Hannity falsely claimed Obama tax plan would raise taxes on families of 4 making $50,000 a year »
Posted By bubba2 2 months, 3 weeks ago in NewsOn his radio program, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that Obama's proposal for rescinding the Bush tax cuts would result in families of 4 making $50,000 a year ... paying another $2,000 in taxes a year. In fact, Obama has proposed cutting taxes for middle-class families and rolling back President Bush's tax cuts only on people making over $250,000.
Read Full Story at mediamatters.org »
Submitted By:
bubba2
I'm pretty much OUTTA here! The new format (still) S-U-C-K-S!
========
I have a degree in music but that changed to computer systems and I ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 427
-
-
0%
mesodude2 months, 3 weeks ago
And yet, we both know you had *no* such skepticism about re-casting a vote for Bush in 2004--DID YOU, Klarissa? Exactly... ;-(
Reply-
0%
NoSpinDave2 months, 3 weeks ago
What should be scarry to EVERYONE is Obama's stance that he will raise the capital gains tax from the current level of 20 percent, to almost DOUBLE that at 39 percent.
Even if you are a partisan Obama supporter, you MUST admit that this will DESTROY the willingness of MANY small business owners to invest. This is nothing but pure populist pandering al a Hugo Chavez.
Now, IMAGINE the MASSIVE SELLOFF in December of this year if Obama is elected. If you think we are in a recession now, just wait until the "Black December" selloff. Can anyone say stock market crash?
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct2 months, 3 weeks ago
So you would blame a December 2008 stock market crash on a president-elect who wouldn't assume office until January 2009?
"No spin," huh?
LOL.
Reply-
-
0%
ybdogsct2 months, 3 weeks ago
Then why don't you and NOSPINDAVE provide your DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE. Without it, your speculation means ******.
http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/people/...
"The stock market does far better under Democrats. During those 72 years the stock market returned about 11% more a year under Democratic presidents and 2% more under Republicans - a striking difference."
DOW JONES UNDER CLINTON
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=00&b=20&...
"The DJIA rose steadily during the Clinton Presidency from 3300 in Jan 1993, to 11,500 by December 1999, before settling back at 10,600 by the time Clinton left office--a 221% increase."
DOW JONES UNDER BUSH
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=00&b=20&...
"The Dow Jones closing averages under George W. Bush has been relatively stagnant from 10,600 to 11,000--a meager 4% increase."
Reply-
0%
protoham2 months, 3 weeks ago
If you look at who controlled congress during these times of greatness you would see that it was the Republican party. Clinton only had 2 years when the dems had control of congress, and in that two years he and them increased taxes considerably.
Keep in mind the Budget is controlled by Congress, not the President.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct2 months, 3 weeks ago
Actually, in the last several decades, it has been the president who sets economic policy and proposes a budget. Congress simply approves it and distributes the checks.
Here is Bush defending HIS (not Congress') economic policies.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/10/bush....
Nice try, but it'll take more than that to overturn an academic, pee-reviewed study conducted by UCLA.
Reply -
0%
mesodude2 months, 3 weeks ago
"If you look at who controlled congress during these times of greatness you would see that it was the Republican party."
--So which Party was in control of Congress and the White House when we were given the biggest government in history? It was Republicans, right, proto? Of course it was...
Reply -
0%
CRYMTYPHON2 months, 3 weeks ago
"Keep in mind the Budget is controlled by Congress, not the President."
This is false.
The president proposes how much money will be spent,
through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) .
The president vetoes what spending he does not like.
All congress can do is overide a veto, or else negotiate what to spend the proposed amount on.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
ybdogsct2 months, 3 weeks ago
CLINTON'S RECORD ON JOBS
"In 1992, the American economy was barely creating jobs, wages were stagnant, and the unemployment rate was 7.5%. 22.1 million new jobs have been created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration. The economy added an average of 248,000 jobs per month, the highest under any President. Unemployment is down from 7.5% in 1992 to 4.0% in June 2000, and in April 2000 the unemployment rate was the lowest in 30 years. The unemployment rate has fallen for 7 years in a row, and has remained below 5% for 34 months."
