No pension increase for you!

[700UW]

Half of U.S. Still Believes Iraq Had WMD
By CHARLES J. HANLEY

AP Special Correspondent

Do you believe in Iraqi ``WMD''?

Did Saddam Hussein's government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?

Half of America apparently still thinks so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why: a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in Iraq.

People tend to become ``independent of reality'' in these circumstances, says opinion analyst Steven Kull.

The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.

Despite this, a Harris Poll released July 21 found that a full 50 percent of U.S. respondents - up from 36 percent last year - said they believe Iraq did have the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, an attack whose stated purpose was elimination of supposed WMD. Other polls also have found an enduring American faith in the WMD story.

``I'm flabbergasted,'' said Michael Massing, a media critic whose writings dissected the largely unquestioning U.S. news reporting on the Bush administration's shaky WMD claims in 2002-03.

``This finding just has to cause despair among those of us who hope for an informed public able to draw reasonable conclusions based on evidence,'' Massing said.

Timing may explain some of the poll result. Two weeks before the survey, two Republican lawmakers, Pennsylvania's Sen. Rick Santorum and Michigan's Rep. Peter Hoekstra, released an intelligence report in Washington saying 500 chemical munitions had been collected in Iraq since the 2003 invasion.

``I think the Harris Poll was measuring people's surprise at hearing this after being told for so long there were no WMD in the country,'' said Hoekstra spokesman Jamal Ware.

But the Pentagon and outside experts stressed that these abandoned shells, many found in ones and twos, were 15 years old or more, their chemical contents were degraded, and they were unusable as artillery ordnance. Since the 1990s, such ``orphan'' munitions, from among 160,000 made by Iraq and destroyed, have turned up on old battlefields and elsewhere in Iraq, ex-inspectors say. In other words, this was no surprise.

``These are not stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction,'' said Scott Ritter, the ex-Marine who was a U.N. inspector in the 1990s. ``They weren't deliberately withheld from inspectors by the Iraqis.''

Conservative commentator Deroy Murdock, who trumpeted Hoekstra's announcement in his syndicated column, complained in an interview that the press ``didn't give the story the play it deserved.'' But in some quarters it was headlined.

``Our top story tonight, the nation abuzz today ...'' was how Fox News led its report on the old, stray shells. Talk-radio hosts and their callers seized on it. Feedback to blogs grew intense. ``Americans are waking up from a distorted reality,'' read one posting.

Other claims about supposed WMD had preceded this, especially speculation since 2003 that Iraq had secretly shipped WMD abroad. A former Iraqi general's book - at best uncorroborated hearsay - claimed ``56 flights'' by jetliners had borne such material to Syria.

But Kull, Massing and others see an influence on opinion that's more sustained than the odd headline.

``I think the Santorum-Hoekstra thing is the latest 'factoid,' but the basic dynamic is the insistent repetition by the Bush administration of the original argument,'' said John Prados, author of the 2004 book ``Hoodwinked: The Documents That Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War.''

Administration statements still describe Saddam's Iraq as a threat. Despite the official findings, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has allowed only that ``perhaps'' WMD weren't in Iraq. And Bush himself, since 2003, has repeatedly insisted on one plainly false point: that Saddam rebuffed the U.N. inspectors in 2002, that ``he wouldn't let them in,'' as he said in 2003, and ``he chose to deny inspectors,'' as he said this March.

The facts are that Iraq - after a four-year hiatus in cooperating with inspections - acceded to the U.N. Security Council's demand and allowed scores of experts to conduct more than 700 inspections of potential weapons sites from Nov. 27, 2002, to March 16, 2003. The inspectors said they could wrap up their work within months. Instead, the U.S. invasion aborted that work.

As recently as May 27, Bush told West Point graduates, ``When the United Nations Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to take that final opportunity.''

``Which isn't true,'' observed Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a scholar of presidential rhetoric at the University of Pennsylvania. But ``it doesn't surprise me when presidents reconstruct reality to make their policies defensible.'' This president may even have convinced himself it's true, she said.

Americans have heard it. A poll by Kull's WorldPublicOpinion.org found that seven in 10 Americans perceive the administration as still saying Iraq had a WMD program. Combine that rhetoric with simplistic headlines about WMD ``finds,'' and people ``assume the issue is still in play,'' Kull said.

