Obama’s smoke and mirror budget

The Patriot Post and the Heritage Foundation have analyzed Obama’s, two month late, $3.8 trillion budget, which relies on further tax increases on the wealthy, despite his having just won a $660 billion tax increase on top earners at the beginning of the year because of the fiscal cliff.

But not to worry, Obama said yesterday at the White House, “There’s not a lot of smoke and mirrors in here.” His 2014 budget is nothing but smoke and mirrors. No wonder not one congressman from either party voted for his last budget proposal.


The president claims $1.8 trillion in so-called deficit reduction over a decade, but all of the supposed deficit reduction is achieved through tax increases. Replacing sequester cuts, which are already in place, is $1.2 trillion of the $1.8 trillion dollars in so- called cuts.

The budget increases taxes 1.1 trillion dollars and not just on the rich. Cigarette taxes increase to $1.95 per pack (from $1.01 now and $0.39 when he took office) to pay for preschool for all four-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families – yeah right!

The tax increases are not used to reduce the deficit but for almost $1 trillion in new spending. The deficit is never reduced over the next 10 years, even when it includes the 8% annual increase in the baseline budget each year calculated by the CBO – just more spending.

The deficit will increase by $5.3 trillion under his plan over 10 years but since he was off by almost $1.6 trillion on his first five-year projection, the deficit would be over $24B by 2023. Only in Washington, would this result add up to a reduction in the deficit Mr. President.

As interest rates climb over the next 10 years, the administration projects interest on the debt will rise from $223 billion in the current fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 to $763 billion in 2023. That’s an increase of 242 percent.

The Congressional Budget Office forecast has interest on the debt rising to $857 billion by 2023, up about 282 percent over 10 years.

More smoke and mirrors. At best, the growth in the deficit would not increase as fast and in Washington this is a “cut” in the deficit.


The budget is $240 billion higher than the House budget and even $80 billion higher than the Senate Democrats’ budget.

He trims defense spending growth by a further $100 billion over 10 years, bringing it to just 2.4 percent of GDP — lower than any year since before World War II. That’s a disastrous gamble that displays the commander in chief’s contempt for his constitutional duty to ensure national defense.


His budget caps tax-free retirement savings because, as the White House explains, some people are putting away “substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement savings.”

Obama proposes to “limit an individual’s total balance across tax-preferred accounts to an amount sufficient to finance an annuity of not more than $205,000 per year in retirement, or about $3 million for someone retiring in 2013.”

So now, the Obama budget even decides how much of your own money you can save for retirement? We are on a slippery slope, folks.




  1. Brian Opsahl

    Terry why did you leave off the last year of Bush…? I can tell you why because after 7 years everything he did wrong caught up to him. you leaving out that last year says alot Terry. You can’t just forget or leave out a year especially that year. Mr. Obama’s first year was really bad also and it was an obviouly carry over from Bush but Mr.Obama still owns it.

    It appears you want it both ways…doesn’t work like that
    For the last time Terry do the math and take off your shoes if you have to
    Bush after 8 years (not 7) i lost 130K
    Obama after 4 plus years im up 150 K Fact…!!

    stop trying to re-write history Bush bad…Obama good..!!

  2. JRM,

    That was a “Yes” or “No” question. Did they do something illegal?


    2008 sucked that was I left it off. It was the worse economic year in a long time.

    What did Bush do wrong?

    Why did you 401K go down during the Bush years (probably went down in 2008)? DJIA was over 14,000 in 2007.

    What has Obama done to to increase you stock portfolio?

    Simple questions for you pinheads – time to start answering them.

  3. Brian Opsahl

    If you really want to know why…looking back will answer all of your own questions.
    You try and blame Obama for what Bush did even though he wasn’t even the President yet.

    I have told you over and over your just not getting it….so move on Sir..
    2 wars 2 tax cuts = economic dissasters will happen….last time dude

  4. Brian,

    You are saying that the two tax cuts of 2001 & 2003 and the two wars sank the economy?

    Please show me one CREDIBLE source that says that. The tax cuts helped the economy to generate growth and also led to higher tax revenues. Even with the war spending, the deficits were down to $161 billion and even with the wars, gov’t spending was “only” at $2.7 Trillion. Also, unemployment was under 5%

    Today, with only one war to spend on, gov’t expenditures are one trillion dollars higher. What’s Obama’s excuse now that we are 46 months removed from recession?

