Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden==========
Maybe because he's a conservative?
Don't you recall how, in the year prior to the 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, Mavis Leno was lobbying for the invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban because of the Taliban's abuse of women?
The American people were played, and until there is a real and thorough investigation of 9/11, we're never going to know the full extent of the criminal conspiracy controlling our government.
About Video
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
There's plenty to rail against Democrats for. Beginning with those who refused to read the NIE that was made available to them in a locked and guarded room in Congress. Hillary Clinton, even after being advised by Bob Graham to go to the room and read it before she voted, didn't. She also claims that she didn't talk her vote to authorize Bush to use military force in Iraq over with her husband, who as a former president got the same daily intelligence briefing that Bush got, and knew that it was trumped up twattle.
But here's the real smoking gvn, about the true nature of Democrats, and their not being any different than Republicans:
Obama & Democrats ran on putting the wars on the budget, with no more supplemental emergency spending bills to pay for these wars. Funding the wars through supplementals was how Bush & Cheney managed to avoid congressional oversight & public scrutiny.
After close to two years of controlling both Houses of Congress & the WhiteHouse, Democrats are continuing the funding of the wars through supplementals.
What's significant about this?:
When the funding of wars goes 'on budget', congressional committees & subcommittees then hold hearings & investigations into US policies, about US interests around the world, from which the UnitedState's overall foreign & military policies are derived. That's how civilian-control over the US military takes place: Through the citizens' chosen representatives choosing weapons systems & overseeing US military operations & installations, plans & policies, etc.
This doesn't happen with supplemental spending bills.
The nature of them is, "It's an emergency, we're running out of money, give us $80 billion now (that's the magic sum, invariably $80 billion) or you won't be 'supporting the troops'...We'll talk about it later".
"Later" doesn't happen.
The $80 billion ploy is so the American people think they're always talking about the same $80 billion.
I know, I know, "How is that possible that the average American wouldn't realize it's not the same $80 billion when it's year in& year out?" The average American is just barely keeping it all together as it is & fighting for his life(style).
Committees in both Houses of Congress have either never begun investigations into fraud and abuse, or dropped investigations (both on what happened during the Bush administration and afterwards), yet Congress is doing no oversight, & thieving criminal private contractors are still being awarded government contracts.
About Video
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
postedby 48 minutes ago (9:09 AM)
From CNN, 2002 ... just a reminder about the Dem support at the time ...==========
Senate approves Iraq war resolution
There's plenty to rail against Democrats for. Beginning with those who refused to read the NIE that was made available to them in a locked and guarded room in Congress. Hillary Clinton, even after being advised by Bob Graham to go to the room and read it before she voted, didn't. She also claims that she didn't talk her vote to authorize Bush to use military force in Iraq over with her husband, who as a former president got the same daily intelligence briefing that Bush got, and knew that it was trumped up twattle.
But here's the real smoking gvn, about the true nature of Democrats, and their not being any different than Republicans:
Obama & Democrats ran on putting the wars on the budget, with no more supplemental emergency spending bills to pay for these wars. Funding the wars through supplementals was how Bush & Cheney managed to avoid congressional oversight & public scrutiny.
After close to two years of controlling both Houses of Congress & the WhiteHouse, Democrats are continuing the funding of the wars through supplementals.
What's significant about this?:
When the funding of wars goes 'on budget', congressional committees & subcommittees then hold hearings & investigations into US policies, about US interests around the world, from which the UnitedState's overall foreign & military policies are derived. That's how civilian-control over the US military takes place: Through the citizens' chosen representatives choosing weapons systems & overseeing US military operations & installations, plans & policies, etc.
This doesn't happen with supplemental spending bills.
The nature of them is, "It's an emergency, we're running out of money, give us $80 billion now (that's the magic sum, invariably $80 billion) or you won't be 'supporting the troops'...We'll talk about it later".
"Later" doesn't happen.
The $80 billion ploy is so the American people think they're always talking about the same $80 billion.
I know, I know, "How is that possible that the average American wouldn't realize it's not the same $80 billion when it's year in& year out?" The average American is just barely keeping it all together as it is & fighting for his life(style).
Committees in both Houses of Congress have either never begun investigations into fraud and abuse, or dropped investigations (both on what happened during the Bush administration and afterwards), yet Congress is doing no oversight, & thieving criminal private contractors are still being awarded government contracts.
About Video
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Just a reminder about Democratic support at the time:
Bush got the AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq) from Congress based on his assurances that it was only to bolster his 'bullying Saddam Hussein'-s
Bush did neither.
Let's also remember that among Bush's many l!es in those chaotic days (chaos he and Cheney created to prevent clear thinking and decision-making, by both members of Congress, the media and the American people), was that Saddam Hussein had thrown UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq (he hadn't -- It was Bush who advised UN weapons inspectors to leave Iraq, as war was imminent (Bush, you may recall, was "loosing his patience" with Saddam and making all sorts of claims about Saddam and WMD that the inspectors were saying wasn't true).
And, lastly, let's also remember that Bush's ultimatum about regime change in Iraq (who the h3ll was Bush to be issuing ultimatums about a sovereign country?) and giving Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave the country actually got the result Bush was claiming to want. Saddam agreed to exile. But that wasn't what Bush (and the Arab League) wanted, and so he ignored it, pretended it hadn't happened, and went ahead with the war. All of this was unbeknownst to and out of the oversight of Congress (it's important to also remember John Bolton ordering NSA intercepts on members of our government at that time).
KEEP READING
About Video
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Why are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney being allowed to crawl back into polite society to rehabilitate their images and the Bush and Cheney family names, and spread revisionist history about 9/11, WMD in Iraq, the economic meltdown, and the nightmare they've caused us and the world?
Why aren't they having to spend 24/7 with their lawyers, working on a way to stay out of prison?
Oh, that's right, I forgot: Because Obama and the DLC-Democrats have blocked all investigations and prosecutions into Bush-Cheney and Republicans, and have allowed them to resurrect themselves and take back control over government.
And because of Obama's failure to restore the Constitution and return us to the rule of law, by holding Bush, Cheney, et al, accountable, JEB Bush was all over the news on election night as the man behind Florida's new Tea Party Senator, Marco Rubio. So expect a Jeb Bush run at the presidency in the not-to-di tant-future. Perhaps with Liz Cheney on the ticket with him.
This is Obama's fault -- The buck stops squarely at his feet.
When Obama came into power, the GOP wasn't on the ropes; it was down for the count because of the devastation that Bush-Cheney had caused the nation. And Obama issued Bush-Cheney and Republicans (essentially) a pardon. None of them express any remorse or contrition. As a matter of fact, they're rested and ready for another round of tax cuts for the rich and slicing-and-dicing Social Security, Medicare, and anything else they can get their hands on that would help the People.
And even now, Obama wants to continue to make nice with them, cave some more, water down Democratic values & legislation.
Obama's not any kind of real Democrat; he's a DINO.
And if you didn't like the Republican Party of the last 35 years, the party of Reagan (forget just the past 10), you're going to hate where Obama and the DLC are taking the 'new & improved' Democratic Party from which they hope "to govern for 100 years".
And last week's release of the chairmen of the Deficit Commission's recommendations was the opening salvo for a plan that will get adopted -- Cutting Social Security benefits, raising the age, and privatizing the Social Security trust fund, whole or in part (Democrats have already signaled they're amenable to it). Obama's already announced that if 14 of the 18 can agree on a plan, he's on board, and there are already more than 14 on the commission that support privatization.
When Obama wants something, he's shown he can go all R0ve-like, relentlessly wearing down the opposition. The problem is that he and the DLC-controlled Democratic Party don't want what the Democratic voters put them into power to get.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