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct2 months, 3 weeks ago
BUSH'S RECORD ON JOBS
http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm
"The early returns of Bush's tax cuts have not been good. The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from projected large budget surpluses to projected deficits. The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households Ã;¢;; those least in need of additional resources Ã;¢;; at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum. THE DESIGN OF THESE TAX CUTS WAS ILL-CONCEIVED, RESULTING IN SIGNIFICANTLY LESS ECONOMIC STIMULUS THAN COULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED FOR THE SAME BUDGETARY COST. In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II."
Reply
-
-
0%
ybdogsct2 months, 3 weeks ago
http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf
http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/income.html
There was an INCREASE in Real Median Household Income under the Bill Clinton Administration from $43000 to $49500 (a 15.1% INCREASE); and a DECREASE in real median household income under George W Bush Administration from $49500 to $48201 (a 2.6% DECREASE).
Also, the poverty rating under Clinton fell from 40 million to 31 million; and rose under Bush from 31 million to 36.5 million.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech...
"The share of income received by households in the top fifth of the income distribution rose from 42% to 50%, while the share of income received by those in the bottom fifth declined from 7% to 5%.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct2 months, 3 weeks ago
REPUBLICANS AND FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
"Alan Greenspan levels unusually harsh criticism at the Republican Party, arguing that Bush abandoned the conservative principle of fiscal restraint. Greenspan praises Clinton's tough anti-deficit policies as 'an act of political courage.' But he expresses deep disappointment with Bush. 'My biggest frustration remained the Bush's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending.'
Greenspan accuses the Republicans of being too eager to tolerate excessive federal spending in exchange for political opportunity. Dealing with a budget surplus, Clinton proposed devoting the extra money to 'save Social Security first.' Greenspan writes, 'I played no role in finding the answer, but I had to admire the one Clinton's. The truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back.'"
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct2 months, 3 weeks ago
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3184
"Supporters and critics of the administration are tripping over themselves to blame the deficit on tax cuts, the war, and a slow economy. But the real truth is that national defense is far from being responsible for all of the spending increases. According to the new numbers, defense spending will have risen by about 34% since Bush came into office. But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28%. The administration has been free spending into the face of a recessionary economy from day one without making any serious attempt to reduce costs."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct2 months, 3 weeks ago
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/1999/0202fede...
"The big question is how to use these surpluses. Clinton called on the nation to save most of the budget surpluses that loom in our nation's economic future. At the same time, his Republican critics have been calling for sizeable tax cuts, which would underwrite increased personal consumption, and some of his Democratic supporters have been calling for increased government spending on long-neglected domestic priorities."
In effect, Bush's tax cuts represented the sentiment of the Republican party on how best to spend Clinton's budget surpluses. Republicans wanted to spend the money and cut taxes. Clinton wanted to save for SS, health care, and debt reduction.
Reply
-
-
0%
ybdogsct2 months, 3 weeks ago
DEMOCRATS & FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
"Dealing with a budget surplus in his second term, Clinton proposed devoting the extra money to "save Social Security first." Greenspan writes, "I played no role in finding the answer, but I had to admire the one Clinton and his policymakers came up with."
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/1999/0202fede...
"The significance of prospective surpluses of nearly $5 trillion over the next 15 years is hard to appreciate. The big question is how to use these surpluses. Clinton called on the nation to save most of the budget surpluses that loom in our nation's economic future. The largest component is the transfer of bonds to Social Security and Medicare. These transfers would go about half way to closing the projected long-term deficit in Social Security."
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct2 months, 3 weeks ago
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
"On its second day under Democratic management, the House yesterday overwhelmingly approved new rules aimed at reining in deficit spending."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/...
"House Democrats, seeking to show they will be better stewards of taxpayers' money than their Republican predecessors, approved new budget rules Friday that require any new spending or tax cuts to be paid for by other spending cuts or tax increases. The so-called pay-as-you-go budget rules were passed with broad support as part of a package that also requires lawmakers to disclose which "earmarks," or spending items, they have added to bills."
