Lost a dear friend today

[blue7.3]

Register to stop seeing this ad!

Originally Posted by Andy

Pete, are you a yoga instructor? A yoga instructor that drives a 7.3L diesel?

I'm feeling really relaxed now. Man, I picked a good moderator!

HEHE... I got 'ur Yoga riiight heeere...

-pete

[DickIsGone]

1. George Bush inherited a balanced budget and ran up a 4 trillion dollar debt.

Technically, he had a budget surplus. And the debt figure you're dreaming up was about really only about one trillion.
http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg
Not too bad at all considering wars on two separate fronts were going on.

2. Most of the economic collapse we are in happened during his presidency. The markets hit their low point under his presidency.

Ever hear of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac? Chris Dodd, Rham Emanual, or Barney Frank? Did you ever bother to listen to the tapes where the fed chairman was being dressed down by liberal senators and congressmen for warning that those two monstrosities were about to fold if the corruption and idiotic loan making continued?
I smell some serious BDS going on with this statement. (That's Bush Derangement Syndrome for those of you who are unfamiliar with the current political arena.)

3. 9/11 happened on his watch. In 1998 I talked to a NYC firefighter I know who talked about how he did his time at the Twin Towers and how he transferring since it was somebody elses turn to die (he did transfer but his unit was killed). In 1999 I listened to a presentation by FBI agents predicting a 9/11 type catastrophe. During this time the Republicans were busy criticizing Clinton for shooting a missle at Al Queda because it was a distraction from their obsession with Monica.

9/11 happened on his watch? So? What exactly does that prove?
And then you toss in your own personal world views based on hearsay, unverifiable "Soooper Secret™" conversations with a few spare buddies, and Clinton's obsession with anything on two legs? Give me a freaking break.
Let me guess... You're buying into Global Warming as well and Al Gore is the man?

4. He invaded a country that was not involved in terrorism. And then he really screwed things up by dismantaling the miltary and destroying all structure in the country. Is the country better off now? All I read are people in the US who say they are and people in the Middle East who say they are not.

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism? Dude... 32,000,000 people were terrorized, every single day. The Senate & Congress both said go for it, much like this health care crap, capich?
Plus, he had a few people on your side of the aisle claiming Iraq was an eminent threat.


"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003


"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

We destroyed all of the structure? Every bit of it? Even my favorite crapper in SW Baghdad? Now I'm pissed!!!!!!
Fly over to Iraq, hang out for a year or so. Interview the people yourself, and then let me know what ya think, m'kay?

Other than this, I can't help you.