I am glad we finally don't take the sit back and do nothing attitude and its nice to have someone with some balls that will visit these volitole countries "against sercret service"s advice" to get to the heart of the matter. He's trying despite the risk or perils in these countries.
However I am sure the same 4 or 5 here along with the rest of the left are much more impressed with our previous administration travel intinerary.
"The jet-setting, globe-trotting Hillary Clinton has created a rare breed of arrogance in American politics; a new set of standards, for the First Lady of the White House. She is the first First Lady to have ever testified before a federal grand jury (Whitewater). She is the first First Lady to have been subject to federal criminal investigations (Travelgate, Filegate, et. al.) Now, she wants to set another marker and become the first First Lady to run for political office while her husband is still in office. And she believes she has every right to conduct her campaign on the taxpayers dime.
Actually, the taxpayers may have paid as much as $17 million to $34 million, for the 66 solo trips in the last six years and another $16 million for the additional 16 trips with her impeached husband Bill. This fixation with New York was reported in the June 11th Washington Times"
Last edited:
DTB you lost be alittle on this one. I was talking about the billions going down some rat hole. We cant take care of our wonded and sick soldiers here at home the right way. I mean its a dam shame. 8 more wounded and 2 killed yeaterday and today. I guess im to look at the good side of Iraq. And I will when ever it shows up and our soldiers are not dying every week. Im dont really care about Hillary and Bill there old story spin material. Im more worried about the future. Looking back at all our old Presidents mistakes just proves how they all had there failings.
But just handing out money like candy. Well 'im glad a bunch of elected officials are at least asking why and how you going to spend it. They should be doing that if there really looking out for you and me.
But just handing out money like candy. Well 'im glad a bunch of elected officials are at least asking why and how you going to spend it. They should be doing that if there really looking out for you and me.
