AP fact-checks Obama speech; Update: Reason does better

posted at 12:17 pm on September 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday, Barack Obama told the nation that he was tired of dishonest debate and “scare tactics,” but how honest was Obama himself in last night’s speech?  The Associated Press fact-checks Obama and finds him … wanting.  For a man eager to paint his opposition as liars, Obama told a couple of whoppers himself in front of the joint session of Congress:

OBAMA: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period.”

THE FACTS: Though there’s no final plan yet, the White House and congressional Democrats already have shown they’re ready to skirt the no-new-deficits pledge.

House Democrats offered a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years. But Democrats and Obama administration officials claimed the bill actually was deficit-neutral. They said they simply didn’t have to count $245 billion of it — the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don’t face big annual pay cuts. …

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf had this to say in July: “We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.”

In fact, none of the proposals that have come from Congress thus far have been scored deficit neutral by any credible analytical group.  Obama tried arguing again last night that preventive medicine would save the system money, and therefore would render the system deficit neutral or even cost-effective in the long run.  Obama has yet to explain the scope of the “long run” argument, and in any event, the AP notes that the CBO has already blown the whistle on this argument, too:

THE FACTS: Studies have shown that much preventive care — particularly tests like the ones Obama mentions — actually costs money instead of saving it. That’s because detecting acute diseases like breast cancer in their early stages involves testing many people who would never end up developing the disease. The costs of a large number of tests, even if they’re relatively cheap, will outweigh the costs of caring for the minority of people who would have ended up getting sick without the testing.

The Congressional Budget Office wrote in August: “The evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall.”

I wrote a column regarding this finding a month ago today.  This has been known for several weeks, explained thoroughly by the CBO in its letter, based on well-known, peer-reviewed studies.  Cost savings from a massive application of preventive medicine is a myth — or in Obama’s parlance, a lie.  Yet Obama insists on telling it over and over again to get people to believe that he can save money by spending more of it.

The AP misses a couple of whoppers, too.  For instance, while they scold Obama for reversing himself on individual mandates, they let this pass without challenge in their article:

“To force people to get health insurance, you’ve got to have a very harsh penalty,” he said in a February 2008 debate.

Now, he says, “individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.”

This analogy is false for a few reasons.  States only require people to carry auto insurance if they drive on public roads.  It is a prerequisite of accessing a state-run system, not a mandate disconnected from any government-provided service.  Also, the mandate for auto insurance in most states is for liability insurance — insurance that pays for the damage done to other people, not to one’s self.  It’s to make sure that people who suffer damages from auto accidents not their fault can recover compensation for them.

They really miss the boat on illegal immigration, though:

OBAMA: “The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” One congressman, South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson, shouted “You lie!” from his seat in the House chamber when Obama made this assertion. Wilson later apologized.

THE FACTS: The facts back up Obama. The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, but wouldn’t get tax subsidies to help them. Still, Republicans say there are not sufficient citizenship verification requirements to ensure illegal immigrants are excluded from benefits they are not due.

Actually, the facts do not back up Obama, as the Congressional Research Service noted in its analysis of HR3200.  The CRS is not run by Republicans, but is the nonpartisan research office that reports to Congress.  Illegal aliens in the US who meet the “substantial presence” test would be required to participate in the health-care “exchanges” and would have access therefore to the subsidies and the public option, if it exists in the final form of the bill (page 4):

Under H.R. 3200, all legal permanent residents (LPRs),23 nonimmigrants, and unauthorized aliens who meet the substantial presence test (defined above) would be required to obtain health insurance. Noncitizens meeting the definition of nonresident aliens (e.g., temporary visitors, temporary workers in the United States for less than 183 days in the year) would not be required to obtain health insurance. Notably, the IRC does not contain special rules for individuals who are in the United States without authorization (i.e., illegal or unauthorized aliens). Instead, the IRC treats these individuals in the same manner as other foreign nationals—an unauthorized individual who has been in the United States long enough to qualify under the substantial presence test is classified as a resident alien; otherwise, the individual is classified as a nonresident alien. Thus, it would appear that unauthorized aliens who meet the substantial presence test would be required under H.R. 3200 to have health insurance.

Since the CRS analysis has been public for almost two weeks, the AP reporters should have familiarized themselves with it. The bill offered by the House, which Obama seems to have re-embraced last night, would require illegal aliens in the country for more than six months to obtain health insurance through the exchanges, and make them eligible for the public option. Furthermore, when Republicans attempted to close that loophole with an amendment, Democrats shot it down.

If Obama really wants to make a reputation for himself as a mythbuster, he should start with himself.

Update: I don’t think the AP did a bad job here, but Reason’s Matt Welch does much better — and focuses on the man doing the proposing and the disposing:

It is telling that so many people who claim to be speaking on the side of Truth, Justice, and the American Way of Journalism have consistently focused their outrage-o-meters at individual townhall attendees, political broadcast entertainers, and the lesser lights of a lame (if resurgent-by-default) opposition party, while letting walk nearly fact-check-free the non-irrelevant occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If calling out lies and misrepresentations about a significant policy proposal is such pressing journalistic business—and it should be!—you’d think the watchdogs might start with the guy doing the proposing.

The lies last night began in Obama’s opening paragraph. “When I spoke here last winter,” he began, “credit was frozen. And our financial system was on the verge of collapse.” In fact, Obama spoke on Feb. 24, at least six weeks after credit markets began to thaw, and one week after he proclaimed that the passage of his $787 billion stimulus marked “the beginning of the end, the beginning of what we need to do to create jobs for Americans.” Obama’s speech that day wasn’t about staving off a collapse, it was about cleaning up the mess and tackling long-ignored issues. Such as health care.