    What sank the economy, as any credible economist will tell you, was the housing bubble bursting. If you want to LEARN about the housing bubble, read “Reckless Endangerment”.

    What has Obama done that has increased the DJIA? See if you can do better with this question.

  5. Brian Opsahl

    every economist we had said its a bad idea…are you really this dumb or are you just playing a game with me….?

    You seem to be the only one that forgets the Bush misstakes …and im done trying to show you…I lived it when the stock market closed at just over 6000 and this happened after 7 years of bad polocies from GW BUSH…done

  6. “every economist we had said its a bad idea…are you really this dumb or are you just playing a game with me….?”

    What’s a bad idea?

    Tell me what some of Bush mistakes were, not the results. For example, I don’t want to hear how much you lost in your 401K. I want to hear why you think George Bush did that caused the stock market to drop.

    Name a cople of those Bush policies that led to the stock market drop. So far you have not

  7. Brian Opsahl

    2 wars 2 tax cuts …? really..now im done …cause you aint understanding one bit
    personally I don’t want anything to do with re-living that crap….I have to work another 5 to 7 years before i can retire THANKS TO BUSH..

    Terry how much did you loose from 2000/2008…answer that question…please

  8. I lost mine from 2007 on I’d say close to 250k

  9. Brian Opsahl

    Now how much have you recovered since 2010…?

    be honest Wilson cause Terry wont answer me…hhmmm

  10. Well since it ate up most of my funds, not much although I am putting the max/yr back in.
    I am just waiting for the bottom to fall out.
    I just feel bad for all the old retired folks who are getting nothing with their CD’s and bonds, now that is the real tragedy.
    Be glad you are fortunate that you that 5 to 7 years to recover.

  11. Brian Opsahl

    Thats true Wilson,alot of folks have it alot worse than me,and I truly hope you have a comeback as well. What goes up must come down…right.

  12. Brian,

    I’m about in the same boat you and Wilson are in, maybe a little more.

    Difference is I don’t blame Bush for the recession since he didn’t cause the hosuing bubble and actually tried in 2003 to reign in Fannie and Freddie.

    I don’t give Obama credit for the market increasing.

    Obviously you have no idea why the market went down in 2008 and why it has recovered in 2009-13. I’ll give you hint on why it has risen. His initials are B.B.

    Put the shovel down before you dig your hole any deeper

  13. JRM_CommonSense

    Yes, someone did something illegal is they got a tax-preferred retirement account t0 $87 million in the 30 years when the maximum allowed contribution in any kind of tax-preferred account is $51,000.00.

    If you contributed that maximum, $51,000.00, for each of those 30 years, your contributions would total $1.53 million dollars. How much would your total account be valued at after the 30 years are up in even a fairly good market?

  14. JRM,

    Present that evidence of an illegal act to the IRS and get a whistleblower award.

    BTW, if its illegal, then we don’t need another law do we. We just need the current one enforced.

    “If you contributed that maximum, $51,000.00, for each of those 30 years, your contributions would total $1.53 million dollars. How much would your total account be valued at after the 30 years are up in even a fairly good market?” – Like I mention at the start of your ranting, if I had invested in Apple and WalMart in the early 80’s, that would help. If I had shorted EnRon in the summer of 2001, that would definitely help. If I had Hillary Clinton invest in cattle futures for me, that would have helped also.

  15. Brian Opsahl

    Terry, of course you wont blame Bush you voted for him twice and even today your still trying to convince everybody that it wasn’t his fault. I got to tell you Terry Bush will go down with a legacy that will show him to be a very bad Commander in Chief,and not just the economy either.
    The WMD lie s told from his top security people are now proven from several in his cabinet that reveled it was Chenney and Bush who pushed hard for a reason to go after Iraq for any reason they could come up with. yes several Democrats went along but if they had known Bush was cooking the books so to speak they would never have agreed to that invasion.

