Posted on 03/16/2009 9:47:34 PM PDT by utahson
A few days ago I posted about the Obama administration’s plan to rob soldiers of some of their medical benefits. Today the head of the American Legion (the nation’s largest veterans organization) paid a visit to Obama to talk about the issue, and he didn’t leave happy.Normally I am a staunch advocate of limited government and privatization. But in this instance we have troops who served their country, often in awful war zones that left them scarred and maimed, and they did so with the assumption that medical care would be one of the benefits they’d receive as compensation. The government has no business trying to opt out of that.
(Excerpt) Read more at kxmc.com ...
Me and the other 90%. He was gifted with 90% approval rating in 2001 and used it to make most of the country dislike him and the R party and capitalism.
BTW: I think of Bush everyday when Obama comes on the radio or TV so getting WELL is not an option. Thanks George!
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. If we were to accept your myopic/specious reasoning about President Bush, we would also have to conclude that both Presidents Lincoln and Reagan were failures.
Since I’ve already mentioned the correlation with Lincoln, I’ll use this post to provide you with ‘abit of historical perspective vis a vis Reagan.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:
1.) Who controlled Congress when President Reagan left office (versus most of his tenure in office)?
SENATE (1985-87)— 53 Republicans / 47 Democrats
SENATE (1987-89)— 55 Democrats / 45 Republicans
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm
HOUSE (1981-83) — 242 Democrats / 192 Republicans
HOUSE (1989-91) — 260 Democrats / 175 Republicans
http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/partyDiv.html
-
2.) During the 1992 election cycle, on whom did the electorate blame the bad economy — an assessment that delivered the White House to Bill Clinton?
According to Gallup, a majority blamed the economic policies of Ronald Reagan (who at the time had a lower post-presidency JA rating than Jimmy Carter — 47% to 49%).
-
3.) Why do ‘conservatives’ ignore President Reagan’s historically high spending/deficits as well as other center-left policies (e.g., amnesty)?
Conservatives ignore Reagan’s deficits/center-left policies because he (Reagan) was fighting and winning a COLD war at the time.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I do believe that during his tenure, President Bush was fighting and winning a HOT war — and a hot war trumps a cold war every time!
-
Additional perspective from Karl Rove:
“At home, Mr. Bush cut income taxes for every American who pays taxes. He also cut taxes on capital, investment and savings. The result was 52 months of growth and the strongest economy of any developed country.
Mr. Bush was right to match tax cuts with spending restraint. This is a source of dispute, especially among conservatives, but the record is there to see. Bill Clinton’s last budget increased domestic nonsecurity discretionary spending by 16%. Mr. Bush cut that to 6.2% growth in his first budget, 5.5% in his second, 4.3% in his third, 2.2% in his fourth, and then below inflation, on average, since. That isn’t the sum total of the fiscal record, of course — but it’s a key part of it.”
—Karl Rove
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258532378704477.html
Maybe this will soothe you during your withdrawal stages,s.o.l.; we all want the best for you...
.......................................................
It’s become de rigueur to deride Bush’s “failed” policies in Iraq. No one speaks well of them — except, maybe, Iraqis.
But here are the facts, stark as they are: During his vicious 20-year reign, Saddam Hussein — remember him? — killed an estimated 5% of Iraq’s population. That works out to about 5,000 people a month slaughtered by the regime.
You might disagree that Bush was right to depose this murderous thug. But in doing so, you would then have to defend the deaths of thousands of innocents.
For those who say Bush went to war in Iraq under false pretenses — you know, “Bush lied, people died” — there’s this: He made a lengthy, nuanced defense of his decision to get rid of Saddam. It was reflected in Congress’ own resolution in late 2002, which cited 23 reasons for removing Saddam from power.
The ideas that it was all about oil or that Congress was bamboozled on WMD are both false.
Bush, Congress and our foreign allies all saw the same intelligence, and all came to the same conclusion: Saddam had a nuclear weapons program, and intended to build one as soon as he was able. That was, and remained, true.
After being bashed relentlessly in the media and on the campaign trail, President Bush left the White House with his approval ratings low and little, except his dignity, intact.
If he is to have a Truman-like reprieve in the public eye, it will surely come as we all start to realize that on Iraq, contrary to popular and elite opinion, Bush got it right. Mission accomplished.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=322096047909804
Fight the urge to Bash Bush, s.o.l.; I know you’ve got it in you. We’re pulling for you......
***The result was 52 months of growth and the strongest economy of any developed country.***
lol
***Bill Clinton’s last budget increased domestic nonsecurity discretionary spending by 16%. Mr. Bush cut that to 6.2% growth in his first budget, 5.5% in his second, 4.3% in his third, 2.2% in his fourth, and then below inflation, on average, since.***
And how about non-discretionary spending? Medicare part D anyone? What I see with Bush (and a Republican controlled Congress) is deficit after deficit, increased government in the name of conservatism, subsequent damage to the conservative label, and a Marxist in the White House as a repudiation of Bush and what people think is capitalism’s fault.
