Marcus M says

confused sandusky steve, if it was about oil, why don't we have any control over the Iraq oil?  Check your history JFK sent the first military "advisors" to Vietnam and LBJ made it an American war, I believe they were both democrappers, Nixon got us out, I believe he was a Republican.  The mess in Iran today can be linked to the mishandling of the revolution in that country when peanut Carter was president, yet another democrapper.Clinton claimed Iraq had WMD and attacked locations in Iraq. Obozo was guns a blazing in Lybia,  where is he now while Syria is killing its own citizens everyday?

typical democrapper

goofus says

Quid pro quo Rootie tootie frootie brootie, your posts makes me want to throw up!!!!!!

JFK was a better trickle down,strong defense, anti welfare democrat was more republican than McCain.

6079 Smith W says

@ Doggie:

LMAO!!!

A conservative, pro-defense Dem like JFK would be quickly ousted from today's Commiecrat Party.

So why did Mr. Clinton lie about WMD in order to attack Iraq?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc

The Big Dog's back says

 GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said today that watching John F. Kennedy’s speech to the Baptist ministers in Houston in 1960 made him want to “throw up.”

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For, while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew -- or a Quaker -- or a Unitarian -- or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim -- but tomorrow it may be you -- until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end -- where all men and all churches are treated as equal -- where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice -- where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind -- and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, both the lay and the pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe -- a great office that must be neither humbled by making it the instrument of any religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding it, its occupancy from the members of any religious group. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty (nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so). And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test -- even by indirection -- for if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it.

I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none -- who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require him to fulfill -- and whose fulfillment of his Presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in -- and this is the kind of America I fought for in the South Pacific and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we might have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened "the freedoms for which our forefathers died."

And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers did die when they fled here to escape religious test oaths, that denied office to members of less favored churches, when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom -- and when they fought at the shrine I visited today -- the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died Fuentes and McCafferty and Bailey and Bedillio and Carey -- but no one knows whether they were Catholics or not. For there was no religious test there.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of fourteen years in the Congress -- on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I attended myself) -- and instead of doing this do not judge me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we have all seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic Church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and rarely relevant to any situation here -- and always omitting of course, that statement of the American bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts -- why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit or prosecute the free exercise of any other religion. And that goes for any persecution at any time, by anyone, in any country.

And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would also cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as France and Ireland -- and the independence of such statesmen as de Gaulle and Adenauer.

But let me stress again that these are my views -- for, contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.

I do not speak for my church on public matters -- and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected -- on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling, or any other subject -- I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come -- and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible -- when my office would require me to either violate my conscience, or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office, and I hope any other conscientious public servant would do likewise.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election. If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate satisfied that I tried my best and was fairly judged.

But if this election is decided on the basis that 40,000,000 Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win this election, I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency -- practically identical, I might add with the oath I have taken for fourteen years in the Congress. For, without reservation, I can, and I quote "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution so help me God."

Source: New York Times, September 13, 1960

goofus says

Stevie old buddy the draft never stopped until after Viet Nam. It was never stopped after WW2.

In 1973, the draft ended and the U.S. converted to an All-Volunteer military.

The registration requirement was suspended in April 1975. It was resumed again in 1980 by President Carter in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Registration continues today as a hedge against underestimating the number of servicemen needed in a future crisis

origen says

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/24/exclusive_state_department_quietly_warning_region_on_syrian_wmds Here comes the WMD buildup to the next police action, Sorry folks it never ends.

6079 Smith W says

@ El Guapo:

I totally understand that the Dems had the same access to info as Pres. Bush. If they voted for it then they were either stupid or liars as well.

Why did Mr. Clinton lie about WMD and attack Iraq?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc

origen says

Fact. There is only one canidate who is against war and for bringing the troops home running for president, Might want to look up if he is a Dem or a repub. (My bet hes a libertarian)

goofus says

OMG a democrat lied about a war!!!!! I'm shocked and appalled!!!!!!

goofus says

Alas stevie you were making such progress, now I't seems you have reverted to liberal moonbat  rantings. Ike initially put 900 advisiors in South Vietnam. Kennedy had 16,000 military personnel in country be 1963. The Tonkin Resolution gave LBJ war powers and the number of military swelled to 200,000. Nixon through his Vietnamization Program started pulling troops out right up to the fall of saigon. If you remember Nixon's checkers speech, Vietnam was for stopping communism in the region. I ask you today is Burma,Thailand, India, Philippines, Laos, Cambodia communist? I think not. Here's a little dirty trick carried out be LBJ,A democrat.

