February 5, 2004
Nicholas Kristof wrote a column on Bush's budget here in the NY Times. It starts out a bit inflammatory, but then calms down a bit. I was a bit turned off a bit at first, but I do believe he makes some good points. Traditional conservatives might lower taxes, but also lower spending. Liberals might raise spending, but they also raise taxes. In either event, the debits and credits work out. Dan wrote a piece identifying a good, informative article on the contents of Bush's budget. However, as I pointed out there, he seems to keep increasing spending in a lot of areas. And that's what Kristof points out. Bush keeps spending and lowering taxes. Kristof points out the the Democratic candidates' budgets aren't good for much either, but that they make more sense than Bush's. Now I mostly like Bush. I think he's had a lot of tough decisions that he's handled well. Wars cost an awful lot of money. However, I have to agree with his opponents that tax cuts and increased spending can't work well. If he really wants to cut taxes, he needs to cut spending, like a real fiscal conservative. That means not having $530 billion Medicare bills and such. I don't think we are in a crisis, but I think he needs to be a bit more responsible here.
Posted by charr at 10:01 AM
--Edited by Cameron--I told you W Bush was lying about Iraq. I knew he was lying since last year when W BUSH said over and over he had massive evidence on wmd and nuclear compounds in Iraq but all the leads BUSH gave to UN chief inspector BLIX about the whereabouts of these sites were BOGUS and NO GOOD. All the UN inspectors found was SAND, SAND, SAND!! The same thing Bush is finding now SAND, SAND, SAND!!!!
180 American soldiers dead and counting, many Iraqi civilians dead and 80 billions tax payers dollars that are NOT coming out of Bush's pocket but ours!!! and for what??? For Cheney's company laughing all the way to the bank!!!We have been played.Bush also said Iraqis will welcome our troops..........YEAH RIGHT!! Welcome them with what? Bullets in the head!!! After Bush declared victory in Iraq in the Aircraft carrier playing Top Gun pilot, 47 American Soldiers have been killed and others wounded,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,this is what Bush call "liberation"???180 plus dead American soldiers and counting won't be spending father's day with there families.....W BUSH will. He was playing golf laughing with his father.And I don't want to hear the hypocrisy from the brain washed Bushies that this war was about freedom and liberation.Since when conservatives gave a **** about Iraqis or anybody but themselves?Where were the same conservatives when Reagan, Bush Sr., Rumsfeld and Cheney were supporting and supplying Saddam for almost a decade in the 80's??? I didn't hear anybody talk about Iraqi freedom then.When Iraq gassed the Kurds and Iranians in a war in 1988, what the **** did Reagan, Bush Sr., Rumsfeld or Cheney do? Nothing!!!! they turned there backs.........Actually Reagan send Rumsfeld to Iraq to congratulate Saddam in person and shale his hand for his victory over Iran. Its all on VIDEO!!!Where was the out cry from these same hypocrite conservatives?If this was about freedom why isn't these same hypocrites including W BUSH goes to Pakistan, China, Sudan, Korea, Saudi and Cuba just a few places where they have murderous regimes and real wmd and and some have nuclear missiles??
Don't you hate a hypocrite and a liar that uses the word "FREEDOM and "LIBERATION" as a punchline for his speeches but really doesn't mean it?
W Bush didn't want to give the UN inspectors more time to prevent a war because Bush argued that he had massive evidence Iraq had massive WMD and nuclear compounds and was ready to strike at us directly. That Iraq was an imenent threat to our country.........forget OSAMA, FORGET KOREA...........he wanted to invade Iraq at all cost regardless of how many American lives and Iraqi civilians died!!Now W BUSH wants more time because he can't find **** but SAND, SAND, SAND!!!Iraq was going to conquer the world with empty mobile trucks and sand, sand, sand!!!
I remember the Bushies and PRO WAR conservatives saying that the UN inspectors were incompetent and no good because they couldn't find any WMD in Iraq and because they were agaisnt pre-empty strike.So what does that makes Bush and his search team now since they can't find anything either?? Incompetents???
Either W BUSH is a liar or incompetent who is being told what to do or what to say like a puppet president.......either way he and his team has to go in 2004.We have lost credibility around the world with Bush as president!!!Next time when W BUSH says a country is a big threat with wmd and nuclear weapons......WHO'S GOING TO BELIEVE HIM???.....He could be right but since he @#%$ up bigtime with lies and exageration over Iraq...he has hurt our credibility.Its like the kid who cried wolf too many times...........when a wolf finally arrives who's going to believe the kid.and before the BUSH lovers attack me here..........remember COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY!!!!! AND COUNTRY BEFORE PRESIDENT!!!
You conservatives got on Clinton over a [inappropriate action]......you had investigations up the a$$, hearings and almost impeached Clinton.W BUSH lied about a war that many Americans DIED, Iraqi civilans died and wounded and 80 billions of our tax payers money GONE. The main reason he use was WMD, WMD, WMD!!! Now that its obvious that Iraq never had them now conservatives want to back track and say it doesn't matter if we find WMD OR NOT!!!.....GO FIGURED!!!
I think it'd be pretty hard to prove that Bush lied, or that Cheney really profited from this whole thing. Pretty much everyone thought Saddam had the weapons; not necessarily an imminent threat, but that he had them. As for finding the WMD, ain't hindsight great?
In fact, according to this article, Bush was careful to not even say "imminent." Another case of exaggerations (or should I say lies?) on the part of Bush opponents.And how can you possibly believe that the believers in liberty and freedom were brainwashed?Unlike the Democratic candidates, if you have a complaint against Bush, you need to actually give a basis for it.
Kay's (sp?) testimony has pretty much wiped out any doubts I had as to whether or not Bush really thought there were WMD in Iraq. Essentially: Intelligence (both ours and British) said he had them. Bush made a move based on the data from intelligence he believed correct. So, Bush didn't lie.You're only lying if you know the truth. Clearly, he didn't. He was given data, he made a decision based on that data, and he found out later that the data wasn't entirely accurate. As to more time for UN weapons inspectors, they had 12 years. During that time they were stalled and misled by Saddam. There was no indication that Saddam would ever cooperate with the UN. Why should they have been given more time? So that that France, Germany and Russia could continue to make money with Saddam? So that Saddam could have more time to hide/dispose of the weapons he claimed to never have had?Dangit. There went my bumper sticker policy out the window.
What I want to know is what any of this has to do with fiscal conservativism! ;)
None whatsoever. It's not even a tangent. But I can't resist a troll. I think if I were a fish, I wouldn't last long.As for fiscal conservativism, I said my part, all y'all feel free to say yours :).
Who wants to comment on fiscal conservatism when there's a troll to play with? Sigh.Ok. Fine. Fiscal conservatism should be: Tax small. Spend smaller. Otherwise, I ain't happy. Y'aller happy? :D
I was wondering the exact same thing as Levi - where did fiscal conservatism go? Has anyone else noticed that if you ever praise Bush for anything, no matter how minute, you get the whole spiel? I just love it. :) Also, I think there should be a caveat in Godwin's Law; I think debates end as soon as the other party is referred to as "brainwashed." That always ends everything.