It’s never encouraging when a politician who desperately needs to convince skeptical Americans of his fiscal sobriety starts off by slurring his words. As you might then infer, Obama was just warming up. “Insurance companies,” the president announced, “will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies,” in part because such prevention “saves money.” Looks like someone forgot to tell the Congressional Budget Office, or other non-White House sources that have analyzed the cost-benefit of prevention.

Again and again last night, the president’s numbers didn’t add up. “There may be those—particularly the young and healthy—who still want to take the risk and go without coverage,” he warned, in a passage defending compulsory insurance. “The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don’t sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people’s expensive emergency room visits.” No, it means that, on balance, the healthy young don’t pay for the unhealthy old. The whole point of forcing vigorous youth to buy insurance is using their cash and good actuarials to bring down the costs of covering the less fortunate.

Be sure to read it all.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Does your 7 year old operate a car or motor vehicle, Mom? If he uses an emergency room as an indigent, (s)he’s imposing costs on others.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 12:52 PM

like oboobi’s and the demonrats plan won’t impose cost on to others, find a better arguement troll.

SHARPTOOTH on September 10, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Has anyone noticed the glaring looks made by our President as he speaks? While Bush made some poor judgments, I never remember him looking like he was filled with hate and anger.

mobydutch on September 10, 2009 at 12:55 PM

This should be criminal! All facts should be put on the table when such a large portion of our economy is involved, yet this guy keeps twisting and spinning.

joedoe on September 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM

A President of the United States getting up before Congress and lying? How novel! The filthy liar should apologize to Joe Wilson for denying the fact he was lying.

Seriously, the important thing here is to keep the truth out in front of the debate. The filthy liar, AARP, and other special interests are spending big bucks in the next few weeks to proclaim that the “truth” as proclaimed by the rat bastard traitor in the White House. Getting the truth out should be the foremost mission for the next two months.

highhopes on September 10, 2009 at 12:56 PM

If they’re too stupid to get one half right, there’s no real reason to believe they got the other half right.
Bleeds Blue on September 10, 2009 at 12:45 PM

even a broken clock is right twice a day, the little bit of “truths” they put forth in an article adds credence to the huge omissions and out-and-out lies; i mean this is the msm’s mo, that you don’t see this bespeaks a lack of education/intelligence.

weewilly on September 10, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 12:51 PM

So as long as Nancy Pelosi never had to actually use in a court case the notarized copy saying Obama met the Constitutional requirements to be president, it wouldn’t matter if she was lying?

IOW, simply making a sworn statement doesn’t put a person in legal jeopardy, but PRESENTING a sworn statement in a court of law puts a person in danger of committing perjury? A document notarized but never presented for legal purposes is about as meaningful as saying something with your fingers crossed?

Do I understand that right?

justincase on September 10, 2009 at 12:57 PM

To the extent you don’t have health insurance and are treated for free in an emergency room, you’re imposing costs on others.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Unless you pay for your own bills. That does still happen, Jimbo. And it still my bill if I go to a hospital, not yours.

So maybe you and the president can take your hands out of my pocket? So far I’ve done a much better job balancing my budget, but then I don’t know anyone in this country who couldn’t say the same.

Esthier on September 10, 2009 at 12:57 PM

So he was 220 billion off. That is only about 666 dollars per man, woman and child in the Country.

“And the number of the Beast shall be a human number, composed of six hundred and sixty six.”

Hmmmm.

GunRunner on September 10, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Has anyone noticed the glaring looks made by our President as he speaks? While Bush made some poor judgments, I never remember him looking like he was filled with hate and anger.

mobydutch on September 10, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Bush wasn’t and the filthy liar is a hate-filled racist radical that is angry he has to pretend to like America and white people.

highhopes on September 10, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Has anyone noticed the glaring looks made by our President as he speaks? While Bush made some poor judgments, I never remember him looking like he was filled with hate and anger.

mobydutch on September 10, 2009 at 12:55 PM

That was all posturing, an attempt to scare up the necessary votes.

misslizzi on September 10, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Ed, in most states, you are required to have liability insurance if you operate a car or apply for a license. It doesn’t matter if you drive your car on your private property; you still need to have the insurance or equivalent protection.

“A person may not operate a motor vehicle in this state unless financial responsibility is established for that vehicle…..”

You’re required to have liability insurance because you could impose costs on others because of your actions. So how is that different from requiring everyone to have health insurance? To the extent you don’t have health insurance and are treated for free in an emergency room, you’re imposing costs on others.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Your full of shit. I don’t need to show I have liability insurance to get a driver’s license. I do to tag a car. If I own an untagged car, of which I own 3, I don’t need to show liability insurance to own them, which I don’t. That means, as long as I don’t drive them on PUBLIC roads, I’m not driving them illegally. I can drive them around on private property all I want, like my back yard and private race tracks, and not be breaking a single law.

Phil-351 on September 10, 2009 at 1:01 PM

Could someone please tell me, who are the Republican leaders??????

mobydutch on September 10, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Bleedsblue told me that Joe Wilson is the leader of the Republican party.

myrenovations on September 10, 2009 at 12:46 PM

I think I said that Wilson has become the VOICE of the party which, today, he clearly is.

Do you really believe this? Do you even understand what you’re saying?

Either you accept a story is 100% true or it’s 100% false? Really?

If the AP analysis is wrong at all, then it’s not reliable, but that doesn’t mean it can’t make a good point or two.

Esthier on September 10, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Either they are reliable analysts or they are not. If you are taking issues with important points of their analysis, you are saying that they are consistently wrong. Why you would hold up a source that is consistently wrong in support of your own arguments is beyond me.