``For some it almost becomes independent of reality and becomes very partisan.'' The WMD believers are heavily Republican, polls show.

Beyond partisanship, however, people may also feel a need to believe in WMD, the analysts say.

``As perception grows of worsening conditions in Iraq, it may be that Americans are just hoping for more of a solid basis for being in Iraq to begin with,'' said the Harris Poll's David Krane.

Charles Duelfer, the lead U.S. inspector who announced the negative WMD findings two years ago, has watched uncertainly as TV sound bites, bloggers and politicians try to chip away at ``the best factual account,'' his group's densely detailed, 1,000-page final report.

``It is easy to see what is accepted as truth rapidly morph from one representation to another,'' he said in an e-mail. ``It would be a shame if one effect of the power of the Internet was to undermine any commonly agreed set of facts.''

The creative ``morphing'' goes on.

08/06/06 16:34 EDT

 

[delldude]

June 17, 2004
Even more WMD proof.
"In its latest report to the U.N. Security Council, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) disclosed that a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) components have turned up in a scrapyard in Rotterdam, Netherlands. Among the items uncovered were several rocket engines used in Iraqi Al Samoud 2 missiles.
The Commission's experts were conducting an investigation in parallel with the IAEA Iraq Nuclear Verification Office following reports of increased radiation readings at the facility when the discovery was made.

Company staff members at the scrapyard confirmed that other items made of stainless steel and other corrosion-resistant metal alloys bearing the inscription "Iraq" or "Baghdad" had been observed in shipments delivered from the Middle East since November 2003. A number of items were examined and sampled on-site by UNMOVIC experts with a portable metal analyzer and were determined to be composed of inconel and titanium -- both dual-use materials subject to monitoring.

The existence of missile engines originating in Iraq among scrap in Europe may affect the accounting of proscribed engines known to have been in Iraq's possession in March 2003."

Jeff Edwards: Weapons of Mass Destruction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 19, 2005

Did President Bush deliberately mislead the American public about the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? A lot of people think he did, but I don't happen to be one of them.

I get five or six emails a week on this subject, as well as a fair number of postings in my Military.com discussion forum. I try to answer each of those emails and postings as honestly and thoroughly as I can. My goal is not so much to change the other person's point of view, as to help him or her understand how I arrived at my own position regarding WMDs in Iraq. To that end, I generally include links to the resources and documents that have been instrumental in shaping my opinion.

Having revealed the basis for my own opinions, I often ask them to share the rationale for their beliefs. I also ask them to cite the documents, evidence, or testimonies that helped them formulate their position.

The responses vary wildly. Some people break off the dialogue immediately, as though examining the thought-process behind an opinion is entirely out of bounds. A few shift instantly from conversation mode to name calling. (One of these accused me of being so tightly wrapped in the flag that I can't see anything.) And some -- a small minority -- actually provide links to the resources they consider important.

I am continually astounded by the fact that very few of the President's critics seem to have actually examined the evidence regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Thousands of pages of unclassified (or declassified) documents on the subject have been released by the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the CIA, the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and a score of other organizations. The findings of the UN weapons inspectors, including UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports, are available online. The deliberations and findings of the UN Security Council are just a mouse-click away, but a lot of people are too busy hating the President to review the data.

I've read as many of the reports as I can get my hands on, with particular attention to the evidence provided before the onset of military action in Iraq. In my opinion, given the information available at the time, there was every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein had an ongoing chemical/biological warfare program even as the weapons inspection teams were carrying out their UN mandate.

In the eyes of many Bush-detractors, anything that supports the position of the current administration qualifies as propaganda, and can be automatically disregarded. But many of the reports come from sources outside of the American government, and a lot of the documents predate the Bush administration. A significant number originate from sources that are overtly critical of the United States and/or the President, making it fairly difficult to dismiss their contents as Bush administration propaganda.

I'm going to quote from several of those reports. I apologize in advance, because some of what you're about to read is a little on the dry side. (Apparently, politicians are even more in love with their own words than most writers are.) So parts of this will be a bit long winded. But it's worth reading. There's a lot of important information to be gleaned -- information that might just answer the question as to whether or not the President lied about the threat of WMDs in Iraq.

