That's exactly what I've been arguing on this thread about the congressmen who voted for the Iraqi war.

#44 | Posted by goatman

Based on intel and 'hunches' scrubbed of all doubt before Congress read it, and pie-in-the-sky lowballing of it's time and cost.

#47 | Posted by goatman

The GOP ran all the committees and Congress with an iron fist (Tom Delay was Speaker in 2002). Then, there was the "terrorist appeaser", "defeatocrats" crap to deal with so soon after 9/11.

Why should Congressmen disbelieve what they thought was honestly presented intel by the WH, only later found out to be sanitized of doubts by our own intelligence community?

You're so quickly forgetting all the "there can be no doubt Saddam posseses WMD's" and the then already debunked Yellowcake allegations and 'looming mushroom clouds' that were still included in the SOTU address and presented as fact after the WH's own investigator - sent by THEM to examine that allegation - told them there wasn't a lick of truth to it. Yet, still presented as fact.

There are only a handful of Americans who think Iraq was worth the blood, treasure, and reputation of the U.S. looking back at it with facts as we know them now that never saw the light of day before invasion ... by the WH's own hand.

The record on the myriad of half and complete untruths told to Congress and the American people is well documented.

Sanitized of the doubts our own intelligence community raised.....

Committee chairs set the agenda, party leaders set vote timetables. They were all Tom Delay and Trent Lott's lackies - many in the GOP threatened when they raised the slightest doubts about any legislation.

Who would have suspected Bush and Co were lying their asses off in some cases and hadn't included substantial doubts by the intelligence community in the 'top secret' reports members of Congress had as their main information? God knows, those who were sent to testify painted one rosy scenario after another. Well, except Army Chief of Staff Shinseki, the only guy who was right but got a forced retirement out of it for telling the truth.

Americans expect their Presidents to be honest when it comes to matters of national security, and we thought W was after 9/11. His approval rating was 90%. Bad mistake. Watergate seems like a minor case of shoplifting in comparison to the fraud that bunch perpetrated on America and the world.

#51 | Posted by goatman

I called him a 'liar'. You called him dumb.

That, too. But he is a politician after all. They all lie

#59 | Posted by goatman

4000 American deaths, hundreds of thousands of Iraq dead, and $2,000,000,000,000 dollars. Those lies had consequenced in a league of their own.

#63 | Posted by goatman

Those who were vocal in opposition were promptly accused of being 'soft on terrorism' - or much worse - inside and outside the halls of Congress.

Congressional Democrats voted for the 'authorization' to invade Iraq based on the intelligence the WH provided, which we now know was sanitized of the many doubts within our own intelligence community. H. Clinton and John Kerry both stated their votes were to authorize war as a last recourse.

However, as you know, once Bush got the vote the war machine cranked into high gear. No more UN inspections. Just 'shock and awe', which later took on a whole 'nother meaning to the American public: Shock at how dishonest the WH was, and awe at their ineptness in planning and executing the war they wanted so badly.

As I mentioned further up this thread, the GOP controlled both houses and all the committees and all the votes. The WH controlled all the intelligence and rhetoric. The Dems didn't have the votes to stop it in any case.

Republicans are using filibusters and the threat of them more frequently than ever before in the history of the U.S. Dems didn't do that to the GOP when they were in power. Majority rule in a democracy was 50% + 1. The GOP hasn't gotten that memo yet.

"So, you're saying...":

My posts are literally written in plain English. You can read what I said, but will no doubt interpret it however you feel it benefits your particular POV. They don't say 'stubborn as a goat' for no reason. :-)

Oh, and you might recall Joe Lieberman isn't a Democrat. In fact, he spoke at the GOP convention and campaigned for McCain.

#68 | Posted by goatman

If a President tells Congress we're under the threat of imminent attack, what American wouldn't be for defending ourselves from that threat?

If, however, he says the same things over and over while knowing those statements are untrue and hides intelligence that casts doubt on his claims, the result would be the same in the absence of the truth.

Congress voted on intel they were given - scrubbed of truth. They did their best with what they were given, which was a boatload of ONLY the information the WH wanted them to have. Congress has no intel service of it's own.