Reply
-
-
0%
ybdogsct2 months, 3 weeks ago
What's ironic is that although Republicans are perceived as good for business, the economy actually performs worse when Republicans are in power. For example, today
1) the purchasing power of the American dollar is at record lows, inflation is a real threat
2) the banks are being crushed by the sub-prime crisis
3) energy and food prices are skyrocketing
4) the stock market is declining
5) the budget surplus has been squandered
6) the national deficit is at record highs, and
7) the unemployment rating is deceivingly high.
It's going to take more than yours and NOSPINDAVE's unsubstantiated speculating to spin these FACTS.
So go ahead. Throw your support behind McCain, who BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, has confessed that he doesn't understand as much as he should about the economy. Let's see how successful he will be at reversing Bush's disastrous domestic legacy, when McCain favors continuing much of Bush's economic policies.
I'll wait for YOUR EVIDENCE.
Reply -
0%
Goppy2 months, 3 weeks ago
Here's a suggestion dozey ... never ... NEVER question ybdoggy on the facts.
He's a walkin encyclopedia.
Unfortunately, this causes UNHOLY TROUBLE for the Righties who only want to repeat the Jingoism and Propaganda that Rush Limbaugh and the HUNDREDS of similar Right Wing Info-tainers who rule media.
I personally refer to ybdoggy as the Propaganda Killer.
Although, sometimes I refer to him as the Jingo Jouster.
Reply-
0%
jimdoze2 months, 3 weeks ago
No doubt he is a walking encyclopedia. Let's not forget that the restructuring of the American economy in the 80s and the end of the cold war set the stage for a booming economy in the 90s. While I am sure you and yours will deny that, it is a simple fact underlying all the others.
"non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28%. The administration has been free spending into the face of a recessionary economy from day one without making any serious attempt to reduce costs."
Where do you think the recessionary economy came from?
Furthermore, I am so very happy that the left is finding non-defense discretionary spending a problem. Let us join hands and put a stop to it!
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct2 months, 3 weeks ago
JIMDOZE:
"Let's not forget that the restructuring of the American economy in the 80s and the end of the cold war set the stage for a booming economy in the 90s."
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000112_1...
"In 1992, the American economy was barely creating jobs, wages were stagnant, and the unemployment rate was 7.5%. 22.1 million new jobs have been created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration. The economy added an average of 248,000 jobs per month, the highest under any President. Unemployment is down from 7.5% in 1992 to 4.0% in June 2000, and in April 2000 the unemployment rate was the lowest in 30 years. The unemployment rate has fallen for 7 years in a row, and has remained below 5% for 34 months."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct2 months, 3 weeks ago
http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_da_0720pres...
"Clinton campaigned on the economy and had remarkable success. GDP growth during his eight years averaged 3.5% per year. The economy also added jobs at a faster rate under Clinton than under any postwar president except Carter. The public's confidence in the economy hit an all-time high in the summer of 2000, near the end of Clinton's second term, according to Gallup. In the summer of 1992, before he was elected, it was at an all-time low.
Of the ten postwar presidents, the first President Bush brings up the rear. He ranks dead last for both GDP growth and income growth and also ballooned the deficit at a rate faster than every president but Ford."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct2 months, 3 weeks ago
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
"Greenspan praises Clinton's tough anti-deficit policies, calling Clinton's 1993 economic plan 'an act of political courage.'
Former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill has quoted Cheney as saying, 'Reagan proved deficits don't matter.'
Greenspan says, '"Deficits don't matter," to my chagrin became part of the Republicans' rhetoric.' Greenspan argues that 'deficits must matter' and that uncontrolled government spending and borrowing can produce high inflation 'and economic devastation.'
'The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back.'
Dealing with a budget surplus in his second term, Clinton proposed devoting the extra money to 'save Social Security first.' Greenspan writes, 'I played no role in finding the answer, but I had to admire the one Clinton and his policymakers came up with.'"
Reply
-
-
-
0%
NoSpinDave2 months, 3 weeks ago
"So you would blame a December 2008 stock market crash on a president-elect who wouldn't assume office until January 2009?
"No spin," huh?
LOL."
OMG, you just CLEARLY showed beyond a shadow of a DOUBT either...