I am quibbling less with individual points than with the idea that you would cite an MSM source — which you loathe and distrust to begin with — in support of your arguments and then subvert its credibility by saying it gets a lot of stuff wrong. You hat and distrust them until they agree with you and then suddenly they’re they voice of truth.

Bleeds Blue on September 10, 2009 at 1:02 PM

So he was 220 billion off. That is only about 666 dollars per man, woman and child in the Country.

“And the number of the Beast shall be a human number, composed of six hundred and sixty six.”

Hmmmm.

GunRunner on September 10, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Actually it is 665 dollars per man, woman, and child in the country…so what is that a sign of???
665 the sign of the….

right2bright on September 10, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Regarding illegals getting health care bennies … another way to put it is they would get additional health care benefits.

They already get health benefits on my dime and yours in the form of emergency room care.

BowHuntingTexas on September 10, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Either they are reliable analysts or they are not. If you are taking issues with important points of their analysis, you are saying that they are consistently wrong.

Bleeds Blue on September 10, 2009 at 1:02 PM

In other words, they get an “A” or an “F”; nothing in between. Brilliant.

Vashta.Nerada on September 10, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Regarding illegals getting health care bennies … another way to put it is they would get additional health care benefits.

They already get health benefits on my dime and yours in the form of emergency room care.

BowHuntingTexas on September 10, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Thank you very much, my fellow suffering Texan.

TXMomof3 on September 10, 2009 at 1:05 PM

xler8bmw on September 10, 2009 at 12:55 PM

This seems at odds with what Jimbo3 is saying. I’m trying to figure out why Nancy Pelosi and the DNC had two different statements notarized but only sent out the one which did NOT give the required DNC certification of Constitutional eligibility. It was a deliberate act. Why did she do it?

Is she ever required to present the complete certification to a legal authority – thus putting herself in jeopardy of perjury charges if she lied?

Obama’s forged COLB online can’t be used in a forgery charge because it was never presented as legal evidence. Was Nancy Pelosi using the same ploy by signing both documents but only presenting the one she knew was true and not the legally-required one saying Obama was eligibible?

I’m wondering why she didn’t send out the complete certification if she went ahead and had it notorized – if she was putting her neck on the line already.

justincase on September 10, 2009 at 1:05 PM

O had a hissy fit last night. What’s next stamping his feet and telling us we have to go to our rooms.

Kissmygrits on September 10, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Since Joe Wilson has the guts to speak out, how do we keep in touch with our new leader? Will he be speaking in Washington on Saturday or will our other lilly livered leaders be speaking?

mobydutch on September 10, 2009 at 1:07 PM

O had a hissy fit last night. What’s next stamping his feet and telling us we have to go to our rooms.

Kissmygrits on September 10, 2009 at 1:06 PM

I am hoping he holds his breath until he passes out and hits his head. :)

TXMomof3 on September 10, 2009 at 1:07 PM

If you are taking issues with important points of their analysis, you are saying that they are consistently wrong.

No, you’re saying that they’re wrong on those key parts, but again, that doesn’t mean that they can’t get other parts right.

Why you would hold up a source that is consistently wrong in support of your own arguments is beyond me.

It’s because of your denotative view of the word “consistently”. Just because the AP got one thing wrong, it doesn’t make them consistently wrong.

You hat and distrust them until they agree with you and then suddenly they’re they voice of truth.

Bleeds Blue on September 10, 2009 at 1:02 PM

The AP is beyond MSM. It’s THE news, roughly 95% of it. That it could even get one fact right, is big news, not for us here but for those who don’t get their news anywhere else, which is a good portion of the population.

See, this is posted, not to help us fact check Obama but as proof that even the AP won’t carry his water, which means other Americans will finally see something we’ve seen all along.

This would be the same if Keith Olberman (a man I wouldn’t trust to tell me the sky is blue) finally found the truth and told it to his audience.

In fact, the whole point of a fact check list in the first place is to separate the facts in Obama’s speech from the lies, understanding that Obama used both in his speech last night.

Esthier on September 10, 2009 at 1:08 PM

Either they are reliable analysts or they are not. If you are taking issues with important points of their analysis, you are saying that they are consistently wrong. Why you would hold up a source that is consistently wrong in support of your own arguments is beyond me.

I am quibbling less with individual points than with the idea that you would cite an MSM source — which you loathe and distrust to begin with — in support of your arguments and then subvert its credibility by saying it gets a lot of stuff wrong. You hat and distrust them until they agree with you and then suddenly they’re they voice of truth.

AhWhen the AP doesn’t believe the president, he is in trouble. That’s the point. Normally, we can count on the media to take everything a democrat politician says as the word of god – regardless of its veracity.

The fact that the AP doesn’t even swallow what the President is selling, should trouble the left. But, being the media and still biased toward the left, they aren’t going to challenge everything – so their blinders still cause them to get things wrong in the President’s favor.

Monkeytoe on September 10, 2009 at 1:11 PM

The only honest truth in that speech was “YOU LIE” by Wilson.

SWChance on September 10, 2009 at 1:12 PM

OT – There were so many things wrong on so many levels, but PLEASE do not call illegals “immigrants”. I am an immigrant! I came here LEGALLY, I try to blend into the society I live in, I try to help with my talents and treasures where I can – immigrants try to make the place they came to BETTER – these illegals, while I am sure they have good reason for coming here (yeah, FREE everything!), they are mooching off society! I still speak my first language when I am in my home, or with friends who know that language, but in public I speak ENGLISH! I still hang on to some of my homeland’s customs and foods, etc, but do so in the privacy of my home! I don’t get into people’s faces with the “difference” but try to be a part of what I came to join! And there are MANY MORE like me!!!!! The reasons why we came are as varied as the countries we are from, however, this is OUR country now, and we work HARD to make it succeed or even better!

mkosin on September 10, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Phil, I gave you the words from the Texas statute. There is an exception if you’re driving cars around for ceremonial purposes on an irregular basis, but the statute says you have to have liability insurance if you own the car.