GOATMAN

Your a master at assigning false positions. Good work! LOL

Tad,

Goatman is as far from a 'leftist lose-a-war-for-votes Democrat as it gets.

And I"m a dumbass for not noticing I typed 'your' instead of "you're".

GOATMAN: "You did say that you think congress did the best they could concerning Iraq."

I didn't say I thought they were great, I said they did the best they could with the information provided about the threat from Iraq - which was incomplete, inaccurate at best, and passed in the heat of insane 'anti-American' rhetoric about anyone who would dare vote against or protest W's plans.

GOATMAN: "You said that Delay ran committee with an iron fist (implying the dems were intimidated from doing anything)"

I didn't say that. I said Delay ran the House with an iron first, the GOP ran committees and scheduled votes, were in control of the debate, and intimidation was done to GOP Congressmen BY the GOP leadership.

TADOWE

You're so far off base concerning Goatman you may as well be playing outfield for the team on an adjacent diamond.

I'm going for a Chelada

Breakfast of group home bingo champions

Yes, there were surpluses. Who says there weren't? Do you have a link.

Posted by Eddie

A couple DR right wingers were saying there weren't Clinton surpluses just the other day parroting:

Rush Douchebag doing the same, which has been parroted from DR to eternity - well, until now, when the GOP want to take credit (where were they 2001-2009, and why didn't THEY run surpluses and pay off the debt by last year as could happend?)

VIDEO: Limbaugh repeats false claim that there were no budget surpluses under Clinton

"Dr. Mindknower, I see Tadowe's other symptoms including delusions of grandeur are as prevalent as ever. (sigh!) Is the Dogmatil helping his paranoia? Hm. The notes don't indicate it. I recommend further studies, shock treatments, and renewed physical restraint. Say, you're securely locking your office door so he doesn't have computer access, aren't you?"

No Republicans are saying that there wasn't a Surplus, mostly because they claim responsibility for it.

#115 | Posted by Eddie

Wonder why, when the GOP had Congress and the WH, they couldn't manage to do it again instead running up the largest national debt accumulation in one administration in world history all by themselves. It's not as though they couldn't have held to stated GOP principles and paid it off. Words and actions on their part are utterly paradoxical.

Eberly

You must be drunk tonight. You aren't usually an asshole. Booze do that to you? I'd quit.

I picked this handle because that's my hope for America, but this place is full of right wingers spouting jingoism who are as snarky a bunch of assholes as you'd find anywhere. They'll never be for unity of any kind. They have a hard enough time attempting to be decent human beings once in a great while.

Aren't we talking about the Republicans being responsible for the Surplus while Clinton happened to be in office?

Why can't you simply talk about that?

Why do you NEED to bring up Bush II?

Because the same folks who built this mountain of debt while saying they were for fiscal responsibility now whine about debt and deficits? They had their shot to make their rhetoric match their actions and completely failed.

I realize the right wing has a hard time taking responsibility for doing that, but hey, 2001-2009 actually DID happen and we DID accumulate $12 Trillion of debt instead of paying off the national debt as Clinton laid out a plan to do by LAST YEAR. Get it?

Increasing taxes on the rich has never increased revenue.

#128 | Posted by Eddie

Decreasing them certainly has decreased revenues. We had increased revenues year to year under far higher tax rates than the top 39% tax rate under Clinton. When Reagan began slashing taxes he ballooned the national debt from just under $500 Billion to $2.6 Trillion - 5x's as large.

EDDIE

You right wingers throw around 'lie' so frivolously it's lost every bit of zing, dude. Last bastion of a failed POV. Favorite of 3rd graders.

What 'lie' are you talking about? That the GOP were hypocrites who, when in total power, racked up a $12 Trillion deficit, that they could have paid off the national debt, that Reagan's tax cuts led to a quintupling of the national debt? That their trying to lay claim to Clinton surpluses.

History books say that's all true.

That their trying to lay claim to Clinton surpluses is hogwash?

REINHEIT

Next thing, after posting facts, they'll be calling you a 'liar' and a 'pussy'. Facts are WAY too inconvenient to the right wing meme. So, they turn into 3rd graders, whine and throw a tantrum instead of carrying out a civil, logical debate, as exhibited here daily.

I've posted facts, REINHEIT has, you still argue.