Let's start with a fact that many people have apparently forgotten: Saddam Hussein's possession and use of WMDs is an established fact. We know with utter certainty that he had them, and that he used them.
The UN website contains eyewitness testimonies from people who were present when WMDs were used by Iraqi forces. This is directly from a United Nations Commission on Human Rights report on the subject:

A young man, who was a mere boy at the time, survived the Halabcha bombings in March 1988. He described to the Special Rapporteur the horror that followed the bombing of his native town with chemical weapons such as mustard gas, and the continuing effects on his health and that of hundreds of others who also survived the onslaught. Thousands of people died, including 25 members of his family, and thousands more are still suffering today from heart disease, breathing problems and eye allergies.

That same report goes on to say:

During his consultations with a Kurdish delegation in Amman in December 2003, the Special Rapporteur heard evidence on issues such as the Anfal campaign, executions and mass graves. There now exists documentary evidence inculpating the mastermind and chief executioner of these crimes, Ali Hassan Al-Majeed, alias ‘Chemical Ali,' and proves the existence, at the highest governmental level, of the criminal intent to mercilessly exterminate the Kurds and implant people of mainly Arab origin in their homes and villages, in a process that amounted to genocide.

A BBC News article from March of 2002 references both the massacre and the use of WMDs:

Iraqi aircraft shelled Halabja with chemical weapons on 16 March 1988, in an attack which left 5,000 dead and 7,000 injured or with long-term illnesses.
Saddam Hussein's infamous Anfal campaign is incredibly well documented, and there are literally thousands of eyewitnesses. Even Aljazeera (not exactly a pro-Bush organization) concedes that Hussein's regime conducted massive chemical weapons attacks on the Kurdish town of Halabja, resulting in thousands of deaths.

Of course, the Anfal campaign is classified as old news. Nearly fifteen years had elapsed between those massacres and the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. As far as I know, there's not statute of limitations on mass murder, but Saddam Hussein's record as a homicidal despot is not the current point of contention.
The issue is the likelihood of WMDs in Iraq in the weeks prior to U.S. military action in that country. From that perspective, fifteen years is a very very long time. More than enough time for Hussein's regime to destroy its stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. I raise the issue, not as proof of a continuing WMD threat in Iraq, but to point out that Saddam Hussein has demonstrated both the willingness and capability to kill large numbers of people using Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Let's look at a more recent document. Here are a few lines from UNSCOM letter S/1999/94. Please note that the emphasis is mine, not that of the weapons inspectors.

“Iraq's disclosure statements have never been complete; contrary to the requirement that destruction be conducted under international supervision, Iraq undertook extensive, unilateral and secret destruction of large quantities of proscribed weapons and items; it also pursued a practice of concealment of proscribed items, including weapons, and a cover up of its activities in contravention of Council resolutions.â€￾
That's from an official report by the weapons inspectors. Here's another piece from the same report:

“The Commission has been very substantially misled by Iraq both in terms of its understanding of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes and the continuation of prohibited activities, even under the Commission's monitoring."
And another quote, also from the same report:

“In response to the Commission's requests for relevant documents, Iraq has repeatedly claimed that they no longer exist or cannot be located, a claim which often has been shown to be false, either because inspection activities have in fact located precisely such documents or because Iraq has reversed its stated position and then produced relevant documents. In one aspect related to the destruction of BW warheads, the Commission, after consulting a group of international experts, assessed that Iraq's declaration that 15 warheads had been destroyed simultaneously conflicted with physical evidence collected at the declared location of their unilateral destruction. This finding indicated that not all BW warheads had been destroyed at the same time as claimed by Iraq and that Iraq had retained some BW warheads...â€￾
In October of 2002, just five months before the start of the Iraq war, the CIA's official 2002 summary of Iraq's WMD program had this to say:

“More than 10 years after the Gulf war, gaps in Iraqi accounting and current production capabilities strongly suggest that Iraq maintains a stockpile of chemical agents, probably VX, sarin, cyclosarin, and mustard. Iraq has not accounted for 15,000 artillery rockets that in the past were its preferred means for delivering nerve agents, nor has it accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent.â€￾
The CIA report also referenced Iraqi Air Force documents which indicate that Saddam Hussein's military deliberately overstated the number of chemical bombs expended during the Iran-Iraq war by at least 6,000. In other words, 6,000 chemical warfare bombs that had been reported to the UN as destroyed were -- in fact -- totally unaccounted for. Those 6,000 bombs remain unaccounted for to this day.