    That Terry, got over 100,000 inocent Iraqs killed and sir thats alot of blood on his hands…alot Terry. all just so he could say to his daddy ….i got Saddam and you didn’t

  16. Brian Opsahl

    I would like to ask a question,especially from nuss, you have been so infuriated by us leftys on this who bombed Boston question ….so what do you have to say about what your buddy from fox who tried to blame the President for the bombing yesterday…Brian Kilmeade because if he isnt fired today for what he said you guys cannot say anything thing that holds a candle to that statement…..what say you…hhhmmm

  17. So when Bush said this regarding WMDs, he was lying?

    “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”


  18. Brian Opsahl

    Terry really you cherry pick one thing and thats your answer for killing 100,000 people
    How about Colin Powell quiting because he was forced tBush to the UN in a speech he gave….yea what about that..!!
    Or what about when Chenney went on Fox to say we had photos of Atta with the Iraq intell,when he absolutly new that the photo was not Atta…what about that…!!

  19. Brian,

    Simple question – Was Bush lying when he stated the above? Yes or No. Time to step up, I put this one on the tee for you.

  20. Brian Opsahl

    I would not know if he was or was not. I am not very good at detecting liars. But again your not answering my Chenney acusations or Collin Powell quiting thingeee are you sir.

    I remember a speech he gave Terry…it was during the state of the union address in 2001 or 02 he said if we stay on the path set forth (from Clinton) we will eliminate the deficit in 10 short years (and he was completly correct) Then Terry, Chenney had the bright idea to cut those rich guys taxes and today that deficit is closing in on 16 trillion..just think of his legacy if he had followed through on the speech.

  21. Brian,

    So I’ll take you backpedaling as “No, President Bush was not lying about WMDs”

    You remember a speech from 2001 or 2002 saying that if we stay on the Clinton path we would eliminate the deficit in 10 short years.

    Do you have a clue what you are talking about? In 2001, the was no deficit, there was a $158 billion surplus. Sound like the deficit was eliminated.

    Perhaps what you mean is “DEBT”, not deficits. Stay in the shallow end of the pool until you take an economics class.

    And then you are blaming Cheney for the $16 Trillion deficit (you mean DEBT BALANCE). Part of that balance occurred prior to Vice-President Cheney taking office. A good portion of that debt balance has occurred after he left. And immediately after he left office, Obama could have raised taxes since he had control of both houses of Congress. Also, Obama has left more than 98% of the Bush tax cuts is place, so just how detrimental to the economy are they?

    You still haven’t answered what Obama has done to cause your 401K to increase in value.

    You need to quit showing off your 15 years of K-12 public education

  22. Brian Opsahl

    Yes the dept. Terry wow dude. and NO there is NO backtracking on Bush lying ….did you read anything i said ….ok i will humor you one more time…ready Terry, now put on your reading glasses. If you wish to showoff your ignorance, im your huckelberry…!!

    The stock market when Mr.Obama took over the White house was trading at or falling to a low of 6000 something Terry…correct..ok

    Today it’s trading at some 14,500 something…correct..ok

    Now for the 15 years of K-12 public education I got tells me that is a gain of somewhere around…….125 percent since Mr.Obama took over for your bush….correct..ok

    Are you still following along here Terry..?

    When Mr.Obama took over he got congress to give him a stimulas package of around 800 billion that kept millions of workers from losing there jobs and paying into the tax rolls…

    Still following Terry…

    Then he barrowed money to keep many Companys from bankruptsy (see the GM success story or Chrysler rebound that would have put millions more out of work and on that Government dime you hate so much) and he helped the rotten banksters get bailed out (I dissagree with that one) ….all of this put the markets back on a path to a HUGH recovery…hence the market trading at more than double what it was when your guy Bush had his 8 years of bad jokes…

    Terry I more than doubled down on what you ask for so there you go …!!!

  23. What is the “Dept”? What Department are you talking about?

    “The stock market when Mr.Obama took over the White house was trading at or falling to a low of 6000 something Terry…correct..ok Today it’s trading at some 14,500 something…correct..ok” – What has Obama done to raise the stock market? I gave you hint a few posts ago.