If what YOU say were true, they'd have continued throughout the last decade too, riiiiiiiight?

AU makes himself a stupid liar.

Everyone knows that it was the Democratic congress who spends the money, dufus ... and your clownish pretense not to know that Democrats are the spending fools is becoming more than just obvious ...

... you idiotic clown of partisanship!

#148 | Posted by tadowe

Tell us, Tadowe, why the GOP left record debt and deficits when they had TOTAL power and spent like the drunkest sailors in the history of the world? Better take your meds first. If you're honest, it's gonna hurt.

You left out 'pants on fire'. Shame on you! You're dead wrong about everything else you spewed in that post.

too

Facts are lying? Hm. Most of the world thinks that's when you said something you know to be untrue. In this case, the facts - widely available to the intellectually curious - are well known.

This is false!

NOT FACT!!!!

Clinton had very very little to do with it.

#153 | Posted by Eddie

Well, in that case, I'm delirious the GOP paid off the national debt and didn't run a single deficit once they had complete control of Congress and the WH for several years following Clinton, who submitted the budgets. (Is that more like the 'truth' you wanted to hear?)

I forgot poor Ronnie Raygun. You're right, EDDIE he didn't increase the national debt 5X's to $2.6 Trillion via tax cuts and our first trillion dollar budgets. It was only triple.

(that feel better?)

09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32 (Reagan's last)
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00 (Carter's last)

REINHEIT

My favorite at your link was from this airbag:

Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas), 8/2/93: "The impact on job creation is going to be devastating, and the American young people in particular will suffer a fairly substantial deferment of their lives because there simply won't be jobs for the next two to three years to go around to our young graduates across the country."

How'd 21,000,000 new good paying jobs during the Clinton years work out for his dismal psychic powers? Just heard Armey whining about deficits and debt - the very things he voted FOR time and time again.

Didn't hear a peep from Armey about the millions of jobs lost during Bush's Presidency or real wages falling either. Those loudmouthed tools are all too much alike.

GOATMAN

If you read the quotes REINHEIT linked from GOP members in 1993, you might be inclined to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. They were dead wrong without a single exception.

Wrong again, the increased tax revenues allowed the balanced budget. The funniest part of the fight to get the Deficit Reduction Act passed came from the losers'comments made before the bill passed. The bill passed without a single vote from the same repugs who later tried to. claim responsibility for the surpluses

Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio), 7/28/93: "This plan will not work. If it was to work, then I'd have to become a Democrat." (N.B.: Kasich remains a Republican, despite the economic boom and surpluses of the Clinton years.)

Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.), 3/17/93: "[This] will stifle economic growth, destroy jobs, reduce revenues and increase the deficit."

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), 3/17/93: "It will be the kind of impact that this country can't absorb. It will slow economic growth, contribute to the massive federal deficit."

Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.), 5/27/93: "This is really the Dr. Kevorkian plan for our economy."

Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas), 8/2/93: "The impact on job creation is going to be devastating, and the American young people in particular will suffer a fairly substantial deferment of their lives because there simply won't be jobs for the next two to three years to go around to our young graduates across the country."

Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), 8/4/93: "[This] will raise your taxes, increase the deficit and kill over 1 million jobs."

Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), 8/5/93: "I believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable."

Rep. Armey, 8/5/93: "The economy will sputter along. Dreams will be put off and all this for the hollow promise of deficit reduction and magical theories of lower interest rates. Like so many of the president's past promises, deficit reduction will be another cruel hoax."

Rep. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), 8/5/93: "It will not cut the deficit. It will not create jobs. And it will not cut spending."

Rep. Robert Dornan (R-Calif.), 8/5/93: "The problem with our economy is that there is too little employment and too little growth. This plan will do nothing to improve that condition and will actually make it worse."

Rep. Thomas Ewing (R-Ill.), 8/5/93: "This bill is a disaster waiting to happen."

Rep. Phil Crane (R-Ill.), 3/18/93: "[This bill is] a recipe for economic and fiscal disaster."

And finally, Kasich again, 8/5/93: "Do you know what? This is your package. We will come back here next year and try to help you when this puts the economy in the gutter." Of course, such help wasn't needed with a booming economy.