A) your a complete idiot with ZERO knowlwdge of the tax code...thus your opinion means SQUAT
OR
B)YOU dont pay TAXES....thus you opinion menas SQUAT.
You see child, we ADULTS who actually have jobs and pay taxes pay them for the PERVIOUS year. So in April of 2009, you will pay your taxes for the 2008 tax year. Want to take a guess when the 2008 tax year ends.....wait for it.....wait for it....DECEMBER 2008. I.E. the policy he sets between January and April can be RETROACTIVLY instituited for the 2008 tax year. If you dont believe me ask anyone here (that paied taxes during Clinton's first term) about his retroactive taxes.
Now, go back to school, get a job and start paying taxes so you know these things...OR BOTH!!!
Reply-
0%
Goppy2 months, 3 weeks ago
Oh Spinny!
You are just upset cause you aint gointa get no more Welfare Checks from GeeDub!
I feel for ya!
But, I sense the middle class is getting tired of carrying the Ultra-Rich ... only to watch the Ultra-Rich muck things up time and time again.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
0%
ybdogsct2 months, 3 weeks ago
NOFACTSDAVE:
"oh really, and what FACTS of mine are incorrect EXACTLY? Oh do tell?"
You don't present any documented facts. That's PRECISELY the problem. Provide DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE from reliable, nonpartisan, preferably-primary sources to prove that:
1) Obama's economic policy IN ITS ENTIRETY will cause the Dow Jones to collapse
2) a Dow Jones collapse in December 2008 is anticipatory and NOT directly caused by the credit crisis, high energy & food prices, inflation, record budget deficits, depressed consumer confidence, job losses, government bailouts (Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae) that has become prevalent during Bush's administration
Go ahead. Present your documentation. Show me your "facts." You certainly haven't presented ANY already.
LOL.
still waiting...Don't worry, judging from your previous posting history, I won't be holding my breath for your "facts."
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Goppy2 months, 3 weeks ago
Well YOU shure aint no Financial Wizard ... THAT'S for shure!
Everybody knows that the Stock Market typically does better when a Democrat occupies the Oval Office!!
Thats why I sold my stock shortly after Bush took office and BOY OH BOYE did that make GREAT financial rewards for me and my family!!!
Here! If you don't believe me ... here's a breakdown of the Stock Market Performance since 1901.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/k...
And if you don't want to go ... (and I don't blame you ... the article DOES sort of mess up you and NoSpine's propaganda) ... I'll just give you one snippet.
"In the 56 years that a REPUBLICAN has occupied the Oval Office ... the Stock Market has gained 387.7%.
In the 48 years that a DEMOCRAT has occupied the Oval Office ... the Stock Market has gained 639.6%!
Not quite double ... but pretty ding dang good.
Reply-
0%
protoham2 months, 3 weeks ago
Your buying the wrong stocks. You are looking at the wrong part of government, Congress makes the laws not the President. Since the Dems took control of congress have you not noticed what is happening to the Stock market.
Clinton did great, because the Republican lead Congress wouldn't let him get any of his idea past them.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
bubba22 months, 3 weeks ago
The people in this country that have any significant capital gains are very much in the MINORITY.
Capital gains does NOT impact the vast majority of taxpayers.
Besides, the stock market is already crashing.
Thanks to Bush's economic policies, the price of oil is sky-high, jobless rates are highest in years, the price of gasoline, food, utilities, and ANY goods and services are skyrocketing BECAUSE of the price of oil, banks are defaulting, and the value of the dollar is in the toilet.
My 401K plan is shrinking by the minute, thanks to the policeis of W and the Republicans over the last 12 years.
Reply-
0%
NoSpinDave2 months, 3 weeks ago
"The people in this country that have any significant capital gains are very much in the MINORITY.
Capital gains does NOT impact the vast majority of taxpayers. "
LAUGHABLE Bubba. If you actually pay them or not, it still crushes investment. I dont care who is doing the investing, if investment in this country is squashed it does not take a genious to figure out the end result for the country.
Also, it still effects EVERYONE considering any added costs to do business will be passed along to.....you guessed it....the consumer!