    The Stimulus. Let’s see what Obama’s own Chief Economist predicted about the Stimulus:

    According to Christina Romer, Obama’s former chief economist, she predicted that if the Stimulus passed, unemployment would be near 5% now, not just under 8%. She also predicted that if the Stimulus didn’t pass (that is $800 billion less in debt plus the amount of Stimulus that has been baselined into future budgets), unemployment would be about 5.5% by now. The Stimulus DID NOT get us out of recession, it just bungles the economic recovery. The worse economic recovery since the Great Depression.


    Are you sure you want to stick with the Stimulus as what Obama did to get the economy recovered?

    And then he bailed out teh car companies, which still haven’t paid us back along with Fannie and Freddie. Actually TARP, passed in 2008 with Senator Obama’s vote, bailed out the bankers.

    Keep doubling down genius and you will soon need a bankruptcy attorney. Get a clue Beavis

  24. Brian Opsahl

    It was widly known that Chenney really was the OZ behind the curtain so to speak.
    And if you look into that speech Bush gave…if he would have stayed on the track put forth by Clinton the DEPT would have been gone in 2010…look it up …!!

    Chenney engineered those tax cuts for the rich….and then the idiot did it again…when the smart economist said it’s insane to cut taxes when you are fighting 2 wars…that they forgot to fund…theres the cherry on top…Terry

  25. Brian Opsahl

    Yea kinda funny how that stimulas didn’t work…thats why Paul Ryan didn’t ask for any hhhmmm. and now we are not looking at the depression…Terry you and rip van winkle must of been naping in the same whole while your Bush ran the car off the road..huh

    If nothing Mr.Obama worked then why is it that everything is better now that Bush is gone and the markets are good …take your head out of the kiddy pool I think you drank the pee in the water..

  26. Brian,

    Perhaps if the economy hadn’t gone into recession in March, 2001 – 40 days after Bush entered office and perhaps if the neglected terrorsim from the previous administration hadn’t exploded, we could have stayed on that path. Sadly, it didn’t work that way. A couple of things the old Clinton plan didn’t consider.

    Bush lowered taxes for ALL INCOME TAX PAYING Aemricans to help the economy get out of recession and grow… and it did. It grew for 73 straight months – fifth longest economic expansion in American history.

    Cutting taxes while fighting wara, its been done before. JFK/LBJ did it in 1964 while fighting VietNam. The economy grew until LBJ increased taxes while leaving office in order “to pay for the war”. Guess what happened in 1969 – the economy went into recession. YOu can look it up.

    After the 2003 Bush tax cuts, the deficit went from $378 billion to $161 billion in 2007. That is with the Bush tax cuts and increased war spending. How did that happen? Revenues to the Treasury increased from $1.8 Trillion in 2003 to $2.6 Trillion in 2007. Lower tax rates lead to higher revenues. Amazing!!!

    As for Paul Ryan wanting Stimulus money for the citizens of his district, I don’t blame him. The citizens of his ditsrict are going to pay for that Stimulus in higher taxes some day, they might as well enjoy the money.

    That’s what I have been asking you, what has Obama done to make the markets good. I gave you the last hint of “BB”. Here’s another hint. The first B stands for Ben. Can you guess what the last B stands for?

    Are you still doubling down?

  27. Brian Opsahl

    Perhaps if he didn’t cut taxes twice during wars…or
    perhaps if he didn’t squander that budget surplus given to him from the Democrats….or
    perhaps if Paul Ryan and you complain about the very stimulus HE asked for…OMG ..Really
    perhaps if Bush would not have attacked Iraq (especially based on lies) we would have another 1.3TRILLION dollars of tax payers money back and and some 100,000 THOUSAND dead innocent civilians…..year after year as Bush’s idiotic policies took place ore economy crashed ….did it not…and year after year during Mr.Obama’s time it has gotten better has it not…im your Huckleberry

  28. Like I stated above, those tax cuts led to more revenues and smaller deficits than what existed after the 2001 recession.

    The 2000 projected budget surplus was given to him by Speaker Gingrich and Bill Clinton – as representatives of the gov’t . The real credit for the 200 budget suprplus goes to the dot.com boom of the late 90’s. When the dot.com bubble burst in 2000, so did the economic growth and gov’t reveneus that resulted from it.

    Paul Ryan got some money for his constituents considering they were going to pay for it also. NO use letting all that free gov’t money going to blue districts and Obama campaign contributors like Solendrya.