On 2 August 1964, the USS Maddox, on an intelligence mission along North Vietnam's coast, allegedly fired upon and damaged several torpedo boats that had been stalking it in the Gulf of Tonkin.^[133] A second attack was reported two days later on the USS Turner Joy and Maddox in the same area. The circumstances of the attack were murky. Lyndon Johnson commented to Undersecretary of State George Ball that "those sailors out there may have been shooting at flying fish."^[134]

The second attack led to retaliatory air strikes, prompted Congress to approve the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on August 5, 1964, signed by Johnson, and gave the President power to conduct military operations in Southeast Asia without declaring war.^[135] Although Congressmen at the time denied that this was a full scale war declaration, the Tonkin Resolution allowed the President unilateral power to launch a full scale war if the President deemed neccessary.^[135] In the same month, Johnson pledged that he was not "... committing American boys to fighting a war that I think ought to be fought by the boys of Asia to help protect their own land."^[136]

An undated NSA publication declassified in 2005, however, revealed that there was no attack on 4 August.^[137] It had already been called into question long before this. "Gulf of Tonkin incident", writes Louise Gerdes, "is an oft-cited example of the way in which Johnson misled the American people to gain support for his foreign policy in Vietnam."^[138] George C. Herring argues, however, that McNamara and the Pentagon "did not knowingly lie about the alleged attacks, but they were obviously in a mood to retaliate and they seem to have selected from the evidence available to them those parts that confirmed what they wanted to believe."

sanduskysteve says

Goofus - I agree to protect our people, but I also agree that you directly attack those that did it - not someone you just want to go after because "Daddy" didn't get the job finished.  It took a Democrat to get the person that was truely responsible for killing Americans on american soil.

Many people to go foreign countries even after being warned not to - it's their own fault if they get into the middle of something - that's not something we need the military to handle - it's something those victim's parents should have handled when they were smaller - IE: teach them if someone tells you it's dangerous for you to do it - you do it at your own risk.

This was about oil and nothing more and anyone with a brain knows it.

sanduskysteve says

mikel - didn't we get involved with WWII AFTER we were attacked directly on our soil???   Can't count that one - and you failed to count the Iraq war - both of them, which the two Bushes got us into as well as the Vietnam "conflict" which Nixon (whom was a very bad person) got us into.  Wasn't Nixon a republican?  That war went on and on and on and costs tons and tons of money and killed all kinds of our troops in the process along with all of the experimentation on the troops that went on during that time as well.

I wouldn't be forgiving those situations very easily.

And Nixon may not have actually started that mess, but he did more to prolong it - actually increased the draft numbers in order to put more troops in harms way rather than get out of it.

goofus says

And numerous countries have never killed one american, such a maroon!

goofus says

Proof is not the moonbat Keith Olberdummy ranting, there is a reason MSNBC cable news network has two comedy shows ranked higher in viewers!!!

El Guapo says

@6079 Smith, I thought I already explained why some dems voted for the Iraq resolution, but perhaps it takes you a few times of reading it to understand.  The Bush administration painted a false picture of the dangers Iraq posed.  They fabricated, lied, and deceived to get America to back this war, I already posted the lies, view them if you like.  You can view Cheney and Bush in their own words lying their hearts out.  

I truly do not understand the bloodlust right wingnuts have for war.   They are willing to kill mass populations of foreign countries that did not threaten us and are no threat to us.  The domestic equivelant would be a cop shooting someone because they thought they might have a weapon, dont you wingnuts see how insane that is.   Then you have these same wingnuts defend the hutaree wackos even though they have the weapons to carry it out, plan and want to kill police officers and their families, and are on tape stating their intentions.   Truely bizarre group of people these right wingnuts are. 

mikel says

mr romney: if an effort to shore up the rapidly approaching default of the social security due to the inadequate funding by obumbles and the raping of its funds by many you recommend that the age requirement be moved to an older age.  may i offer these recommendations as alternatives: 1) repeal the recently passed tax act.  this only deprives the fund of much needed monies. 2) get serious about fraud. 3) re-evaluate all who are currently disability benefits. 4) eliminate funding to all individuals that have lost a parent and their surviving parent has been remarried.  however, only if the joint income of both individuals is more than $60,000. 5) last but not least.  PAY BACK all funds that the gov't has raped from this entity.  problem solved.

i have been somewhat of a supporter for you until this point.  so, to get my vote you better re-consider this issue.