Here’s the link to the Texas statute: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.601.htm.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Jimbo, don’t forget this part:

“A person may not operate a motor vehicle in this state unless financial responsibility is established for that vehicle…..”

It doesn’t say liability insurance but rather FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, which can simply be proof that you have money set aside to pay for this and not insurance.

Esthier on September 10, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Phil–if you move to Texas, you do need to have liability insurance for all vehicles owned.

Applicants age 18 and over with a VALID out-of-state driver license (Select the highlighted links to receive additional information for each requirement listed below.)

Provide proof of Identity.
Provide proof of Social Security Number.
Provide proof of Texas vehicle registration and proof of liability insurance on all vehicles owned.
Complete required forms available at any Texas Driver License office.
Pay the required fee.
Pass a vision exam.
If you have a VALID out-of-state license in your possession, it must be surrendered at the driver license office.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 1:20 PM

O had a hissy fit last night. What’s next stamping his feet and telling us we have to go to our rooms.

Kissmygrits on September 10, 2009 at 1:06 PM

He’s about played out, the only thing left is going back to the beach and flexing his pecks again.

Rebar on September 10, 2009 at 1:22 PM

I believe that laws for auto insurance are state by state.
So are the current laws for what is mandated covered by a health insurance policy. One immediate savings for insurance costs which could be implemented immediately at no cost to the taxpayer is changing the regulations currently on Health insurance. Allowing insurance companies to cross state lines. Widening the pool of risk allows insurance companies to lower costs.
Also, if we could choose a basic coverage, instead of a plan that has to include drug rehab, fertility treatments, or whatever else the state has decided must be mandatory.Let each person decide if they want to pay more for additional coverage. I have that option for dental insurance and my auto insurance, why can’t we have that for medical insurance?

conservativegrandma on September 10, 2009 at 1:22 PM

Esthier, if you don’t have insurance, you’ll generally have to deposit $55,000.

Sec. 601.051. REQUIREMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. A person may not operate a motor vehicle in this state unless financial responsibility is established for that vehicle through:

(1) a motor vehicle liability insurance policy that complies with Subchapter D;

(2) a surety bond filed under Section 601.121;

(3) a deposit under Section 601.122;

(4) a deposit under Section 601.123; or

(5) self-insurance under Section 601.124.

—————————

Sec. 601.122. DEPOSIT OF CASH OR SECURITIES WITH COMPTROLLER. (a) A person may establish financial responsibility by depositing $55,000 with the comptroller in:

(1) cash; or

(2) securities that:

(A) are of the type that may legally be purchased by savings banks or trust funds; and

(B) have a market value equal to the required amount.

Sec. 601.123. DEPOSIT OF CASH OR CASHIER’S CHECK WITH COUNTY JUDGE. (a) A person may establish financial responsibility by making a deposit with the county judge of the county in which the motor vehicle is registered.

(b) The deposit must be made in cash or a cashier’s check in the amount of at least $55,000.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 1:23 PM

justincase on September 10, 2009 at 1:05 PM

I thought that was what you were talking about. The original document signed & notarized had the sentence referring to the constitutional liability of the candiate to be president. In the next copy which is the EXACT same document they omitted the constitutional sentence THEN submitted it to the FEC. Just like a any legal document i.e. contract if yu change ANY language w/o the original witness there and intial the change it is ILLEGAL in a court of law.

This PROVES that Pelosi and the dems knew he was not legally eligible to be president under the constitution when vetting him. They probably as well thought it would not get noticed or no judge would look at the merits of the case (surprised?) they have been circumventing the constitution for years. Under the law it was signed and witnessed with WILLFUL INTENT which is recognized under the SC as illegal. So she willful intended the document was truth and wifully changed a witnessed signed document that was to be truth and would fall under perjury, possibly RICO, fraud, tampering, violation of oath of office and many more charges. Why she did it I have no idea but, yes she would and will be ia a great deal of trouble. You CANNOT use ignorance of the law as a valid defense in court.

xler8bmw on September 10, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Doesn’t change my point whatsoever.

Esthier on September 10, 2009 at 1:25 PM

Justin, if a false sworn statement isn’t used in a case and isn’t likely to have significantly impacted the outcome, it won’t usually be perjury. There are other laws against making false statements, but that’s different than perjury.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 1:26 PM

Yes it does. Do you have $55000 sitting around to deposit with the government (you could also get a surety bond or self-insure, but I suspect you’ll have to put up a similar deposit to do those things)?

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Obama’s forged COLB online can’t be used in a forgery charge because it was never presented as legal evidence.
justincase on September 10, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Yes it can if it was a forged original document and iformation was changed after original was created witnessed and signed. We don’t know if it is/not an original document. If they copied a form version and entered false info into it and pass it off as real then other charges could take affect.

xler8bmw on September 10, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Has anyone noticed the glaring looks made by our President as he speaks? While Bush made some poor judgments, I never remember him looking like he was filled with hate and anger.

mobydutch on September 10, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Like Michael Jackson wearing his underpants on the outside and grabbing his crotch, our president wants us all to think he is BAD by glaring at republicans.

Most 160 lb weaklings don’t pull this off.

fogw on September 10, 2009 at 1:32 PM

47 million.

30 million.

Presto!

Jim Treacher on September 10, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Yes it does. Do you have $55000 sitting around to deposit with the government (you could also get a surety bond or self-insure, but I suspect you’ll have to put up a similar deposit to do those things)?

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 1:28 PM

No, it really doesn’t. This isn’t about me specifically but about forcing people to pay for something they otherwise can afford to take care of more cheaply on their own.