    So, once again, did Bush lie when he stated this: “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” WAS BUSH LYING? Answer one direct question. Man-up!!!

    So you think we should have let the Taliban run wild in Afghanistan? 100,000 dead civilians is actually a net life saver considering Saddam was killing 30,000+ Iraqi civilians per year.

    Name one of those Bush idiotic policies. If you say the Bush tax cuts, just remember Obama extended them for two years and then left them in place for over 98% of the INCOME TAX PAYING population.

    You’re my Huckleberry Hound excriment.

  29. Just to set the record straight, Democrats believed Saddam had WMD’s, too.

    Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

    “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
    –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
    –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
    –Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

    “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
    –Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
    — Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

    “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
    -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
    — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    “There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
    — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

    “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
    — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

    “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
    — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
    — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
    — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
    — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
    — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
    — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

    “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
    — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
    — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
    — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

    “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
    — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

  30. SNuss,

    You ruined the suprise that I had ol’ Brian.

    So Brian, were all of these prominent democrats lying also? On that list I see a president, vice-president, a bunch of senators (including the 2004 democratic presidential candidate who is the current Sec of State), a senator that is a former Sec of State, Clinton’s former Sec of State, and a former Speaker of the House.

    Now man-up, were they lying too?

  31. JRM_CommonSense

    I know that everyone is extremely happy that all of those WMDs were found, displayed, and then hauled away and destroyed. If that hadn’t happened, there are people who might think that all those who said Iraq had WMD’s were lying.

  32. Brian Opsahl

    No sir …they were lied to as i have said to you numerious times Terry, and Terry did you notice one prominate name missing yea…it’s our Presidents,isnt it Terry…!!

    The memo that Condy Rice gave to Bush warning him of operating cells already training here a full six months before 911 should give you some insight into Bushs attention at the time. go ahead ignore the facts that let to that attack and you need to be reminded sir that over 3000 Americans died while Bush was the Commander in Chief.

    It took Mr. Obama to find and kill the guy that planned it. Didn’t it…!!
    As i said before the history books will not be kind to Bush and his 8 years of hell.

    Are you really not smart enough to get that if Bush was lying to all of them then they might not have agreed with him…do you get that or not..?

    I see your attepting to have the Democrats share the blame and thats fine Terry but the bottem line is this was Bush and Chenneys war and it failed misserably and so many fronts like the exit stratigy plan that must of come from a 8 yearold. so many many more things that went bad (mission accomplished) 6 weeks in. over 100,000 thousand innocent Iraqs blood is on there hands ….is it not..?

    It seems to me only you and a handfull of likeminders don’t get it Terry…hell even your own Republicans wont invite him to be on a stage together…will they Terry.

    By the way, all that stuff you keep making up that YOU think i THINK …really Terry keep guessing but your not very good at it.

  33. So who lied to Bill Clinton back in Feb, 1998 beofre he said this?

    “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
    –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    Did Bush lie to him? Cheney? Rumsfeld? Colin Powell?

    I have heard about the August 6, 2001 memo, but can’t finje a reference to a memo from March, 2001. care to provide a link?

    It took intellgence gathered from waterboarding to lead to the whereabouts of bin Laden, Obama said “go”, a decision almost any president would have made if given the opportunity.

    The exit strategy from Iraq that Bush designed and the Iraqis agreed to was followed almost to the letter by Obama. Must have been one smart 8-year old.

    Tell me something you think I have made up and I’ll be happy to provide you a link.

  34. Brian,

    Do you have an answer? Who lied to Bill Clinton back in 1998? Man-up.

  35. Brian Opsahl

    Bill Clinton ordered 22 tomahawks shot at UBL and every single time your Republicans accused him of what….remember Terry….they called it wag the dog…?

    UBL was killed 2 years into President Obamas term,even hinting that Bush had anything to do with that raid is an absolute joke. Bush was home sucking on lolly pops while they planned that…really dude…and waterboarding is popular among you Republicans until somebody doe’s it to you..hello torture is against international law.

    The exit strategy was laught at by everyone,one for a complete lack of a plan once they took over Iraq…remember Terry….?