#140 | Posted by reinheitsgebot

This idiot's still in office:

Rep. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), 8/5/93: "It will not cut the deficit. It will not create jobs. And it will not cut spending."

Cut deficit, created 21,000,000 jobs, and created surpluses. He'd better not hang a "Lady Seealot - PSYCHIC" shingle. Pity is, they can't remember the past 8 years either.

Guess I could post links from Democrat comments on deficit spending, or the well known relative good times of the era before the GOP and Bush II took power. You'd have to admit the GOP hold the trophy for the most debt, lost jobs, and hypocrisy when you compare the two.

GOAT

Sorry, wrong link

:-)

Facts aren't hiding. Charts and graphs of job creation, deficits, debt - everything you need to draw conclusions your own conclusions are available. They've been posted here too many times to count. The recent record of total GOP control is well known....

Hmm. I didn't think the main thrust of several posts on this thread was about hypocrisy, but about GOP governance once they had the whole enchilada - and were complete hypocrites who left a wake of destruction foreign and domestic. Name one time the Dems have done that and done the opposite of their stated party platform?

In recent months, you've heard about deficit reduction, and next year's budget freezes discretionary spending. Obama's called for a bipartisan commission on the national debt and taken steps to figure out how to bring it down. They're trying to get bank regulation tightened (with a lot of fight from the GOP). That certainly wouldn't be called hypocrisy by Obama or the Dems, would it?

where can I find hypocrisy quantified so I can verify your statement that the republicans are more hypocritical?

The past 80 years for starters. Dems have never abandoned their party platform. On the other side of the aisle no one's been as utterly and completely hypocritical as the GOP Congress and Bush did.

The list is too long to put in even two posts, from Bush's 'no nation building', 'I won't put troops into harms way without a clear exit strategy', 'I'm a peacemaker', to the Newt Republicans who did the opposite of everything they ran on once they had the whole enchilada.

Democrats have never done that. They held Congress during the best years this country ever saw, from men on the moon to a middle class where one salary was sufficient to support a family.

Democrat party principles haven't changed in 100 years. "Blue Dog Democrats" are old fashioned Eisenhower Republicans.

I never go to these right wing sites that generate lists of who lied, who's the hypocrite as so many here do, (left or right, depending on the person, of course) so it's not as easy for me to cite such facts off the top of my head as you do.

That makes two of us who don't do that. I don't watch talking heads. I'm not interested in opinions.

The facts I go for are numbers that don't lie. As to what 'he said', with the internet you can find a verifiable report or qoute and compare that to actual action 24/7. Thank god for a free press. Right wingers, by and large, don't comprehend what unbiased 'reporting' is. If someone says or does something the 'dreaded MSM' reports it without commentary. Cable outlets and wacko political sites don't interest me at all.

Everyone is granted an opinion, but no one has a right to make up their own facts.

GOAT

I'm not getting into your circle jerk semantics.

You've lived in this country as long as I have. You know what Dems stand for and what Repubs say they stand for. Dems have tried to enact their principles into law, the Repubs, by and large, have clearly exhibited hypocrisy since 2001 by doing the opposite of what they say they stand for. Give me an example of the Dems doing that. You lived through it. Have you lost your memory out there on Castaway Island? LOL

And, I ball up all the GOP's economic actions in total control with their 'fiscal responsibility' BS. 2 tax cuts when you're going to war is not responsible. Nothing they did was responsible and 180 degrees from what they said they stood for.

BTW, I meant 'circle jerk' in a facetious way. But, Homie don't play that anyway.

That was from a REINHEIT post earlier.

#180

GOAT, this administration is more transparent than any before it. Certainly, for national security reasons, they can't blab about those things, but every proposal is online, sites are up that list government expenditures to the penny. What more could you expect?

As a party, Democrats have worked to enact stated principles through their whole existence as a political party. You point to 'hope and change'. Well, we are getting a lot of necessary 'change' from regulatory reform to addressing our fiscal situation openly and pragmatically. 'Hope' is up to the individual. What's life if you don't have hope things can and will get better? There's a vast difference between a cynic and an optimist. Personally, I'm a strong optimist with touch of cynical views of hypocrites.