Experts from UN weapons inspection teams assessed that Baghdad's declarations vastly understated the production of biological agents. According to the estimates of the inspectors, Iraq actually produced two-to-four times the amount of agent that it acknowledged producing, including Bacillus anthracis (the causative agent of anthrax) and botulinum toxin.

Just six weeks prior to the Iraq war, Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix made his report to the UN Security Council on the progress of the inspection effort in Iraq. Mr. Blix spoke hopefully, and highlighted several recent advances in the inspection process. He also stated that many proscribed weapons were not accounted for. He specifically mentioned 1,000 tons of chemical agent that the Iraqi government could not (or would not) account for. He was careful to avoid jumping to the conclusion that the agents were missing. He left room for the possibility of some harmless error that might account for the loss of 1,000 tons of chemical weapons.

Mr. Blix's report also addressed the fact that Iraq was continuing to manufacture components of the al-Samud II missile system, in violation of UN Resolution 687 and the monitoring plan adopted by Resolution 715. He referenced the discovery of 380 missile engines, designed for use in the prohibited weapons system, and pointed out that Iraq had imported the engines in violation of the UN ban.

I could easily fill up sixty more pages with similar citations, but I've already subjected you to enough dry bureaucratic writing. Instead, I'll settle for a quick recap of what we've already seen. At the onset of U.S. military action in Iraq, 6,000 chemical warfare bombs were unaccounted for, along with over 500 chemical artillery shells, more that 15,000 artillery rockets designed for use with chemical weapons, 1,000 tons of an unidentified chemical warfare agent, and at least 15 biological warfare warheads. These are from only a handful of the available reports. There are many many more like them.





Do these documents constitute the proverbial smoking gun? Perhaps not. Are they incontrovertible proof of an ongoing WMD program in Iraq? No. But they are (and were) extremely powerful indications of Iraq's capabilities and intentions.

Bear in mind that I've presented only a fraction of the material available, and that a great deal of the remainder points in the same direction. Also remember that we are speaking of a regime known to have possessed and employed chemical weapons, as well as a frequently-demonstrated intent to deceive UN inspection teams.

All of this raises a simple question: Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction? I can't answer that. At the moment, no one who can answer that question has come forward. Maybe the assessments were wrong. Maybe Saddam really had destroyed his stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. If so, I have to wonder why he was continuing to play games with the inspection teams. I also have to wonder why he was actively importing banned weapons systems less than two months prior to the start of the war.

I don't think we can be certain yet that the WMDs are gone. Iraq is a large country, and we've only searched a portion of it. We know a lot of things are still hidden under the ground, because we're still stumbling across mass graves.

But I must admit that it's possible that our intelligence estimates were wrong. That doesn't make the President a liar. It means that our intelligence people read the signs wrong. I've read the documents, and I came to pretty much the same conclusions as the intelligence community. If it turns out that their assessment was wrong, then mine was wrong as well. That may turn out to be the case. But there's an ocean of difference between a faulty assessment, made in good conscience, and a deliberate deception.

As I've said, I don't kid myself into thinking that I can sway the minds of people who believe that the President lied about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Instead, I invite you to review the evidence yourself. Not the sound bytes and cable news abstracts of the evidence, but the actual documents available prior to March 19, 2003. They're available to the public at no charge. Read them. Think about them. Try to mentally place them in the context of what we knew before the first U.S. tank rolled across the border into Iraq. And then make up your own mind about whether or not the President lied. 😱

 

[MrAeroMan]

Great post Dell. You can post all the articles you can find Dell but the people that are hell bent on the "Bush Lied" drum will never see the facts as they really are. It's always going to be that way and the liberal columnists like Charles Hanley will continue to provide them with articles slanted against Bush as well as their version of what really happened. Fact is the truth lies somewhere in between just like it always has.

