With all the wisodom that comes with 20/20 hindsight it's easy enough to see the mistakes. That's to be expected. What the left now has is a very selective memory of who supported what and why. The facts are most dems supported the war as it began and most of the MSM was selling it as a good thing. Watch MSBNC and you'll see Bush and company demagoged day and night on this, the tenth anniversy of the invasion. You'll see one FOX clip after another supporting the war. What you won't see is more telling of the media bias surrounding the whole story as it's being sold today. You would think we had to trample over millions of dems to get there. Not quite the case. Plenty of blame to go around on the momumentual screw up in Iraq, for both sides of the isle.
More proof of how dumb Republicans are...
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
There is plenty of blame to go around and the general public can shoulder most of it. Public opinion pushed our representatives into approving the war. The general feeling after 9/11 was anger. We wanted someone to pay. Displaced aggression is not something that only animals do. We like watching rockets fly into buildings while sitting comfortably at home. We don't consider all the ramifications. We don't consider that we have to pay for it. ($10,000 for every man, woman and child in the US) Sadam was taunting us. Too often the American public would rather turn plowshares into swords than turn the other cheek. We are too ignorant, prideful, militaristic and nationalistic. It just so happens that Republicans are more of these things than Democrats. For instance, ten years later 40% of Republicans STILL think Iraq was working closely with Al Qaeda. 27% Of Dems do also. 63% of Reps STILL believe Iraq had WMD's....15% of Dems do. The public is stupid................but especially the Republicans.
http://hudsonjournalist.blogsp...ely-misinformed.html
You know what is really stupid?
When politicians say that raising taxes will hurt economic growth in a weak economy, but the Fed imposes a minimum 2% tax/yr as "target inflation" (in other words, you lose 2% value of money - and that's if all goes according to plan, and REAL inflation isn't higher [we know it is]) - and says it will HELP the economy.
And no one in DC points out the contradiction, just because he doesn't use the word "tax".
When politicians say that raising taxes will hurt economic growth in a weak economy, but the Fed imposes a minimum 2% tax/yr as "target inflation" (in other words, you lose 2% value of money - and that's if all goes according to plan, and REAL inflation isn't higher [we know it is]) - and says it will HELP the economy.
And no one in DC points out the contradiction, just because he doesn't use the word "tax".