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny2 months, 3 weeks ago
Hannity wasn't lying. Ending the Bush tax cuts does raise taxes on everyone. Given how Obama changes his word from one day to the next, why should anyone expect him to keep it and cut taxes - especially when it would take an act of Congress to do so.
We've already seen how lame the Dem-led Congress has been with its record low 9 percent approval rating and record high 52 percent poor performance review. They promised the world in 2006 and delivered nothing.
Reply-
0%
bubba22 months, 3 weeks ago
"Ending the Bush tax cuts does raise taxes on everyone".
Prove it ... HOW, exactly, would that happen?
Reply -
0%
spkguy2 months, 3 weeks ago
"Ending the Bush tax cuts does raise taxes on everyone."
Come on Libby where waiting, prove it!
Reply -
0%
mesodude2 months, 3 weeks ago
"Ending the Bush tax cuts does raise taxes on everyone."
--But even if you were correct (which you're not), Bush and Cheney have been reaming you out at the gas pump for the last 8 years so you actually *didn't* get a tax cut at all, in effect. Think about it... How can someone take something back you weren't given in the first place? Exactly... ;-P
Reply
-
-
0%
bubba22 months, 3 weeks ago
It may be that investments of the FEW that have money to invest can impact the "cost of doing business".
But, added cost to do business happens MANY ways outside of "investments". The current price of oil is THE case in point. Speculators are getting FILTHY rich over the price of oil, while everyone else is getting hit HARD by the high prices they pay for EVERYTHING.
The average consumers are already being savaged by a collapsing economy while "investors" and "speculators" continue to line their pockets.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
mesodude2 months, 3 weeks ago
"Who is in charge of the Congress for the past 2 years? Where the laws are made."
--LOL...Proto...Well, cons have been pretending you weren't aware that the GOP was in charge of Congress for the previous 6 years so at least you're being consistently disingenuous. I'll give you points for that. ;-P
Reply -
0%
djn3nunez32 months, 3 weeks ago
You didn't listen in your civics class when they discussed how laws are made in this country. U C even though the Dems have a slim majority in Congress they don't have enough votes to stop the obstructionist tactics used by the Rebublicans.
I have no doubt that all the economic woes of this country is the fault of the Bush Administrations short sighted goal.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
mesodude2 months, 3 weeks ago
"Your House and your 401K, are the biggest investments of your life and they are subject to Capital Gains."
--The biggest investments of "your" life? I've bought and sold a couple of homes and I didn't worry about capital gains for one second (and hundreds of thousands more Americans won't have to worry about it now, btw). Just because you only know people who can afford to invest in 401ks and own homes worth upwards of half-a million dollars doesn't mean that's how the majority of Americans live. Get serious... You're only concerned about YOURSELF. Why don't you just admit that's what all the fear mongering is about, proto?
Reply -
0%
bubba22 months, 3 weeks ago
Capital gains for homes only comes into play if you sell a home and you do NOT use that money to buy another one.
The money put INTO a 401 K is not taxed. The taxes are taken out when the money is taken out of the fund. I don't know that the percentage of capital gains taxing applies to that.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
mesodude2 months, 3 weeks ago
"What should be scarry to EVERYONE is Obama's stance that he will raise the capital gains tax from the current level of 20 percent, to almost DOUBLE that at 39 percent."
--Thanks for the warning (again), Henny Penny but considering both the prosperity brought to us by the previous Democratic Presidency and the hellish last 8 years we've had under Bush and the GOP, no one is dumb enough to believe that the sky is going to fall if we don't elect another Republican. Nice try but a disgusting and unbelieveably stupid lame duck GOP President once said "fool me once...you can't get fooled again." America has been permanently "scarred" by Bush. We don't need another GOP administration filled with corruption, criminal cronies, wars, lies, extreme debt, an explosion in terrorism worldwide, record fuel prices, and endless tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. No way. LOL
Reply -
0%
mesodude2 months, 3 weeks ago
"Even if you are a partisan Obama supporter"
--I guess we should assume that all McCain supporters are *non-partisan* and merely *right of center* (as opposed to far right), correct? ;-P
Reply
-
-
-
0%
jmarks2 months, 3 weeks ago
Hannity's taxes? yes, now I see why they have grieve with Obama, Hannity is a rich man, he's using his poor listeners to protect his pocket!