I’m not wealthy, but I can get $55k. And if I never have to used it, I’ve saved thousands of dollars by not paying for something I didn’t need.

Not everyone has that option, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t still be made available.

And, again, my medical bills, are mine, not yours. Texas won’t go after those who don’t pay, but that doesn’t mean they don’t still send you the bill.

And who are those who most impact unpaid medical bills? Oh, right, illegals. And yet, supposedly they won’t even be covered by this and thus will still continue to impact all of us, negating your entire point.

Esthier on September 10, 2009 at 1:34 PM

To the extent you don’t have health insurance and are treated for free in an emergency room, you’re imposing costs on others.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Auto insurance covers harm you have done to someone’s person or property. Actual physical harm caused by something you have done and for which you are responsible and must make right. I am not responsible to pay the costs of others if they carry no insurance and have done no harm to me, but have done harm to someone else.

Jvette on September 10, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Gosh, gee, Obama lied and then the AP lied to give him cover

will Wonders never cease? I mean, you know, like this never happened before.

That speech was a direct attack on every non-liberal non-Democrat. It’s time to gear up……

Janos Hunyadi on September 10, 2009 at 1:38 PM

You Lie!!!!!!!!!

PatriotRider on September 10, 2009 at 1:41 PM

You’re effectively being charged the costs of the uninsured and the underinsured by having your rates higher than they otherwise might be.

Esthier, I think the liability portion of my auto insurance on one car is about $200 for six months, or $400 for a year. Even at a 1% interest rate (which would be good for short term money in this environment), you’d lose out on $550 annually on your deposit. There is no way it makes economic sense for you not to purchase the insurance in that case. You’ve saved nothing.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 1:42 PM

O had a hissy fit last night. What’s next stamping his feet and telling us we have to go to our rooms.

Kissmygrits on September 10, 2009 at 1:06 PM

I chave this vision of him pounding on the floor and crying I.Want.My.HealthCare.Plan!!

docdave on September 10, 2009 at 1:43 PM

mobydutch-He is filled with hate and anger,so is his wife.

inevitable on September 10, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Joe the TruthTeller

faraway on September 10, 2009 at 1:46 PM

xler8bmw on September 10, 2009 at 1:24 PM

The question is why she signed both versions and if I understand you correctly, you’re suggesting that the second version was a copy of the longer one but with some of it deleted. But both versions are notarized. Wouldn’t they both have to be signed individually by the notary public? I mean, wouldn’t the notary public have to physically sign a document in order for it to be valid – with photocopies proving nothing?

justincase on September 10, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Esthier, I think the liability portion of my auto insurance on one car is about $200 for six months, or $400 for a year. Even at a 1% interest rate (which would be good for short term money in this environment), you’d lose out on $550 annually on your deposit. There is no way it makes economic sense for you not to purchase the insurance in that case. You’ve saved nothing.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 1:42 PM

There’s no way you only pay $200. I pay six months at a time as well (though most don’t and get hit with extra fees that way), and can’t get it that cheap even with a good driving record and years of loyalty to a company that provides me with discounts based on years with them.

I’m not saying the savings would be significant, but I don’t see how any of that justifies the government forcing me to pay for something I don’t want and don’t need, all to line their own pockets or the pockets of health insurers.

You need to have a compelling reason to take money out of my pocket. Saying I might be a dead beat isn’t one of them.

Esthier on September 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Jimbo3: Quit mioxing apples and oranges. You have liability insurance on a car for a totally different reason than you would purchase health insurance.

Your comparison is wrong and stupid.

Vince on September 10, 2009 at 1:48 PM

xler8bmw on September 10, 2009 at 1:30 PM

One of the lawyers over at Ace’s said it couldn’t be considered forgery because it wasn’t presented to a legal authority – who would never accept a web image as proof of anything anyway. So I’m confused.

justincase on September 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Phil, I gave you the words from the Texas statute.

Texas is not ‘most states’. Show me 25 other states that have the same requirement, and then we’ll have ‘most states’. I personally know of 5 states here in the South-East that do not require liability insurance unless they are registered and tagged for use on public thoroughfares.

Provide proof of Texas vehicle registration and proof of liability insurance on all vehicles owned.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 1:20 PM

But what if I don’t own a vehicle? I can still get a license, I just don’t need liability insurance!!!

That’s two points blasted out the water.

And a friend of mine who grew up in Texas has informed me that the only way they have to enforce this statute are vehicles used on public thoroughfares. They have no jurisdiction to enforce this statue on private property unless it is open the the public.

Phil-351 on September 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM

I’m pretty sure that the collusion part of my coverage is more than the liability part, Esthier, and I pay about $550/6 months for the most valuable car. I’ll check and confirm. I also have the discounts, homeowners insurance with them, etc.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Either the AP analysis is reliable or it is not, you can’t have it both ways.

Bleeds Blue on September 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Yes, just like every news report and commentary is entirely accurate and reliable, or it is not. There are never any party accurate and partly accurate news reports or commentaries that have mixed reliability.

When it comes to pushing a very narrow agenda, there is only black and white.

And when it comes to attempts at disputing the indisputable, there are always straw men, as you employed here.

Loxodonta on September 10, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Phil, you said you have three untagged cars that you drive on your property. You own those cars, right?

And the TX statute says if you’re in an accident (even if on your property) where’s there’s more than a minimal amount of damage, you can’t get your license renewed until you have insurance. It doesn’t say anything in the statute about the police not coming on to your land. That may be the way it’s applied, but that doesn’t mean it has to be done that way.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 1:52 PM

You’re effectively being charged the costs of the uninsured and the underinsured by having your rates higher than they otherwise might be.