 

[sentrido]

I dont know what Bush knew, and when. He has done his best to make sure we never do. What I do know is that somwhere beetween our innteligents(i know, i spell good) agencies, the Administration, and us ( the American people ) the "truth" about Iraq and the threat it didn't pose got distorted. By whom? I hope we find out someday. Maybe shortly after the mid terms.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Great post Dell. You can post all the articles you can find Dell but the people that are hell bent on the "Bush Lied" drum will never see the facts as they really are. It's always going to be that way and the liberal columnists like Charles Hanley will continue to provide them with articles slanted against Bush as well as their version of what really happened. Fact is the truth lies somewhere in between just like it always has.

===========================================================

"Jesus, MrAreoMan" !!!

With only 24 hours in a day, HOW in HEL* do you find time to post here ??

I mean with ALL the time you spend;

Listening to RUSH LIMBO,

PRAYING with JERRY FALWELL,

sending $$$$ to Pat Robertson,

And reading (skanky) Ann Coulter,

one would think there is not enough time in your day, to be here.

NH/BB's



ps,

Your Piedmont logo speaks VOLUMES to your mindset, as it pertains to these discussions !!!!

(I'm speaking from experience....I "workED" for those A$$ HOLES) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[MrAeroMan]

Yeah....and??????
I worked for Piedmont. So what? Piedmont was a very well run company. If you worked hard you were rewarded and could go as far as you wanted to go. If you chose to slack off and do the "minimum" they would reward you for that also. You got out of it what you put in it. If you didn't get what you wanted out of the job was just what you put in it. All of the people that I met that worked for PI and had a problem with their management were the ones that always did the least yet expected the most.
So what exactly is your point NHBB??

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Yeah....and??????
I worked for Piedmont. So what? Piedmont was a very well run company. If you worked hard you were rewarded and could go as far as you wanted to go. If you chose to slack off and do the "minimum" they would reward you for that also. You got out of it what you put in it. If you didn't get what you wanted out of the job was just what you put in it. All of the people that I met that worked for PI and had a problem with their management were the ones that always did the least yet expected the most.
So what exactly is your point NHBB??

===========================================================

My remarks about your "Conservative" approach, speak for themselves !!

As to "PI", they came into New England, in the early 80's, preaching their SOUTHERN BS, and were mortified to think that the majority of their Northern workers, would'nt "By in" (You remember)Their, GOD/Piedmont/Family, and NO UNIONS, (In that order)mentality !

So as it applies to you, It is NOT surprising that YOU, and your conservative Ideas, would be "tub thumping" for a "Conservative" airline, like PI !

Ah, it's all a moot point now, since ol' Bill Howard(BOSS HOG), loved the smell of Money, and "took the $$$ scratch, and ran", straight to US Air.


NH/BB's

 

[MrAeroMan]

The problem with most liberals such as you is they tend to speak about subjects they are in no way qualified to speak on and believe their views are reality. The fact is their view is just that, THEIR view and in most cases it's far from reality. Liberals feel ALL Conservatives listen to Rush, send money to Pat, pray with Jerry and read Ann's books. While many do they are not in anyway the majority Liberals like to think they are.
So your remarks about my Conservative ideals do in fact speak for themselves and give us a glimpse inside your mindset and how it pertains to the Liberal agenda of being the modern day Robin Hood. The problem with that is you give no incentive to move up the socio-economic ladder you so despise so the amount of people you want to use to redistribute the wealth in America will continually shrink as your ideals and beliefs provide no hope nor any real kind of benefit to better yourself and climb that "awful" ladder.
As for PI and their business model it sure seemed to work for them didn't it? I was able to thrive in the environment they provided and didn't have to worry about if the steward in the break room would be chastising us for working too hard. I remember a lot of drives to collect union cards while at PI but there never was a majority of the people in our station in NYS that was interested. PI did quite well for itself and for the record it was AL that came running to PI for a buyout and not the other way around. Uncle Ed was extremely worried about PI and the effect it was having on his load factors in and out of NY, BOS and DCA. PI was killing them slowly but surely and the only way to preserve itself was to buy up the competition to preserve itself for a few more years. Not only did they buy up the competition they went so far as to pay about a billion dollars more than it was worth. The one that made out the most was Norfolk Southern as they owned a large part of PI so if it was anyone running anywhere it was them to the bank to cash the check before it bounced.