Reply-
0%
Goppy2 months, 3 weeks ago
I think yall are bein to ROUGH on Sean!
Hes not in COMPLETE lockstep with GeeDub.
Here are some DIRECT quotes from Sean that many of you will be surprised at.
"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
See? He's CLEARLY against ARBITRARY WAR!
---
OH WAIT!! He said that on April 5th, 1999 about the war in KOSOVO!
So ... Sean's world view is liek a reed in the wind ... leaning whichever way provides him the least resistance.
Hey! That's liek all Modern Day Republicans!
Reply-
0%
Goppy2 months, 3 weeks ago
Oh ... here's ANOTHER quote from Sean ... it's one of my favorites.
"Why should one U.S. airman give up his life when our national security is not in imminent danger?"
Surely he must be talkin bout Iraq ...... rrrrrriiiight? After all ... Iraq was not a threat to our national security.
But alas ... he was talking (once again) about Kosovo .... Sean was OPPOSED to our nation stepping in and stopping the murderous rampage of tens of thousands of Muslims being killed at the behest of Slobodan Milosovich.
Reply-
0%
Goppy2 months, 3 weeks ago
How about THIS gem ...
On March 26th, 1999 ... Sean said:
"And we are having a president compare this to Adolf Hitler. Granted, 2,000 in a year is disgusting, despicable, if we can stop it. But let's arm the Kosovo Liberation Army instead of putting U.S. troops in harm's way."
Now SURELY Sean must be talkin bout IRAQ! Cause, as we know ... in a speech directed to Europeans ... Bush gave as a reason for action in Iraq was that Saddam was the new Hitler.
---
WRONG!
Sean was talkin bout Kosovo AGAIN!!
See?
Once again ... we see that Sean Hannity has about as much credibility as .... A Reed of Grass.
Reply-
0%
Goppy2 months, 3 weeks ago
I liek THIS comment from Sean QUITE a bit.
I liek it because it mirrors nearly WORD FOR WORD something I been saying for years now .... give a listen ...
"So it seems that we're talking about a very ill-conceived military action here. And now the question is, do you go in further and deeper, or do you pull back and rethink what the strategy's going to be here, because there has really been no stated goal, mission or objective."
Sean said this on March 31, 1999.
WOW!!!! Sean seems REALLY Focused on the necessity of the war in Kosovo!
His OUTRAGE at what he calls 'ill-conceived' is REALLY strong!
Reply-
0%
Goppy2 months, 3 weeks ago
Sean also made THIS comment on the same March 31st 1999 show ....
Listen.....
"Colonel, I guess this is why it's so ill-conceived from the very beginning. You know, they didn't anticipate that his popularity would rise. They didn't anticipate that he would beef up his reign of terror, if you will, against the ethnic Albanians. They didn't anticipate the refugee problem, and they didn't anticipate that they would also run out of bombs."
See?
Sean is REALLY disgusted with our Goverment for engaging in 'ill-conceived warfare ... and ESPECIALLY for not anticipating that which is ALWAYS GUARANTEED in any war .... Unintended Consequences.
------
It's really becoming quite evident to me that Sean Hannity is simply a Spokesperson for the Politics of the Right ... as Morally Vacant as they are.
Course ... when you have Morally Vacant Political Philosophy ... it dont hurt to have a Morally Vacant Info-tainer promotin the cause.
Reply-
0%
Goppy2 months, 3 weeks ago
Finally ... I want to share this comment ... (be mindful there's dozens & dozens of these examples ... remember ... we are talking about a spokesperson for a Morally Vacant Political Ideeologie) ...
Listen ...
"Slobodan Milosevic is a bad guy. He's an evil man. Horrible things are happening. I agree with that. Is Bill O'Reilly then saying we go to Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Sudan? Where does this stop? And when you look at sheer numbers, 2,000 -- and I'm not minimizing death. It's horrible. What this man is doing with ethnic cleansing is abhorrent, but sheer numbers -- 2,000 killed in the last year versus hundreds of thousands, millions in some cases in other parts of the world. Are you saying the United States should go to all those places?"