That is a cost of business much like the fact that retail prices rise because of theft by others. Insurance costs are based on a myriad of statistics such as place, rate of car theft, number of accidents per person, cost of repair or replacement, number of tickets or accidents of the individual etc….

The point, which you miss, is that auto insurance is necessary for the use of public roads where one might cause real physical harm to someone’s person or property.

Jvette on September 10, 2009 at 1:54 PM

I’m pretty sure that the collusion part of my coverage is more than the liability part, Esthier, and I pay about $550/6 months for the most valuable car. I’ll check and confirm. I also have the discounts, homeowners insurance with them, etc.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM

So you were lying earlier when you said you only paid $200?

At best I pay around $300, and that’s just for liability. That they give you a discount for getting extra coverage doesn’t mean your liability insurance is actually cheaper. You’re talking about the minimum one would have to pay every year on liability, and that’s at least over $600.

But as I already said, the main point isn’t saving money but choice. I’m not forced to spend my money with an insurance agency if I don’t choose to.

Esthier on September 10, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Obama:

When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Lie.

A full and vibrant recovery is still many months away.

Lie.

- until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes. That is our ultimate goal.

Lie.

Our collective failure to meet this challenge — year after year, decade after decade — has led us to the breaking point.

Lie.

Now, these are the facts. Nobody disputes them.

Lie.

It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance for those who don’t. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government

Lie.

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan

Lie

What this plan will do is make the insurance you have work better for you

Lie.

Now, that’s what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan — more security and more stability.

Lie.

Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple

Lie.

There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

Lie.
Joe Wilson:

You lie!

Truth.

JellyToast on September 10, 2009 at 2:00 PM

I personally think it has to do with fear that we’re offering health insurance for low-lifes.

AnninCA on September 10, 2009 at 12:27 PM

You’ve been here a long time. I can’t believe that’s all you’ve taken away from these comments here.

It has nothing to do with who’s getting it but rather who has to pay for it. And it has everything to do with liberty in not forcing someone to pay for something they don’t want, either literally, by forcing people to buy their own health insurance or more indirectly by taxing them to pay for other people’s health insurance.

And I’m saying this as an uninsured person.

Esthier on September 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Yes AnninCA has been reading here long enough. And please don’t believe that’s what an unbiased reader has gotten from Hot Air comments. This is classic Concern Trolling behavior in which the CT appears to be expressing a concern, but is really attempting to slander the opposition and create dissension in the ranks. Although troll behavior is often best ignored, when false concerns or facts are made, they really need to be disputed. So, thanks for doing that.

Loxodonta on September 10, 2009 at 2:01 PM

A fine for adults choosing — i.e.: making a choice — to not purchase health insurance?

I’m so tired of liberals trying to turn back the clock on the untouchable, from-the-mountaintop, ne plus ultra creed of “My body, my choice.”

Hey, you hypocrisy-laden libs, who are YOU to tell me what I can and can’t do with my own body?

In the words of that great liberal philosopher Travis Bickle: “Suck on that.”

Dion on September 10, 2009 at 2:01 PM

The only reason that liability laws were passed is because lawyers got tired of suing people without money! They reasoned that insurance companies would just pay up and pass on the charge to customers.

Just because that law got though doesn’t mean that we should pass another bad law.

Vince on September 10, 2009 at 2:01 PM

JellyToast on September 10, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Stop, stop, my head is exploding. I can’t handle the truth.

faraway on September 10, 2009 at 2:04 PM

Illinois:

(625 ILCS 5/7‑601) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 7‑601)
Sec. 7‑601. Required liability insurance policy.
(a) No person shall operate, register or maintain registration of, and no owner shall permit another person to operate, register or maintain registration of, a motor vehicle designed to be used on a public highway unless the motor vehicle is covered by a liability insurance policy.

(b) The following vehicles are exempt from the requirements of this Section:
(1) vehicles subject to the provisions of Chapters 8
or 18a, Article III or Section 7‑609 of Chapter 7, or Sections 12‑606 or 12‑707.01 of Chapter 12 of this Code;

(2) vehicles required to file proof of liability
insurance with the Illinois Commerce Commission;

(3) vehicles covered by a certificate of
self‑insurance under Section 7‑502 of this Code;

(4) vehicles owned by the United States, the State
of Illinois, or any political subdivision, municipality or local mass transit district;

(5) implements of husbandry;
(6) other vehicles complying with laws which require
them to be insured in amounts meeting or exceeding the minimum amounts required under this Section; and

(7) inoperable or stored vehicles that are not
operated, as defined by rules and regulations of the Secretary.

Michigan:

2) An owner or registrant of a motor vehicle or motorcycle with respect to which security is required, who operates the motor vehicle or motorcycle or permits it to be operated upon a public highway in this state, without having in full force and effect security complying with this section or section 3101 or 3103 is guilty of a misdemeanor.

One has the “public highway” clause; the other doesn’t.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 2:04 PM

No, Esthier, I have other things, like rental car and I think medical for accidents involving the car.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 2:05 PM

Obama thinks Americans are gullible fools.

Schadenfreude on September 10, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Funny how people are practically dislocating joints trying to twist the language of the bill to mean what they want it to mean. I see summaries leading to false conclusions, which is necessary when the language doesn’t support your claim.

Example: Page 143 states “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

THE BILL LIES!