 

[PITbull]

Thanks.........it doesn't look to me it's $10 billion a year.

Let me just excuse myself.

It's approximately $100 BILLION since 1949. That comes approximately <2 billion a year. There are 6 million Israeles. That's about >$200,000 per man women and child per year.

I just wish some of my tax $$ would help support even some of the American workers who have families and can't afford health care.

Dell, can you find out how much assistance we provide for the African Nations? Just pick Somilia, or Rowanda. Ethiopia

so Pitbull is on record to "screw the jews"???

little US Avi Anti-semitism??

truth revealed...jews start all the wars...cut their monies....

hook you up with Mel Gibson for a date??

No...No...this can't be.....

I suppose if Kerry or Gore were in the same exact situation right now,today,you'd be on here defending their position.....

sounds like party hack time to me.... 😉

What kind of record is that???? Some extremist thought from a right winger because I state that Israel receives more aid from U.S. per man women and child than any other country of its size and affluency?

There are Jews all over the world..I'm talking Israel only, my friend...stop with the "you want the jews screwed...blah... blah... blah, crap". So, your veiw is if you challenge or bring up an issue for debate, you get accused of being prejudice???


That is not an intellectual way to have a debate, Dell.

The problem with most liberals such as you is they tend to speak about subjects they are in no way qualified to speak on and believe their views are reality. The fact is their view is just that, THEIR view and in most cases it's far from reality. Liberals feel ALL Conservatives listen to Rush, send money to Pat, pray with Jerry and read Ann's books. While many do they are not in anyway the majority Liberals like to think they are.
So your remarks about my Conservative ideals do in fact speak for themselves and give us a glimpse inside your mindset and how it pertains to the Liberal agenda of being the modern day Robin Hood. The problem with that is you give no incentive to move up the socio-economic ladder you so despise so the amount of people you want to use to redistribute the wealth in America will continually shrink as your ideals and beliefs provide no hope nor any real kind of benefit to better yourself and climb that "awful" ladder.
As for PI and their business model it sure seemed to work for them didn't it? I was able to thrive in the environment they provided and didn't have to worry about if the steward in the break room would be chastising us for working too hard. I remember a lot of drives to collect union cards while at PI but there never was a majority of the people in our station in NYS that was interested. PI did quite well for itself and for the record it was AL that came running to PI for a buyout and not the other way around. Uncle Ed was extremely worried about PI and the effect it was having on his load factors in and out of NY, BOS and DCA. PI was killing them slowly but surely and the only way to preserve itself was to buy up the competition to preserve itself for a few more years. Not only did they buy up the competition they went so far as to pay about a billion dollars more than it was worth. The one that made out the most was Norfolk Southern as they owned a large part of PI so if it was anyone running anywhere it was them to the bank to cash the check before it bounced.

What makes you an authority to speak on anything??? Being a conservative is politically correct in your view, and Dell is an authority, right providing "right" propaganda to justify the U.S. foreign policy????

Great. :down:

 

[sentrido]

So your remarks about my Conservative ideals do in fact speak for themselves and give us a glimpse inside your mindset and how it pertains to the Liberal agenda of being the modern day Robin Hood. The problem with that is you give no incentive to move up the socio-economic ladder you so despise so the amount of people you want to use to redistribute the wealth in America will continually shrink as your ideals and beliefs provide no hope nor any real kind of benefit to better yourself and climb that "awful" ladder.

This is the most stupid thing I have ever read. Some how a belief in a strong middle class is turned into a Robbin Hood complex? Now who's pontificating from a position of ignorance. "give no incentive to move up the socio-economic ladder"? What the hell does that mean? Has there been some law passed by democrats to take away an incentive for people to better themsleves? IF you mention any form of welfare your full if s(*t. If you think its an incentive you have a fundimental lack of understanding just how little that welfare check is.

 

[Seatacus]

Let me just excuse myself.

It's approximately $100 BILLION since 1949. That comes approximately <2 billion a year. There are 6 million Israeles. That's about >$200,000 per man women and child per year.