LOL. Nice try. the problem was GWB didnt sell the public on a humanitarian mission, he sold them on WMDs and “Mushroom Clouds” . But let's play your game. If Iraq was so critical to something, than why didnt GWB enact an Iraq tax? All you Neo-cons would have been glad to pay more taxes to save all those lives (or whatever). But No! Your moral outrage went more like “This war is critical, but I am not paying for it. I want a tax cut. Let someone elses kids pay for it. But I get to take moral credit for supporting it. A true Great American who cares!” . GWB didnt fund the Iraq war with an Iraq tax because he would have lost the election in 2004. Moral my a...
BTTT
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!
I supported the war with Iraq as a high-school student in 2002 and 2003 on the grounds that Iraq's government was developing "weapons of mass destruction," or WMDs, in violation of U.N. resolutions to which the U.S. was a party.
Of course, after the aforementioned WMDs were not found (aside from a stock of yellowcake uranium), the Bush administration and the hawks changed their tune and said that we were in Iraq for humanitarian and "national security" purposes. [Any time a government official plays the "national security" card, chances are good that they just don't want to tell you the real reasons and that they think you'll believe their horse puckey.]
Who abandoned MIAs to normalize relations with Vietnam. Who wanted to tax health benefits to create nationalized health care. Who supports gun control efforts like “closing the gun show loophole” and the “assault weapon” ban. Who supports illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens.
McCain was only better than Obama by a few degrees. And he didn’t run like he wanted to win, anyway. I voted for McCain, but it hurt. If ‘Pubbies put up another @$$h@+ like that for their presidential candidate, I’ll have to reconsider joining the Losertarians.
LOL. The strong economy speaks for itself.(Anybody else here unimpressed with Bush economy??) So what if he cut our taxes? He put all his reckless spending on the nation's credit card. That's still taxing us but in a sneaky way. If you give GWB credit for throwing money away he didnt have to raise himself you have to praise Obama too, something I cant do.
RE” Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I do believe that during his tenure, President Bush was fighting and winning a HOT war — and a hot war trumps a cold war every time! ”
So you give him special points for invading countries and leaving office with our troops still in action?? Well then if he invaded a few more like North Korea and Iran and left troops there too, and he put it all on the nation's credit card, he would look even better to you. Not me. The only way he can get credit for this is if the WOT was won and all our troops in the middle East could come home and miliary could be cut (like after Reagan.)
I am not going back to Clinton. Bush was president for 8 years and had his own congress for 5-6. No one will buy Clinton who had a republican congress is to blame for GWB after all these years. Clinton became irrelevant about 2005. Dont even try Carter!
GWB left office with combat troops in two countries. It’s not like his invasions won the WOT and all the troops come home and we get that peace dividend, like with Reagan. Reagan truly was a winner, and we didnt have invade the USSR either.
This is no game as far as I'm concerned.
I'm sincerely trying to help you overcome your obsession. But you need to want to. I can't help you unless you're willing to help yourself.
I extend the the same helping hand to any friends you have who share your affliction.
Probably not. Forty years ago everyone was a veteran - business, politics, media, entertainment. Now very few are. Almost no politicians. Almost none of the conservative media. Almost none of the business leaders. And none of the entertainers. Who's left that Obama would even care about?
OK, now I understand: You’re an ‘I hate Jews, but love earmarks’ Ron Paul hypocrite . . . ‘nuf said. [FYI: I won’t be wasting any more of my time with you.]
Our affliction?
Isn’t that exactly how the left uses psychologists/psychiatrists/whatever to say that conservatives have mental and emotional issues, which is why we “cling” to such “backward”, “unenlightened”, and “regressive” ideologies?
LOL
No, we didn’t invade USSR; however, one could argue that Reagan’s withdrawal from Lebanon (after we lost almost 300 Marines) helped empower the terrorists that President Bush was forced to fight.
Why NOT CARTER?? He is at blame here?? He singlehandedly Gave the Whack Jobs an entire Country Iran that has the ME in Flames and Crapped on our Friends,Taking out Saddam was a necessity and may have saved a American city Too continue Carter gave us the Community reinvestment act also and look at the wondrous things that have sprung forth (sarc).
Anybody else get that I hate Jews from #69 because I say Bush is a disaster. Bush never sold Iraq on Israel either if that was the real reason as you think. But his Iraq invasion means that USA wont lift a finger to save Israel from Iran now. Heck, 80% of Jews voted for Obama against your hero Bush(against RINO McCain).
Earmarks? Ron Paul? Not taking your bait.
RE “out Saddam was a necessity and may have saved a American city Too “
You dont believe that. If it was so important GWB would have actually funded it with Iraq tax. It wasnt important enough to actually pay for with taxes or budget cuts(both unpopular) . Let someone else do that. Let them take the heat. Well Obama will not take the blame,. He will tack on all his wasteful spending and Blame republicans for it all and public is buying it.
Here’s some light reading for you and your merry band. Maybe you’ll find your “Mushroom Clouds” there...
Consider it therapeutical...
.....................................................
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
Public Law 107-243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations’’ and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations’’;
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace
and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’’;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),’’ that Iraq’s repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’’ and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’’;
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge’’ posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,’’ while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’’;
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’’.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to—
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) Authorization.—The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) Presidential Determination.—In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.—
(1) Specific statutory authorization.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.—Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) President Reports.—
The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit
to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint
resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise
of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such
actions are completed, including those actions described in
section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law
105-338).
(b) Single Consolidated Report.—To the extent that the submission
of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission
of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.—To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report
required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the
requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Approved October 16, 2002.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.