Scrappy
Market Tracker
- Reaction score
- 11
Originally Posted by phil
So.....It was Clinton who just spent over 700 billion of our dollars in Iraq?
CLINTON AND CONGRESS HAVE COMPROMISED U.S. DEFENSE ARSENAL MAKING WAR AGAINST A REGIME FAR LESS THREATENING THAN CHINA, RUSSIA, CUBA, OR KOREA
"As president, Bill Clinton has...squandered $5.5 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars on containing the Iraqi threat — and that's before the costly Desert Fox operation launched Wednesday. On Wednesday alone, some 200 cruise missiles were fired by the Navy at Iraqi targets. Each one of those high-tech bombs cost about $1 million. that's $200 million right there, just on ordnance, in one day...."
CRUISE MISSILES COST MORE THAN ALL INDEPENDENT PROSECUTORS
"Yesterday, they began launching the more expensive cruise missiles — fired from the Air Force's B-52s. Those two-ton babies cost more than $2 million each....
"Last October, Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which provided $97 million in military aid to opposition groups in the country....Earlier this year, the U.S. set aside $5 million for the support of Iraqi political opposition, and another $5 million for broadcasting by Radio Free Iraq. But all that is peanuts compared to the price tag for enforcing the no-fly zones. That project cost U.S. taxpayers $2 billion in 1998 alone, and that's far from the total cost. It doesn't include expenses involved in deploying forces in the region last February.
"That was the last big buildup by Clinton. It involved 34 ships, 440 planes, and 44,000 troops. In November, we went through a similar exercise involving 14 ships, 300 planes and 27,500 troops. Now we've got Desert Fox...."
"Last October, Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which provided $97 million in military aid to opposition groups in the country....Earlier this year, the U.S. set aside $5 million for the support of Iraqi political opposition, and another $5 million for broadcasting by Radio Free Iraq. But all that is peanuts compared to the price tag for enforcing the no-fly zones. That project cost U.S. taxpayers $2 billion in 1998 alone, and that's far from the total cost. It doesn't include expenses involved in deploying forces in the region last February.
"That was the last big buildup by Clinton. It involved 34 ships, 440 planes, and 44,000 troops. In November, we went through a similar exercise involving 14 ships, 300 planes and 27,500 troops. Now we've got Desert Fox...."
Thats right........ROOT CAUSE. Hey, the neocons suckered Clinton also. Phil, there is a theory that he was sucked into it, not suckered. But no one put a gone to his head and a pen in his hand.Once bitten, twice warned. In your world, the only way a democrat can be at fault for anything is if they are suckered and then in your reality they aren't really at fault at all.
What "law" did Clinton sign? "
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon August 9 that U.S. policy continues to be driven by the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, which calls for a change of regime in Iraq.
Quoting from the legislation -- passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton -- the secretary said, "It is the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
Yes, but it doesn't say how much money we're going to waste on it, nor the number of people we're going to kill. 700 billion is a pricetag that the former administration did NOT approach the American people with. Clinton also listened to the neocons at the time, a fatal error. Never again! Talk about waste, this was the most wasteful Federal program in history. Are you talking about all that $$ above? If it were Clinton, we wouldn't be spending this much on it. For so very little.
SEE above.
All he did was listen to the neocons tell him about Chalabi. What a joke that was. The joke's on us.:laugh:
Invading Iraq was counterproductive in chasing down Al-Qaeda. No WMD in Iraq, no Al-Qaeda. Clinton wasn't interested in WMD's. He had a little bit of Monica in his life.......
"Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born high-school dropout whose leadership of the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq made him the most wanted man in Iraq, was killed along with several other people near the city of Baqubah, the officials said."
"Copying Osama bin Laden's leadership strategy, Zarqawi set up numerous semi-autonomous terrorist cells across Iraq, many of which could continue operating after his death."Is Zarqawi ALL you have? He wasn't even IN Iraq during 9/11. Even if he was, is THIS what we're going to base our involvement on. Your time line keeps getting skewed. Besides, you said: Invading Iraq was counterproductive in chasing down Al-Qaeda. I merely posted one of many oppositions to that false statement. :laugh: Hey! You should be working for DIA! I do. I am right down the hall from you every day!
He's been left with two wars, and a broken economy. Enough said.
He wasn't "left with" anything. He initiated a campaign intentionally seeking to take on what would become his responsiblities the day he entered office whatever good and bad that entailed. If only the "hope and change" rhetoric could have been backed up with solid previous experience and accomplishments to indicate the possibility of anything potentially positive occuring. Ugly, vedddy ugly baby! :toung:
We'll see. He still has to remove everything from Iraq, immediately, like he said during the campaign or in 16 months like he said shortly after entering office, or in 19 months going against his generals recommendations of 24 months? Will he bring everyone home or just change the name of the indefinitly remaining troops to disguise his big lie or in your understanding "acceptable little flip flop? Or will it all pan out like the well defined exit strategy from guantanamo bay? and of course try to repair our international reputation which was tarnished probably beyond hope by the former administration. Where is the love? Jihad is over? And try to redirect a lot of resources from wasteful government spending. YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING?!?! By increasing the deficit by trillions more?
In August, President Obama proclaimed that he would not tolerate pork in the defense budget by declaring “If a project doesn’t support our troops, we will not fund it.” He is being accused again of a substantial gap between his rhetoric and the reality of his politics. (That is PC for "he lied") He just signed the 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill with an estimated $4.2 billion in pork contained in 1,720 earmarks.
In a flagrant violation of the promise of both Obama and the Democrats, the defense bill is a continuation of the pork politics that they said that they would end. The bill includes the following:
∙$5 million for a visitors center in San Francisco
. $54 million for a flood-control project that will raise two trestles used by the Napa Valley Wine Train
∙$23 million for indigent health care in Hawaii
∙$18 million for the Edward Kennedy Policy Institute in Massachusetts
∙$1.6 million to computerize hospital records in Oakland
.$1.6 million for a Monterey graduate school
∙$47 million for anti-drug training centers around the country
∙$20 million for the World War II Museum in Louisiana
∙$3.9 million grant to develop an energy-efficient solar film for buildings
∙$800,000 for minority prostate cancer research
∙$3.6 million for marijuana eradication in Kentucky
∙$2.4 million for handicap access and a sprinkler system at a community club in New York
Contradictory in what respect? What are you telling me is a useless endeavor? Pakistan, Afghanistan, capturing bin laden......what? Bin Laden's still not in Iraq. Hey, here's a plan! Let's take out Saddam Hussein instead, and pretend we got Bin Laden. I wonder if that was what Clinton was thinking when he signe the law? Here's some video from one of your friends. Watch it. It's funny.....but somehow very very sad. The fact of the matter is, as anyone will tell you, the Iraq war was counterproductive to fighting Al-Qaeda. False statement!
Clinton didn't spend 700 billion of our money, either. Ok, how much did he spend? Zero right? The neocons put a gun to his head and a pen in his hand. Nor did he cause the deaths of thousands of people. Clinton initiated and put into action what evolved.
False statement? YES, a false statement. You said "as anyone will tell you". How many people would I have to ask and reply to you to receive oh say $1,000 for being wrong? You don't know anything, do you? Is that all you got? All you can do is try to hold on to a rationale that never existed. How could it not exist? You just don't know how to construe it to fit what you want to believe. It's as if I'd told you there was no Santa Claus. I was raised without the belief in santa claus. Now what? Don Rumsfeld was chasing SH years after he was dead, that's how ridiculous it had become. That's just sad, terribly sad....I guess that is from the video that I am going to watch right now.
:cheesy::nuts:
