Dubbya a bush or Not a bush, that is the question

So from what I understand, this uranium was in a dismantled nuclear weapons facility under seal from the IAEA until the US invasion. In our haste, we left it unguarded after the invasion.

Now I'm not a member of Mensa (though perhaps I should look into joining ) but that hardly qualifies as "justification" for this war. That would be like Captain Raynault shutting down Rick's Cafe for gambling ("I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!") in the movie Casablanca.

PS Some were calling it "enriched", but it was nowhere near weapons grade, more like "watch dial" grade. i.e. - It takes about 10 - 25 lbs. of enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb.

This has been interesting to read. I will go back to the first questions asked. I am a very conservative person, I associate with conservative people, if I were to ask those I am around I would get a resounding amount of "Yes, I voted for Bush". When Clinton was elected I would have gotten a "No, I did not vote for Clinton" and some of my friends thought there was some conspiracy as to why he was elected to office. If you see were I am going, it can be confusing to decide how a person was elected to office. I do not trust polls, here in San Diego the pollsters were never on the same ground as to who was going to win the Mayor's seat.

Bush as president, I supported Bush as he sent troops into Afghanistan, I supported Bush as he sent troops into Iraq to find WMDs and stop Saddam's reign and killing of his people. I still support Bush as we have the troops out now. I am not sure if we were lied to, maybe Bush was lied to, but we are in Iraq now. Al Queda has decided to make their stand in Iraq and not in Afghanistan, have the troops made a difference for the people both in Afghanistan and Iraq? I think so.

I DO NOT support Bush's idea on open boarders, it makes it too easy for terrorists to get here. I live in the San Diego area, I have friends who have to keep themselves armed because illegal aliens are running through their backyards. I find this very discerning.

As far as the hurricane goes, I think all parties messed up big time. Also I believe if I am warned 72 hours in advance the disaster would strike, I would get my rear end out as fast as possible and not wait for someone to come pick me up.

As long as Bush tries to improve our safety and the safety of others, I will support him and any president who wants to protect the US from terrorist, regardless of political party. Sure, there are other things that I do not agree with Bush on, but hey, I am entitled to my opinions.

These are my thoughts, I am passionate about them, I also kept them on topic of the first questions. My family is very military, we fight for the love we have for America, we are very patriotic, we raise the American flag in honor of those who have fought for us, who have paved the way for freedom and liberty(something that other countries are fighting for currently), and we raise the American flag for every American that lives here in the USA. We love this land, I pray that we will be safe from wars fought here and abroad. These are dangerous times, if we pull the troops out now we will endanger our own lives, the terrorists will bring the fight onto our own front porches. I ask that you take what I have posted to heart and not debate me, I am allowed to feel this way, just as each of you are allowed to feel the way you do, I will never put you down for your beliefs.

i am usually not a huge fan of politics but i feel compelled to ask:
i have heard from several sources that bush has gotten us into the deepest debt than all presidents combined.
If this is true, and the monetary amount has been adjusted for inflation and is still a ridiculous sum, i want to know why Conservatives (fiscal) support presidents who seem to be spending shitloads of cash on things that aren't terribly necessary. I understand that Army stuff is very expensive, but i think it is sad to have to cut things like education (being a student )
and i have heard rather nasty rumors from friend that were in the army that army officials will spend incredible amounts of money on mundane items, basically embezzeling thousands of dollars that never is investigated. I just hope that id these kinds of things are true, that something gest done about it. Because i love my family in the army, and i fully support my troops, but it is sad to think that the public is being taken advantage of by politicians and officials... anyways, my 2 cents, i probably shouldn't have posted since i'm dead tired, but have a good night, and don't worry if i'm wrong, i just don't have the energy tonight to research.

:eatpointe political discussions are like fast food, plenty to fill you up, but they don't give you much for the trouble, and it gives you indigestion....

Originally Posted by darkbloodwyvern

i am usually not a huge fan of politics but i feel compelled to ask:
i have heard from several sources that bush has gotten us into the deepest debt than all presidents combined.

Not quite accurate. Ronald Reagan actually doubled the total fedeal debt in his eight years, and Bush (41) continued that trend quite well during his four year term. During Clinton's first term the trend continued as well. It was only during Clinton's second term that the total debt levelled off, though it never really decreased despite alleged budget surpluses. Our government has a nice way of using "off budget" items to counter "on budget" items. So the actual surplus or deficit looks better or less bad because it is always figured in with social security surpluses. Here are some total public (federal) debt figures, from the Bureau of Public Debt's web site. They are part of the Treasury Department.

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
12/31/1985 1,945,941,616,459.88
12/31/1984 1,662,966,000,000.00 *
12/31/1983 1,410,702,000,000.00 *
12/31/1982 1,197,073,000,000.00 *
12/31/1981 1,028,729,000,000.00 *
12/31/1980 930,210,000,000.00 *
12/31/1979 845,116,000,000.00 *
12/29/1978 789,207,000,000.00 *
12/30/1977 718,943,000,000.00 *
12/31/1976 653,544,000,000.00 *
12/31/1975 576,649,000,000.00 *
12/31/1974 492,665,000,000.00 *
12/31/1973 469,898,039,554.70
12/29/1972 449,298,066,119.00
12/31/1971 424,130,961,959.95
12/31/1970 389,158,403,690.26
12/31/1969 368,225,581,254.41
12/31/1968 358,028,625,002.91
12/29/1967 344,663,009,745.18
12/30/1966 329,319,249,366.68
12/31/1965 320,904,110,042.04
12/31/1964 317,940,472,718.38
12/31/1963 309,346,845,059.17
12/31/1962 303,470,080,489.27
12/29/1961 296,168,761,214.92
12/30/1960 290,216,815,241.68
12/31/1959 290,797,771,717.63
12/31/1958 282,922,423,583.87
12/31/1957 274,897,784,290.72
12/31/1956 276,627,527,996.11
12/30/1955 280,768,553,188.96
12/31/1954 278,749,814,391.33
12/31/1953 275,168,120,129.39
06/30/1953 266,071,061,638.57
06/30/1952 259,105,178,785.43
06/29/1951 255,221,976,814.93
06/30/1950 257,357,352,351.04

Here are some budget surplus/deficit illustrations:


If you look closely you will see that the total debt increased (though only a little) even as we had "surpluses". Again, this is due to using "off budget" surpluses from social security to fund federal spending. Below (also from the Bureau of Public Debt's web site) you will see that during Clinton's second term public debt was being paid down even as debt to the Social Security Trust Fund was increasing. During Bush (43) all hell has broken loose, owing, as you can see above, mostly to the tax cuts which account for a far larger portion of the deficit than does the war effort.