    You sure like to yada,yada alot huh Terry

    Terry what about those poor 100,000 thousand Iraqs you never mentioned…innocent Iraqs that were killed because Bush had no real plan for them….let em die..! right Terry

  36. Clinton failed multiple times to get bin Laden when he was in the wide-open.

    Without that waterboarding the intellgence that led to bin Laden’s death would never have been obtained – at least says Former CIA Director and former Sec of Defense Leon Panetta.

    And yet Obama follwoed Bush’s exit strategy to the letter.

    And those 100,000 Iraqis that dies were less than would have dies with Saddam still in power. Including the Kurds thru use of WMDs

  37. Brian Opsahl

    Clinton failed,but tried at least 3 times, we missed him by only 20 to 30 minutes,so he got very close and remember Terry that, wag the dog, thing the republicans did on the house floor everytime he fired at UBL….thats the truth..on that.

    How many tomahawks did Bush fire at him….none thats right..!! yea Bush ignored the warnings about UBL then we all took it in the shorts so who you crappin Terry

    You still have NOT mentioned those 100,000 thousand dead innocent Iraqs…Terry why is that..? I have asked you at least 10 times about them….and just like the rest of your buddys you want to yada,yada…that…!!

  38. Brian’s revisionist history refuted:

    Without Bush, Bin Laden Would Not Have Been Killed

    Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld agreed with Sean Hannity (and disagreed with some others) that President Bush deserves much credit for helping develop the tools that were used to find Osama bin Laden. However, Rumsfeld wasn’t exactly on the same page with Hannity regarding whether photos of Bin Laden’s body should be released.

    Hannity, noting that there are conspiracy theories that Bin Laden isn’t dead, suggested the photos of Bin Laden’s body be made public and wondered why our government is “overly concerned about an enemy that’s not going to like us anyway?” Yet Rumsfeld understood the concern that the photos might enflame certain Muslim groups and could potentially be used as a recruiting tool. Therefore, he argued the release was ultimately a “tough judgment call.”

    The two men did agree though that enhanced interrogation techniques (and waterboarding in particular) provided valuable information, techniques which Hannity noted, “were employed during the Bush administration, without which this day would have never occurred.” Rumsfeld was just as quick though to praise Obama for making the best possible strategic decision to capture Bin Laden.


  39. Brian Opsahl

    Donald Rumsfeld,and Hannity the paid entertainer are you flippin serious dude…thats your experts on the subjet. as I said before Bush was sucking on popsycles for over 2 years and remember his quote…I don’t know where he is …i mean stopped looking for him long ago….thats your idiot not mine.

    You will never get anybody to beleive that Bush had anything to do with getting UBL because it’s TRUE..and its a FACT..

    You can’t re-write history to fit your own twisted conclusions…that’s NOT how it happened

    How many Tomahawks did Bush fire at UBL…none thats how many…!!

  40. I guess Bush has a lot of company in his”band of liars”
    I bet Bush is such a dimwit that the Democrats convinced him there were WMD’s!

    “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

    “Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
    “Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998

    “(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

    “Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

  41. One more thing Brian, Bush didn’t waste all that money missing UBL with Tomahawks.
    Well it appears Cliton didn’t target UBL either
    “Dozens of U.S. cruise missiles struck targets in Afghanistan and the Sudan on Thursday in what President Clinton described as an act of self-defense against imminent terrorist plots and of retribution for the bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa two weeks ago.

    The strikes were launched from ships in the Arabian and Red Seas at dusk. It was not immediately clear whether the raids were a military success. Pentagon officials said that no Americans died but that they had no immediate estimate of other casualties or damage. Early Friday, an Islamic press agency reported 15 deaths from the bombings in Afghanistan.

    •U.S. Attacks Based on Strong Evidence Against Bin Laden Group
    •Attack Aimed 70 Missiles at Targets 2,500 Miles Apart
    •In the War Against Terrorism, Any Attack Has Pros and Cons
    •Sudan Planned to Make Deadly Nerve Agent, U.S. Says

    •Most Members of Congress Rally Around Clinton
    •U.S. Agents Said to Thwart Bomb Plot Against U.S. Embassy in Albania
    •U.S.-Sudanese Tensions Finally Erupt Into Open Warfare
    •Mideast Governments Remain Silent About U.S. Attack
    •U.S. Warns Americans Abroad to Be More Cautious