I just wish some of my tax $$ would help support even some of the American workers who have families and can't afford health care.

Hey Pitbull-Please go dust off your calculator. If we had given the whole 100 billion to the current 6 million Isrealis (which we didn't it was over the last 57 years)it comes out to $16,000 for each person. This is a far cry from your $200,000 per person. It would help your argument if you could at least keep your calculations in the ballpark. Facts do matter........

Healthcare? Is anyone being denied healthcare in this country?

And since LBJ started the Great Society in the 60's we have given trillions of tax dollars to our own people.

 

[delldude]

What makes you an authority to speak on anything??? Being a conservative is politically correct in your view, and Dell is an authority, right providing "right" propaganda to justify the U.S. foreign policy????

Great.

No more or no less an authority than you PB.(oh excuse me,you attended college)

You have chastised me for my political views in the past.

I become an instant enemy if not leaning to the left.Your problem is you're predjudiced to anyone who doesn't see things through rose colored glasses.

You are the one who attempted to come out on the side of the "Religion of Peace" and I supplied some items to counter your post...and yes it did come across as a slam against Israel.

You stated to call your congressman....to complain about monies being sent to support Israel.I don't see too many extending a hand to a country surrounded by people who want to entirely eliminate it from existance.

Dell, can you find out how much assistance we provide for the African Nations? Just pick Somilia, or Rowanda. Ethiopia

So this time you researched before you went shooting off?
So you are proven wrong and now in pure liberal form you attempt to sidestep the issue with smoke and mirrors.

What makes you an authority to speak on anything???

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night

I Feel Your Pane

 

[PITbull]

Healthcare? Is anyone being denied healthcare in this country?

And since LBJ started the Great Society in the 60's we have given trillions of tax dollars to our own people.

What are you talking about? That question doesn't deserve an answer? Don't you read? There are aprox. 44,000,000 Americans that don't have health care. In my current field, I have met folks that either themselves or their families don't have ANY health care. And they are not Medicare age. My daughter who is in graduate school is one of those statisitics!!!

Trillions of dollars to our own people? Who the HELL pays the taxes...THE PEOPLE!

Dell,

From your post you are not intersted in posting how much aid/grant money is provided for by the U.S. for even one Afican country? It just won't fit into your Right agenda.

 

[Seatacus]

What are you talking about? That question doesn't deserve an answer? Don't you read? There are aprox. 44,000,000 Americans that don't have health care. In my current field, I have met folks that either themselves or their families don't have ANY health care. And they are not Medicare age. My daughter who is in graduate school is one of those statisitics!!!

It's true that there 44,000,000 without insurance. Of that number there are many who can afford it who choose not buy insurance. My son is one of them. He can afford it but doesn't want it. I told him it is not a wise thing to do but that is his choice Many young people choose to spend their money on other things. It's all about priorities. He is also in college. There are many without insurance who have health problems and just need to walk into any emergency room and they won't be turned away. In the last three years I have been making weekly trips to medical facilities and have witnessed first hand those without insurance being treated. I have spoken to many financial people with the clinics and they have said many patients are being treated for free or the government is picking up the tab. Many of these people are immigrants and are in the social system and everything is paid for. They even get an interpreter.

Trillions of dollars to our own people? Who the HELL pays the taxes...THE PEOPLE!

Actually a lot of the taxes that people pay go to people who don't pay taxes. It's called income redistribution. Did you know that the top 50% of all income earners pay 96% of all income taxes.

 

[delldude]

Dell,

From your post you are not intersted in posting how much aid/grant money is provided for by the U.S. for even one Afican country? It just won't fit into your Right agenda.

you don't know how to find those facts?

the issue at hand was your benign reference as to how much money,which you were way off base about,and how we should contact our congress people because you don't see any sense of purpose to supporting those nasty warmongering Israelis...Ethiopia wasn't even in your topic..but now to divert attention from your miscaculation.

Hey...tell me about Somalia under your boy Bill....

Uh Oh...

Foreign Aid
Whatever you're looking for
you can get it on eBay.
www.eBay.com

Hows about I pick up a bottle of Red Wine,stop by and we can sing Kombaya?