MAN ALIVE! It's almost liek we Christian Conservatives have the consistency of JELLO!
We support war when it concerns oil fields ... but NOT when it prevets Ethnic Cleansing!
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Keep telling YOURSELF, Goebby, that 'Iraq was not a threat to our national security."
I have no doubt that it is what you said every day, all through the 70's and 80's, about the Soviet Union, too.
Your problem is that you couldn't tell a national security threat from a neo-con! In fact, you THINK neo-cons ARE a national security threat, don't you?
Reply-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE2 months, 3 weeks ago
Yep.. They have destroyed our once proud and financially stable nation with blacklists and fear.
Point of fact: Iraq couldn't even attack Israel.
Iraq failed to remain in Kuwait, even though we told them it was ok.
Neocons have wasted money on the military and companies that benefit from war (which are called war profiteers) and people like you stand by while they screw us!
They are war mongerers because the can line their pockets at taxpayers expense and at the expense of the lives of our military.
Won't you ever learn?
You don't even qualify to be in their tax bracket..What's your excuse?
Reply-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Oh, no Mr Cake, Iraq COULDN"T attack Israel, that would require missiles and jet aircraft. And those aluminum cylinders that everyone got all excited about before the invasion were for URANIUM ENRICHMENT, NOT MISSILES, right? You agree with Condaleeza Rice, don't you?
My excuse? My 'excuse' is that I am a patriot and I sure as heck DO NOT want to learn arabic, and which direction Mecca is located, that's my 'excuse'.
Regarding your comment vis a vis Iraq and Kuwait, your attempt at satire is NOT funny, because it does not bear even a shred of resemblance to the truth. All truly funny comedy has at least a kernel of the truth behind it.
Reply
-
-
0%
djn3nunez32 months, 3 weeks ago
No nuclear weapons production, no chemical weapons production, not having rebuilt his conventional military back from the staggering defeat in 1991, exactly what was the threat to our national security that was worth the live of 4100 soldiers?
But don't take my word for it listen to Rice and Powell both said the same things in 2001.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1X-I-38lrU
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/articl...
Reply-
0%
jimdoze2 months, 3 weeks ago
How was Iwo Jima a threat to the United States? We lost 6,821 dead there in 5 weeks back in 1945... yet no one seems to have ever questioned that.
You won't tell me there were strategic reasons then, but none now in re: Iraq, to allow such carnage of our own troops, now will you?
Reply-
0%
Goppy2 months, 3 weeks ago
There WERE strategic reasons!
Saddam Hussein was in talks to turn over ALL oil contracts to the Rooskies!
That was strategically bad for GeeDub's oil buddies.
But, from a POLITICAL and WORLD BALANCE OF POWER strategy ... invading Iraq was a DISASTER for the US.
Saddam Hussein was an ardent opponent of Al Qaida. I don't know if you remember this but Al Qaida is also an enemy of the United States.
Then there is Saddam's counterweight to Iran.
Unfortunately, the leaders of Iran see us an an enemy ... and Saddam saw them as such too!
Ironically, the Wall Street Journal reported mass demonstrations in Iran after 911 IN SUPPORT of the USA! There was even speculation that a 'People's Revolution would topple the Anti-American leadership.
Course, that all changed after GW invaded Iraq .... now the Iranians wonder if they are next.
Funny how war has such unintended consequences.
Reply-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
Keep it up, Goebby! You can spread the BIG LIE like NO OTHER!
" Saddam Hussein was an ardent opponent of Al Qaida"
Yeah, right! And your source for this is, who, David Brock?
Right, that's why Saddam had Zarquawi executed when he came to Iraq for treatment of his Afghanistan war wounds - oops, that was Abu Nidal whom he had bumped off, because he feared the US might bribe Nidal into killing HIM!
Oh, so now you think Rumsfeld was a GENIUS, going to Iraq in the 80's to provide assistance to Saddam versus Iran, do you? Don't tell your International ANSWER AND MoveOn friends you said that... ...too late, they ALL post here, too, don't they?
