From the op-ed page of yesterday's NYTimes... http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/08/07/opinion/20040808_opart.html (From the work I do, it's clear that the $350 million for integrating first responder radio systems is needed and would have been money well spent.)
What year are you living in?? If that's the best you can do and that's your line of reasoning, then don't forget to add Shrub Sr. to the list.
Clinton saved enough money/credit to get money so that if a threat arose like it did after Bush came into office, we would be able to handle it accordingly. Bush didn't handle it accordingly and mismanaged funds. This leads to the inabillity for us to respond to the problem accordingly.
I saw a reference to this in the "Why I'm voting for whomever" thread, and I'm glad I did. I was on a little vacation and missed it. If someone is wondering whether or not Bush's decision to invade Iraq and occupy the country had consequences, when it was an option, perhaps you should check this out. A President is elected to govern. He/she is elected to make decisions which affect us all. The caveat is that if those decisions were in error, and had an adverse affect on our country, we get the Chance to vote the President out of office in the next election... if a majority votes to do so, of course. That's our system and, more or less, it works. George W. Bush made the decision to invade Iraq and occupy it. If you believe that it was a mistake, then you should rectify that in November by voting him out of office. Looking at the results of a President's decisions is an important part of that process.
That chart is great and ridiculous at the same time. I love it when people look back and say "we coulda..." Hindsight is 20/20. Period. We were attacked. Our intelligence, along with several other countries said it was Saddam. Our intelligence is NOT Democratic nor Republican. To say so is to say our Police Depts. are dems or Repubs when a certain president is in office. It is a stupid statement. And so are any issues with the economy, for the most part. I'll give both of them a 10% sway max based on an election. Our intelligence said that Iraq had crap. I still don't think they were wrong. When you can hide military aircraft in the sand over there, and it takes us a year to find it, you can certainly hide missiles. Especially when you are hiding for hidings sake. Regardless, no one knew that these people were going to be such a pain in the ass. Period. They didn't exactly go "I've got 144 billion.... What to do?" Oh, well, I guess we should just give up now, pull out, and go about putting up another Great Wall so the bad people can't get in.
I was paraphrasing to keep it simple. Here ya go boys. Our intelligence said that Saddam was contributing to the Al-Quaida movement. Our intelligence said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Happy now?
Let's see..... four, I repeat four stupid comments about my paraphrasing. Was it necessary? No. Was it parroting? Yes. The bully mentality by you libs is really starting to get r****ded.
I'm not being rude. What, exactly, is incoherent about my reasonings? All things considered, do you not realize hindsight? I'm just asking.
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," Mr Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
