New jobless claims rise to 554K; more than expected (Reagan, illegal, weapon)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most people would not mind some debt to create jobs but in this case the debt has not created any net jobs but has created a negative amount of jobs.
I still cannot get anyone to answer two of my questions.
1. Did Obama not say that he would run the WH like we have to run our household budget?
2. Give me one important item Obama has done that has helped all Americans in 7 months.
I heard today that a local company in my home town where my parents live is filing bankruptcy next week, 4 years ago they had 800 employees, now down to 50 employees are going under. Sad.
I drove by a smaller branch local bank today and saw at least 40 cars in their lot with for sale signs on them. I have never seen this before where the bank parking lot looks like a car lot.
I believe this economy is worse then when Carter was in office and I believe it is going to get even worse.
Stop the wasteful spending because it is not doing anyone any good at all.
Record bankruptcies and foreclosures again in July.
2. Give me one important item Obama has done that has helped all Americans in 7 months.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 is an Act of Congress enacted by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by PresidentBarack Obama on January 29, 2009.
I know, all those dems who do not like wars and voted to send our troops to war is sad.
Here is some names of democrats who voted to send our troops to war.
Notice some of the prominent democratic names on this list.
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD) Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE) Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV) Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Wow, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Kerry, Reid, Shumer.
How dare those prominent dems do this to our troops.
So our current VP and Sec of State voted to send our troops to war.
I know nuance isn't a skill that the more rabid folks on the right possess, but TRY to follow along (since this has been explained ad nauseum and people STILL don't get it...).
The vote was to authorize the President to use force in Iraq. Bush claimed he needed that power or his hands would be tied in any type of negotiation..... I know you like to equate that as "Voting for war" or "Voting to go to war", but it is NOT the same thing....
Beyond that, they voted based on faulty intelligence which at the time, it was not known how shoddy the intelligence was, and the Administration didn't have any interest in finding out since it said what they wanted it to say.....
I know that's tough for you to grasp, so I'm not holding out a lot of hope that you'll understand, but I don't think it's fair to mischaracterize what these people were truly voting for either...
I know nuance isn't a skill that the more rabid folks on the right possess, but TRY to follow along (since this has been explained ad nauseum and people STILL don't get it...).
The vote was to authorize the President to use force in Iraq. Bush claimed he needed that power or his hands would be tied in any type of negotiation..... I know you like to equate that as "Voting for war" or "Voting to go to war", but it is NOT the same thing....
Beyond that, they voted based on faulty intelligence which at the time, it was not known how shoddy the intelligence was, and the Administration didn't have any interest in finding out since it said what they wanted it to say.....
I know that's tough for you to grasp, so I'm not holding out a lot of hope that you'll understand, but I don't think it's fair to mischaracterize what these people were truly voting for either...
Quote:
The most serious question has centered on whether or not the president needs congressional authorization to wage war. The current status of that debate seems to have settled into a recognition that a president can deploy military forces for small and limited operations, but needs at least congressional support if not explicit authorization for large and more open-ended military operations.
This calculus becomes important in this story as both President Clinton and President Bush chose not to seek a declaration of war on Bin Ladin after he had declared and begun to wage war on us, a declaration that they did not acknowledge publicly. Not until after 9/11 was a congressional authorization sought.
Finally, we closely examined the possibility that intelligence analysts were pressured by policymakers to change their judgments about Iraq’s nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs. The analysts who worked Iraqi weapons issues universally agreed that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. That said, it is hard to deny the conclusion that intelligence analysts worked in an environment that did not encourage skepticism about the conventional wisdom.
Smokescreen alert. The situation in 1998 (not to mention 1992) was very different from 2003. Bush lied. He lied to Congress. He lied to the UN. He lied to the American people and to the people of the world. No semantics. He proffered as the truth information that was invented outright, information that was thought to be false, and information that was known to be false. Bush had the votes to pass a Use of Force Resolution in the Senate in any case. The vote was cast as one of national unity as Bush prepared to go to the UN and ask them to put a credible threat of force behind their resolutions. How could he ask the UN to do what his own Congress would not do? The President had promised that he would pursue all means short of war. But he didn't. Once the resolution passed, he actively worked against all efforts short of war, finally launching his invasion before it was ready because of the threat that Hans Blix and the UN inspectors would prove conclusively that no WMD were present and no invasion was justified. There is no rhetoric or excusification that will wipe away Bush's deliberate deceit in bringing about an unnecessary and unjustified war of choice that he and his minions then grossly mismanaged while incurring huge costs in terms of prestige, money, and lives.
Based on what? The Left's never-ending mantra picked up by the liberal media?
The nuts can never provide any evidence for their claims. If bush lied, then the democrat congress surely would have gone forward with investigating and prosecuting, don't you think?
It's all left-wing propaganda to absolve the democrats of their culpability - and votes.
What parts of Powell's UN speech were true? Where were the WMD when Rummy said we knew right where they were? Where did Judith Miller's front-page lies come from? Who was Curveball? What was the purpose of the Office of Special Programs? When did IAEA put out a report that Iraq was six months from a nuclear weapon?
Apparently you have never asked yourself any of these questions or the many more that others have asked and answered, always leading to the conclusion posted above.
72. Under resolution 1284 (1999), Iraq is to provide “cooperation in all respects” to UNMOVIC and the IAEA. While the objective of the cooperation under this resolution, as under resolution 1441 (2002), is evidently the attainment, without delay, of verified disarmament, it is the cooperation that must be immediate, unconditional and active. Without the required cooperation, disarmament and its verification will be problematic. However, even with the requisite cooperation it will inevitably require some time.
73. During the period of time covered by the present report, Iraq could have made greater efforts to find any remaining proscribed items or provide credible evidence showing the absence of such items. The results in terms of disarmament have been very limited so far. The destruction of missiles, which is an important operation, has not yet begun. Iraq could have made full use of the declaration, which was submitted on 7 December. It is hard to understand why a number of the measures, which are now being taken, could not have been initiated earlier. If they had been taken earlier, they might have borne fruit by now. It is only by the middle of January and thereafter that Iraq has taken a number of steps, which have the potential of resulting either in the presentation for destruction of stocks or items that are proscribed or the presentation of relevant evidence solving long-standing unresolved disarmament issues.
After years of noncompliance some would have just continued on that path forever. Some totally ignore that noncompliance and in fact somehow give Saddam credibility even after events like:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