Oh, yes, now the Iranian people HATE us don't they, and they LOVE their ayatollahs, don't they?
And, of course, it was ALL about OIL, wasn't it? Those oil companies just couldn't WAIT to see gas cost $5 a gallon, so no one could afford it, right?
Reply
-
-
0%
djn3nunez32 months, 3 weeks ago
Iwo Jima was a threat to our forces in the Pacific because there was 25,000 or so Japanese stationed on the island. Japan attacked us on Dec 7 1941 killing 2350. We had also declared a state of war with Japan.
How many Americans were killed when Iraq attacked us on.....oh wait, they didn't attack us did they? Well that declaration of war we had against Iraq will more than suffice...wait another second, Congress didn't declare war on Iraq either. No they abdicated their constitutional responsibility and gave the President a bill where he was the one to determine if Iraq was a threat. And well of course we all know how honest that MFer was......
Reply-
-
baddad59Comment removed: User banned.
-
0%
djn3nunez32 months, 3 weeks ago
"The funny thing, you will never understand the war that prevented WWIII."
Hahahahahahahahaha
Good one.
You were joking? Right?
Reply
-
-
-
0%
disraeli2 months, 3 weeks ago
Jim,
I think that the similarity between Iwo Jima and Iraq ends with the first letter. In that sense it's rather biblical an I for an I.
However in real world, circa 1945 "Iwo Jima was strategically important: it provided an airbase for Japanese aircraft to intercept long-range B-29 bombers and provided a haven for Japanese naval units in dire need of any support available. The capture of Iwo Jima would eliminate these problems and provide a staging area for the eventual invasion of the Japanese mainland." (source wiki)
I see no equivalent strategic value to Iraq, unless of course you would consider it a staging ground for an invasion of Saudi or Iran?
Reply-
-
-
0%
CRYMTYPHON2 months, 3 weeks ago
Strategic importance?
I thought we were liberating them from dictatorship.
You seem to have no problem switching back and forth, -
we did it because we wanted to bring them freedom,
we did it because it is a strategic place to control the oil fields.
Was it a happy coincidence that there was just-cause to go to war at the same spot where it was strategic to put our troops?
Nutz. It isn't even any fun to point out the dreary hipocracy.
Death and debt take all the fun out.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
svensun2 months, 3 weeks ago
You are taking those quotes ENTIRELY out of context. The danger that Saddam posed was not from his conventional military, or what he might do, but from what he might pass on to terrorists to use against us or others.
After 9/11, it became clear that Islamic terrorists were bent on mass murder, on killing as many Americans as possible, not just on staging attacks to capture the headlines. The best way to cause mass casualties is WMD, and the most likely place terrorists could get WMD is from a state sponsor, and Saddam was, if nothing else, an enthusiastic state sponsor of terrorism, going back to the days of Abu Nidal, one of those favored by his sponsorship.
Reply-
0%
djn3nunez32 months, 3 weeks ago
"and the most likely place terrorists could get WMD is from a state sponsor, and Saddam was, if nothing else, an enthusiastic state sponsor of terrorism,"
Even our own State Department admitted that the only para-military organizations that Saddam supported was in Palestine and Iran. Furthermore, they concluded that the groups he supported did not have access to his advanced weapons.
Saddam would never give away weapons to radical Muslims like Osama because they would just as likely use the weapons again him one day.
Besides Ronnie Raygun and GWHB were Saddams sponsors. It is because of them that Saddam had the weapons he had in the late 80's.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
jordan112 months, 3 weeks ago
Your problem is that you couldn't tell a national security threat from a neo-con! In fact, you THINK neo-cons ARE a national security threat, don't you?>>>>
I'll jump in on that one. I KNOW neocons are a national security threat!!! All anyone has to do is read what they did to the FIRST anti terrorism bill presented their Congress in the 90's. They GUTTED IT! Then they gutted the Constitution when their boy took power. Now they're obstructing EVERY piece of legislation the opposing party is trying to get through Congress. HELL YES they're a national security threat! Only a MORON wouldn't see it.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