6079 Smith W says

El Guapo writes:

"What you dont understand is that the dems and the American people were fed lie after lie by Bush, his administration, and appointees."

So the following big Dem Senators who voted for the Iraq Resolution were either stupid or ignorant?

2.* Joe Biden (D-DE)
8. * Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
9. * Tom Daschle (D-SD)
10.* Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
12. * John Edwards (D-NC)
13. * Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
14.* Tom Harkin (D-IA)
17. * John Kerry (D-MA)
25.* Harry Reid (D-NV)
26. * Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
27. ** Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070408204446AAbNZDq

The CIA and every intelligence agency in the world believed that Saddam had WMD.

Regardless, regime change in Iraq was also the policy of the Clinton Admin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

So why is Mr. Obama gettin' us involved in Uganda, Libya, Somalia, Australia and other places?

mikel says

guapo - come on.  dems don't start wars?  fdr = ww2, truman = korea, lbj = 'nam, obumbles = libya, obumbles = afghanistan (he has escalated the conflict with enormus costs related to it).

looks like the dems are actually the warhawks!!!!!  the only thing the gop has started is the gulf wars.  so, guapo, not only do the libitards give away money like candy to any person that asks for it but they also spendddddd like they are getting free money from china on any and all wars!!!.........oh wait, obumbles is getting money from china and he thinks it is free.  what a dumbocrap.

goofus says

Moonbats and sooper trooper, use your heads for something other than a hat rack, think!

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/24/exclusive_state_department_quietly_warning_region_on_syrian_wmds

WMD act II. Now how does syria, a neighbor of Iraq amass a stockpile of WMD's under everybody's nose. Hmmmm, there was satellite evidence of large volumes of trucks moving from Iraq to Syria just before the invasion. From the article they have ICBM's stockpiled with mustard gas and nerve gas, sort of like what Saddam used on the Kurds. Hmmmm. Don't let the other moonbat hatred of Bush cloud your critical thinking, use your street smarts!

El Guapo says

@6079 Smith,   ref your comment "Love how the Dems tend to run away from their initial participation and support for the conflicts and whine: It's Bush's fault!"

What you dont understand is that the dems and the American people were fed lie after lie by Bush, his administration, and appointees.   I posted a few of them, and can do many more, using video of their own words so as dont think some left leaning web site made it up.   They lied, lied again, and lied some more to exagerate the threat Saddam was.  The Bush Admin used 911 to fake a link between Saddam and Al Queda, they said he was seeking or had nukes, depending on the lie.  etc...   So yes the reason we went to war with Iraq lies solely with repubs and their deceit.

goofus says

sanduskysteve says

Kent state killings were over protesters protesting the war - as were the riots in Chicago in that same time period.  I'm done - it's of absolutely no use attempting to have a discussion with Smith and Goofy - whom is missing from Disney World apparently.

So how many were killed?

goofus says

I'm pleased as punch that I've become a thorn in the side of the left. And the rest of the know nothing sects. Thank you President Steve your patronage will not go unrewarded.

Almost forgot How many millions were killed protesting the VietNam war, especially in Chicago and Kent State. LOL    ROFLMAO at President Steve

sanduskysteve says

Thanks buckeye - but his name calling doesn't bother me - he is very uninformed in so many ways it isn't even funny - but you have to laugh at his comments most of the time.  The more angry he becomes though, the more uncredible he becomes.

His funniest antics are when he puts words in someone's mouth claiming they said something they didn't and he won't copy and paste my exact quotes because it wouldn't allow him to claim something or change the subject as well.

goofus says

Thanks eyebuck, I will take note of that!

buckeye15 says

Dear goofus,

Every time you call someone names you lose what little credibility you had left.

goofus says

Stevie how many thousands were killed at Kent State?Why is the arrest of John David Chapman for killing Lennon a scam Next time I talk to a family friend that is a corrections officer at Attica, I'll ask him why Chapman was set up by the government. ROFLMAO at stevie.

Thousands died, hmmm funny I can't find that number I know how many were killed at Kent but found none at chicago or elsewhere except the two kooks that set them selves on fire>

sanduskysteve says

Kent state killings were over protesters protesting the war - as were the riots in Chicago in that same time period.  I'm done - it's of absolutely no use attempting to have a discussion with Smith and Goofy - whom is missing from Disney World apparently.

And when I typed Iran, I meant Iraq and you knew that very well based on the discussion that led up to that comment - please......

And the arrest for John Lennon killing is just about as good as Oswald for JFK's killing - both were scams as far as I'm concerned.

6079 Smith W says

sanduskysteve writes:

"Bush admitted that the intelligence he based going into Iran was wrong"

POTUS Bush invaded Iran? When was this?

You're flailing stevie.

No Vietnam protests initially stevie, that came around '68 after the Tet Offensive.

The govt. killed thousands of protesters during the Vietnam War?

Mark Chapman was arrested and imprisoned for shooting Lennon in 1980 long after the Vietnam War was over.

Yikes! What fanatasy land are you living in?

sanduskysteve says

Sorry - Bush admitted that the intelligence he based going into Iran was wrong and that they really didn't have WMDs.  THAT was the reason he gave for going into Iraq in the first place.

As to the point that Americans were against the Vietnam war - I did NOT say congress or the president was against it - I said the majority of Americans were.

There were protestors in almost every city and the govenrment killed literally hundreds and maybe even thousands of protestors to shut them up.  Check that out - Chicago riots and kent state riots just to name a few.  And yes, it was the government - it was local police and at Kent State it was the Ohio National Guard.  Those were just two places.  And I believe that the reason they never arrested anyone for the killing of John Lennon was because the government was behind that as well - they wanted that guy shut up as he supported the protesters.

Why would hte government be afraid of some kids protesting the war?

origen says

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5IYGroW1nA Guess the citizens have to have papers for thier instruments from the gestapo these days.

goofus says

President Steve, so what was Bush wrong for, I never heard where he said he was wrong. The whole mission was the ousting of Saddam's regime. Forget it I'm tired of arguing with lame brains, gotta get across the street to the racetrack 125's about to start.

origen says

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/ The fact stands that it WAS passed for our entry to invade. Note who voted against the war. Now with that in mind, Attacking soveriegn nations tracking down terrorist will cause tension between the two countrys and guess where we will end up again? Iran this summer will be fun to watch (Seeing that the present admin doesnt even ask congress and goes in without reguards to the actual rules of engagement)

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1112a.asp

When the government cannot have a foriegn country to dominate over they create crises to fix here at home.

6079 Smith W says

@ sanduskysteve:

Lota guessin' there stevie boy - if this, then that. LOL.

America didn't support Vietnam? Better check your facts on who voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

"The unanimous affirmative vote in the House of Representatives was 416-0."

Both houses of Congress and the presidency were controlled by....DEMOCRATS!!! Wow! Stevie!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution

The U.S. borrows most of it's money from China? Quess again - try the U.S. Federal Reserve.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29880401/The_Biggest_Holders_of_US_Government_Debt

Quit whining and get educated would ya?

goofus says

Why is the left always on the wrong side of an old issue.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/why-iraq-was-inevitable/

Gee you mean the super smart dems were tricked by a texas rube LOL  How could a dumb texan trick the nation?

Kerry,Pelosi,Biden,both Clintons,and Edwards all supported the war.

sanduskysteve says

ElGuapo - you are absolutely correct in all that you said.  I like how Smith tells me I don't remember correctly nor do I read - I have been saying all along there wouldn't have been the approval of that war if congress and the american people were not lied to by Mr. Bush.  After he finally admitted that he was wrong, the approval rating dropped like dead flies.  And do you guys honestly think that if the american public did NOT approve of the war that Bush wouldn't have done it anyway?  America seriously did not approve the Vietnam war and the president got into it anyway - so I'm not sure that Bush would have really cared that much about it.

And we were borrowing tons and tons of money everyday almost from China to fund that war - it was not paid for and went on for so long - this is why we got into the debt mess we are in right now.  We will probably never be able to pay back China all that we owe them for this war.

6079 Smith W says

El Guapo writes:

"I love how the repubs are trying to push the blame of the Iraq/Afhanistan wars on dems now."

LMAO!!!

Love how the Dems tend to run away from their initial participation and support for the conflicts and whine: It's Bush's fault!

             "It's Bush's Fault!"

El Guapo says

I love how the repubs are trying to push the blame of the Iraq/Afhanistan wars on dems now.   Repubs this is all yours http://costsofwar.org/ revel in it.   Dems want to spend money to give people health care, feed the poor, take care of our elderly, improve the environment.  Repubs just want to give the wealthy more money, spend trillions on useless wars that benefit the oil companies only. The repubs apparently have no had enough of it, all the repub chicken hawks are now pushing for war with Iran.