Constantine on September 10, 2009 at 2:10 PM

justincase on September 10, 2009 at 1:46 PM

You may be right they’re 2 separate documents but, they were both notarized, witnessed and signed by a notary Shalina Williamson on 8/28 which are the ones I viewed. The second document was changed from the original to omit the constitutional reference and submitted to the FEC. Which means they know that he is inelligable of the constitutional requirement that is why it was taken out. If it does come out he is ineligable by a court of law then she would be liable of perjury, fraud and other charges for signing a legal notarized document w/o vetting and knowing he wasn’t eligible. She and congress couldn’t use ignorance of the law (as no one can)because it is their responsibility to uphold the law by oath of office and to vet him thoroughly to make sure he was in good standing to be not only a candidate but, he also, has to be vetted again by congress if he becomes president elect.

xler8bmw on September 10, 2009 at 2:11 PM

Applicants age 18 and over with a VALID out-of-state driver license (Select the highlighted links to receive additional information for each requirement listed below.)

Provide proof of Identity.
Provide proof of Social Security Number.
Provide proof of Texas vehicle registration and proof of liability insurance on all vehicles owned.
Complete required forms available at any Texas Driver License office.
Pay the required fee.
Pass a vision exam.
If you have a VALID out-of-state license in your possession, it must be surrendered at the driver license office.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Now see if you can understand this: I live in Texas, I have insurance and drive vehicles. I was driving my husband’s car and parked it in my daycare parking lot. A loser illegal hit my husband’s car. I called the police they showed up and refused to ask him for his license or insurance, why? You do not need insurance to be in a parking lot! I guess the guy levitated his big ugly Suburban into the parking lot. I was given a form to file it on my policy. It is against the law to ask for proof of insurance on private property.

TXMomof3 on September 10, 2009 at 2:11 PM

I haven’t seen so many Trolls and Mobys on HotAir in one day since I came aboard before the National Election. Axelrod must be paying better.

kingsjester on September 10, 2009 at 2:13 PM

justincase on September 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM

The document was presented on 8/29 w/o the constitutional sentence I saw the stamp received!

xler8bmw on September 10, 2009 at 2:13 PM

A fine for adults choosing — i.e.: making a choice — to not purchase health insurance?

I’m so tired of liberals trying to turn back the clock on the untouchable, from-the-mountaintop, ne plus ultra creed of “My body, my choice.”

Hey, you hypocrisy-laden libs, who are YOU to tell me what I can and can’t do with my own body?

In the words of that great liberal philosopher Travis Bickle: “Suck on that.”

Dion on September 10, 2009 at 2:01 PM

A constitutional lawyer, worth his/her salt, will challenge the constitutionality of such immediately. Mark Levin should have spoken right after the great one.

Schadenfreude on September 10, 2009 at 2:14 PM

The only honest truth in that speech was “YOU LIE” by Wilson.

SWChance on September 10, 2009 at 1:12 PM

AMEN!!!

capejasmine on September 10, 2009 at 2:14 PM

I haven’t seen so many Trolls and Mobys on HotAir in one day since I came aboard before the National Election. Axelrod must be paying better.
kingsjester on September 10, 2009 at 2:13 PM

Why would anybody need to be paid to be here? Shooting fish in a barrel is easy, but it’s still fun.

Constantine on September 10, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Cripes, is anyone else getting tired of Jimbo posting State statutes, offering half information and basically doing the “Razzle Dazzle” (See: Chicago the Musical) in a really lame attempt to convince himself that the Federal government forcing people to buy health insurance (whether they want it or not) is JUST LIKE State governments requiring people to have liability insurance in order to drive their cars on the public roads?

No matter how many State statutes you post, they are simply NOT the same thing! There are literally millions of people who have CHOSEN to do without auto insurance and not ONE of them is going to have to pay a $3,800 fine to the IRS for their failure to obey a universal government mandate.

What ever happened to that concept called “freedom”? Our current Federal government seems bound and detremined to remove even the last vestigages of that idea from the citizens of this nation.

Fatal on September 10, 2009 at 2:21 PM

I never remember him looking like he was filled with hate and anger.

mobydutch on September 10, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Neither do I.
Bush did a lot of things I really hated-like stimulus $$.
But Bush is a genuinely nice person it seems from his presence & actions in public.
I never recall him acting so narcissistically superior.
He was always very kind, even when irritated.

Badger40 on September 10, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Fatal on September 10, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Jimbo is like a lib with a bone and won’t let go. I am still waiting for a credible response to my posts directed to him, but it seems that he has chosen to ignore them. Wonder why?

Jvette on September 10, 2009 at 2:23 PM

Arghh “vestiges” not “vestigages” – PIMF

Fatal on September 10, 2009 at 2:23 PM

justincase on September 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Here is an example I had a quit claim deed w/both mine and my father’s signatures that I was to receive property in the event of his death. It was witnessed and notarized but, not submitted to the county yet. An incident happened which I had to show proof that the property was mine even though it had not been submitted to the county but, had been drawn up by an attorney and witnessed and notarized the proerty was deemed mine. Same as a living will you don’t have to submit that only to have it witnessed and notarized to convey whatever is to be given.

xler8bmw on September 10, 2009 at 2:24 PM

TXMomof3 on September 10, 2009 at 2:11 PM

No suprise there.
And how interesting it is that many states ask you to carry uninsured motorists.
All drivers are legally required to have insurance, so why then must I pay for an insurance against an illegal activity?!

Badger40 on September 10, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Why would anybody need to be paid to be here? Shooting fish in a barrel is easy, but it’s still fun.
Constantine on September 10, 2009 at 2:20 PM

So you come here to be verbally assaulted on purpose? Are you masochistic? If Axelrod’s paying you more than $1 an hour, you’re being grossly overpaid.

kingsjester on September 10, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Phil, you said you have three untagged cars that you drive on your property. You own those cars, right?

Correct, only I drive them on private property, not necessarily my own.

And the TX statute says if you’re in an accident (even if on your property) where’s there’s more than a minimal amount of damage, you can’t get your license renewed until you have insurance.

IF it is reported as a vehicular accident, that may be the case. When was the last time you heard of a race car having to call the police to report an accident when they tag another car or hit the barrier wall?