Then there are the videoed public town hall meetings Obama holds on one hand vs W's non-election time 'loyalty oath' town meetings with no one holding opposition views or non-Republicans even allowed to attend on the other.

I'm not anti-GOP. Eisenhower was a giant. But, while the Dems have acted on their principles, the GOP of today can't name one they haven't utterly abandoned in practice.

oops post 166 I mean, not 167

#189 | Posted by goatman

#167 contained a quote from #166 I found especially ironic

GOAT

Both versions of the health care bill are online. Anyone can read it:

There ya go ....

Oh, another topic. LOL

We've announced where they'll be moved (to IL, over GOP objections to anywhere in the U.S.) and are down to less than 100 detainees at Gitmo. It's all about logistics, not abandoned principles, which were set in motion here:

#200 | Posted by goatman

A majority of Obama's campaign was financed by individual contributors. He promised to not let lobbyists work in or have a rotating door and he's followed through.

Congressional Democrats get money from big interests like any other national politician, but they've done miles more for the average American than the GOP ever did and stuck to principles. Blue Dog Democrats are Eisenhower Republicans who represent Republican districts.

#200 | Posted by goatman

Which party nominated Alito and Roberts, the deciding SCOTUS judges who just allowed a floodgate of corporate contributions into our political process?

Yes, campaign financing is a big issue, and one reason I used to respect John McCain back in the 'Feingold/McCain' era. I lost respect for him when he refused to release 90% of the 2004 investigation and by his Indian Affairs Committee of Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, and Grover Norquist - who literally used the WH for their nefarious purposes. Had his eyes on 2008 I suspect. Too many heads would roll ...

Lobbyists shouldn't be allowed to donate to politicians. Legal bribery. The Right dominated SCOTUS would shoot that down, as they recently proved. But, what's the alternative to current campaign spending gone amok? Free TV time and government financed campaigns for national office. Guess who'd be the first to oppose THAT? Begins with an R.... ends in an 'n'.... "Government takeover of our election process" would be yet another new meme.

A majority of Obama's campaiwas financed by individual contributors.

The majority? Are you sure of that?

Yes. More than half his campaign contributions ($500,000,000) were from small donors who did so via his website. Average individual donation? $80.

And lobbyists still infiltrate DC like roaches. As long as there are lobbyists, there is allegiance to the corporation. That much is simple.

#204 | Posted by goatman

Couldn't agree more. What Obama said he'd do about it in his sphere if elected has been followed to the letter.

Obama Raised Half a Billion Online

#207 | Posted by goatman

That's a great idea in principle, but how to fund campaigns? Free TV, government funding of all Congressionsl and Presidential elections. Primary candidates get funds too. The same amount.

You'd hear "Government Takeover" talk seconds after that idea was floated - which has been proposed several times in the past.

On another topic, caught any Tuna lately out there on the rig? Man, that must be a real treat. There's one place here you can buy tuna flown in that day, but still couldn't be exactly called 'fresh catch'.

So, he'll be lobbying for Goldman-Sachs? I don't think so. They aren't in the good graces of the Obama White House after TARP and egregious bonuses. Guess we'll see what happens.... It may go away for all we know. He isn't at that post as of yet.

BTW, next time post a link from a credible 'news' site, not "DONE DEMS .com". LOL The story was also available on ABCNEWS and others (I just checked).

Yes, still catching tuna and mahi-mahi. Delicious stuff!

You dog.

Well, I have to turn in. Today is my birthday and I get to celebrate by getting out of this sling I've had since before Christmas. Been nursing a shoulder injury for a few weeks that was painful and shot nerves down my arm. Not a good mix with what I do. Almost all better now. Probably won't be online so much once I'm back to 100% and back to working long hours again.

Been a nice long vacation though. Have a good one..

Thanks, GOATMAN. I can say 'bon voyage' to this sling too. I'd better get my bunyon soak and Geritol shot ready LOL PS No gray hair yet. Must have come with the good hair genes.

Nite, man

Email.

BTW, couldn't pass up saying 'absolutely the right idea!' to this post:

Election funding? Do it like the Brits. Limit campaigns to 3 months before the election and let the taxpayers pay for it. Shouldn't be but a couple of bucks per person, if that. A very small price for campaign honesty

GOATMAN

OK. I'm outta here.