In case repubs dont remember the lies the Bush admin pushed to sell the Iraq war, here our some funny ones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-FfXmhmj5E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SUBGtRIiXo

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-23/politics/bush.iraq_1_intelligence-flaws-iraq-and-al-qaeda-study?_s=PM:POLITICS

http://www.alternet.org/story/16274

http://www.wnd.com/2003/07/19746/

6079 Smith W says

ss writes:

"And if I remember correctly,"

That's the problem stevie, you don't remember correctly nor do you read.

Initially, the Iraq War had an almost 70% approval from the American people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq

6079 Smith W says

@ goofus:

Thanks - good point.

Of course there is no inflation. That's why $1.00 in the yr. 1900 is now only worth 4 ¢, or $1.00 in 1950 is currently worth 11 ¢.

Why do the so-called 1% have much of the wealth? Because unlike most of the middle and lower classes, they saved and invested in assets that appreciated - like financials, commodities, etc.

Yep! And those public employee pension trusts just keep investing more assets with those evil private equity managers.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-23/state-pensions-find-private-equity-bites-as-blackstone-cuts-jobs.html

sanduskysteve says

Once again - it was Bush's lies concerning WMDs that caused the agreement by congress and dems to vote to go.  And if I remember correctly, there was a lot of noise from around the world against this strike because the UN did not agree with doing this - they wanted to have more inspections because those which were done previously didn't find much to worry about.

goofus says

Winston did you see this Forbes Article in today's perusing

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/02/22/gasoline-prices-are-not-rising-the-dollar-is-falling/

6079 Smith W says

Let's also conveniently forget that 208 Dems voted for the Iraq Resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Guess those Dems were just too stupid and were outfoxed by that "dummy" Bush huh?

Huh. Ron Paul voted against it. Whowouldathunk?

How many in Congress voted for U.S. military involvement in Libya, Uganda or Somalia? How about that  new base in Australia?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-sends-100-us-troops-to-uganda-to-combat-lords-resistance-army/

http://blogs.abc.net.au/nsw/2011/11/obama-sends-in-the-troops.html

goofus says

NutBuck, If the president, congress, and your liberal United Nations called for the war with Iraq, how is it Illegal? No rants just tell me who deemed it illegal?

goofus says

NutBuck, first of all the 3 trillion cost of the Iraq War comes from a book , Three Trillion Dollar War:True Cost of the Iraq Conflict, wat ritten by former Clinton cabinet members(Clintonistas) Joeseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes both avowed liberal ivy league Bush Haters(public record). Stiglitz a Columbia professor was fired by the world bank and while with Clinton wrote Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Linda Bilmes was a community organizer(like Obozo) and now is a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School. Their high cost conflicts with the U.S government's Congressional Budget Office on trickery and accounting practices. They were using present value accounting using the cost of inflation adding 4.5% interest to get to their true value of money. They use the cost of treating wounded veterans whether they were war injuries or just regular military injuries as one. I imagine if little Johnny lost income from his paper route because of deployed military that cost was added. Here's a breakdown of the differences put out by the Congressional Budget Office, a non partisan branch of the U.S. Government. Y ou can believe tricky accounting by Bush hating clintonistas or the U.S. Government

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/24762

kURTje says

Coasterfan.      1more thing. Did not mean to infer you were whining.   Just meant that more crying would occur from others.               I have baby bottles for them too!           BAHAhah.

kURTje says

Thanxs coasterfan.      Some here know that I stated:" No matter who wins they"ll have a mess, wars cost big $$$."     That was posted here when McCain & Obama were running.        The rent is due.          What you stated about Clinton was true also.

buckeye15 says

Thank you for correcting my typing error.  But my point remains,  Bush's illegal and immoral war cost we the taxpayers far more than than what Obama has cost us, and wing nuts like goofus quoted keep lying about it, and sucking in low information people.

6079 Smith W says

@ buckeye15:

The article states $4 trillion, not "billion."

And we're still paying the emotional and financial costs of Democrat presidents Kennedy and LBJ's senseless war in Vietnam.

Wars are getting too @#$% expensive. Shut all foreign bases down - bring 'em all home.

If successful business is "right wing," what's stupidity and poverty - left wing?

buckeye15 says

Good try with the cost of the Iraq war goofus, but as usual, you are wrong again.  Marketwatch, which is a part of 6079's beloved right wing Wall Street Journal, says the true cost is around $4 billion.

articles.marketwatch.com/2011-12-15/general/30778140_1_iraq-war-iraq-and-afghanistan-veterans-budgetary-assessments

44846GWP says

I'm not sure who has more bull -hit, Santorum or Winnie Smith.