You really are a left wing-nut, ain’t cha?

Phil-351 on September 10, 2009 at 2:29 PM

I just disagree with you Jvette. I think it is the same concept.

So if someone is injured in a race car crash on a private track, you don’t call the police?

I guess anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun nowadays is considered a left wing nut, huh?

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Does your 7 year old operate a car or motor vehicle, Mom? If he uses an emergency room as an indigent, (s)he’s imposing costs on others.

Jimbo3

If theft is grounds for nationalization(and that’s what it is if you don’t pay your bill at the ER), then I guess we need government run grocery stores, toy stores, etc too, because if her 7 year old steals from one of these businesses, he is imposing costs on others. I guess we need government run gas stations because gas thieves impose costs on others. I guess we need government to run Wal-Mart, because thieves are imposing costs on others. And on and on…..

xblade on September 10, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Why would anybody need to be paid to be here? Shooting fish in a barrel is easy, but it’s still fun.
Constantine on September 10, 2009 at 2:20 PM

I guess getting paid to scan conservative sites, and shooting fish in a barrel is a lot more fun than getting a real job….but me thinks some are fearful of their hopes, and dreams of a public option are being flushed down the tubes, and they’re in panic mode. ;)

capejasmine on September 10, 2009 at 2:40 PM

I never remember him looking like he was filled with hate and anger.
mobydutch on September 10, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Got to hand it to him, he even had a little smirk on his face while he was dodging shoes.

Constantine on September 10, 2009 at 2:40 PM

There’s an important distinction in the amount.

Many thefts of gas/from toy stores or Wal-Mart are probably in the $50 or less range. A serious accident or illiness can easily run $10,000 or more.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 2:40 PM

I just disagree with you Jvette. I think it is the same concept.

So if someone is injured in a race car crash on a private track, you don’t call the police?

I guess anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun nowadays is considered a left wing nut, huh?

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Jimbo, you have responded to the wrong post and the wrong person. I did not say anything about this, I pointed out where you are wrong regarding compulsory auto insurance and how it is completely inappropriate to compare that to mandatory health insurance. Respond to me and what I said if you plan to put my moniker in your post.

Jvette on September 10, 2009 at 2:41 PM

I guess anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun nowadays is considered a left wing nut, huh?

–That was directed at Phil.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 2:42 PM

I just disagree with you Jvette. I think it is the same concept.

Your thinking is wrong.

Jvette on September 10, 2009 at 2:44 PM

I guess getting paid to scan conservative sites, and shooting fish in a barrel is a lot more fun than getting a real job….but me thinks some are fearful of their hopes, and dreams of a public option are being flushed down the tubes, and they’re in panic mode. ;)
capejasmine on September 10, 2009 at 2:40 PM

I have a real job, with some pauses that allow me to enjoy this circus of contortionists, juggling and rearranging language and facts to better conform to their worldview.

Constantine on September 10, 2009 at 2:45 PM

You haven’t convinced me. I haven’t convinced you. We’ll both act in accordance with how we see things.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 2:46 PM

We’ll both act in accordance with how we see things.

I see dead people arguments

Fatal on September 10, 2009 at 2:52 PM

We’ll both act in accordance with how we see things.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 2:46 PM

If only we could. If your way is worked into the government, no one else will get a say.

Esthier on September 10, 2009 at 2:53 PM

You haven’t convinced me. I haven’t convinced you. We’ll both act in accordance with how we see things.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 2:46 PM

The huge difference between your acting in accordance with your wrong thinking is that it will do harm to me and my family whereas, my actions do no harm to you. You want the rest of us to alleviate all of your costs for health care and are willing to use the federal government to force it.

Yes, we already pay for the costs of those who are not insured. It is a part of doing business and the percentage of those people is small when illegals are removed from the equation. What Obama and the dems want is for us to take the costs for EVERYONE and that is what will break the bank.

As for the illegals, that is a whole different fight.

Jvette on September 10, 2009 at 2:53 PM

I see dead people arguments

Fatal on September 10, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Yes, the last refuge of a lost argument….Let’s agree to disagree.

Jvette on September 10, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Badger40 at 2:22pm,
Two big differences, President Bush loves America and the biggie he was taught manners.
Neither quality is evident in this administration.
OTOH, Democrats lie….why is anyone surprised?

Upnorthlurkin on September 10, 2009 at 2:58 PM

I don’t know if this is covered anywhere else, but Obama’s use of “cancelled” insurance policies were complete lies.

Obama stated:

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size.
emphasis mine

The truth:

On the man from Illinois:(see page 5 of transcript link)

The company relented and Otto received his stem cell transplant. He was able to live 3 more years before passing away earlier this year.

On the woman , who was a nurse, with just “acne” who was cancelled:

In May 2008, I went to the dermatologist for acne. A word was written on my chart and
interpreted incorrectly as meaning pre-cancerous.

The woman got the surgery months later and the tumor had grown in the meantime, which is horrible. But knowing that the insurance company thought this woman had a cancer diagnosis just 6 months before she applied for coverage puts their action into some perspective.

Some of these cases of recinded coverage are aggregious and wrong, and there are probably ways that targeted legislation could help prevent such things from happening without completely overhauling the entire system. The left does not care about effectiveness or targeting real problems. They just want control.

President Obama should not distort the truth to scare the American people into supporting healthcare legislation, and the media should call him out on it.

By the way, isn’t that supposed to be the left’s greatest obsession with Bush? That he lied / distored the truth about WMD in Iraq just to get “his” war? How is this any different, other than the numerous other world leaders, foreign intelligence agencies, and liberal US politicians who also believed the WMD were there?

MississippiMom on September 10, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3