    •U.S. Sees Bin Laden as Ringleader of Terrorist Network

    •TV Turns Away From Monica for News of a Different Shock Value
    •Is Life Imitating Art? ‘Wag the Dog’ Springs to Many Minds

    •Embassy Bombings in East Africa


    •The Tomahawk Missile

    • U.S. Strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan

    President Clinton’s National Address
    •Pentagon Press Conference

    •President Clinton’s National Address
    •Gen. Hugh Shelton, Joint Chiefs Chairman
    •Madeleine Albright, Sec. of State
    •Sandy Berger, National Security Adviser
    •Arlen Specter, (R) Pennsylvania

    •Join a discussion on the U.S. Military Strike in Afghanistan

    • U.S. Navy: The Tomahawk Cruise Missile

    With about 75 missiles timed to explode simultaneously in unsuspecting countries on two continents, the operation was the most formidable U.S. military assault ever against a private sponsor of terrorism.

    The targets were identified by Pentagon officials as an extensive terrorism training complex in Afghanistan, 94 miles south of Kabul, and a factory for the building blocks of chemical weapons near Khartoum, the Sudan.

    Clinton and his national security team linked both sites to Osama bin Laden, the exiled Saudi millionaire tied by U.S. intelligence to the twin bombings on Aug. 7 in Kenya and Tanzania. The bombings killed 12 Americans and nearly 300 Africans.

    Bin Laden, who is in Afghanistan, apparently survived the attack, which officials insisted was not aimed at him. “

    Lets hear the broken record again Brian, “Bush lied people died” keep repeating, do you feel better now?

  42. “When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It’s going to be decisive.” Pres. G. W. Bush

    BTW: Leon Panetta says ‘enhanced interrogation’ tactics played a role in death of Osama bin Laden

    Read more at: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/leon-panetta-enhanced-interrogation-tactics-played-role-death-osama-bin-laden-article-1.1254336

    You can’t re-write history to fit your own twisted conclusions…that’s NOT how it happened! 😉

  43. “You still have NOT mentioned those 100,000 thousand dead innocent Iraqs…Terry why is that..?”

    Brian – RIF – Reading is Fundamental.

    Nine minutes before you posted that, I posted this “And those 100,000 Iraqis that dies were less than would have dies with Saddam still in power. Including the Kurds thru use of WMDs” – Therefore, asked and answered.

    Watch “10 ways to kill bin Laden” and will see Clinton’s failures and his lack of committment.

  44. Brian Opsahl

    And you should watch huberus…did Clinton laub some 22 Tomahawk missles and at least3 of them came within minutes of killing UBL…and did the republicans take to the house floor to scream …wag the dog…! ..remember Terry…?

    100,000 death’s is a lot of blood and saying Saddam would have killed them anyway as an excuse is insane….really dude..!!

  45. I do remember that Clinton bombed Iraq for four days because of WMDs back in December, 1998. He addressed the nation and said Iraq had WMDs.

    I remember back in 1996 when bin Laden declared war against the U.S. I remember that CNN was able to find him and interview him in 1997. CNN was able to find bin Laden, but Clinton failed to find him in a four year period when. Chubby Peter Arnedt was able to find him, but Clinton wouldn’t unleash the CIA on him.

    Clinton blew it.

    As for more Iraqis being dead if Saddam was still in power today, it’s simple math Brian – 30,000 per year times ten years > 100,000.

  46. Brian Opsahl

    Let me know when you finally find those WMD’s …maybe you should try the game where’s Waldo…Clinton fired Tomahawk missiles trying to kill UBL…Bush waited until attacked before he went after him and how did that turn out…?
    Yea,it was Mr.Obama that got him,but hey look at it this way….Bush spent some 1.3 trillion in taxpayers money in Iraq…killing over 100,000 thousand of those innocent folks even though UBL was in Afganistain.

  47. “Bush waited until attacked before he went after him and how did that turn out…?” we waterboarded KSM, got the intel necessary to find bin Laden and now he’s dead. Something a president Gore never would have done.

    So you are saying Clinton lied about WMDs. Bush based his WMD decision on that information from the Clinton adminstration

    They (Bush and Obama) spent $1.4 Trillion on BOTH wars.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *