Cao was too frakking STOOOOOOOPID to even find the bill in question. It doesn't know what role Obama played in its passage. It is arguing from ignorance, as always.

Did Boehner object to Bush's earmarks?

Yes or no?

Did Boehner object to Bush's earmarks?

Yes or no?

He has his own horrific blog.

1.) You lied in saying that I will never ever put my ass on the line to serve my country. That's your hope, because you hate people serving their country.

2.) There is plenty of evidence that Saddam was hiding WMDs and had connections to al-Qaeda.

3.) I'm sorry that I don't consult with you before making major life decisions, and as I've said, all options are on the table. PROVE I'M LYING ABOUT THAT NOW or I have no reason to further this debate.

4.) You're using a factless emotional appeal designed to appeal to the heart instead of the mind. This from a man who claims to pursue logic.

1) What "lie" have I told, little worm? Name it. NOW.

2) What active programs for development of WMDs was Saddam Hussein's Iraq pursuing when we invaded, idiot child? Supply evidence for your claim. NOW.

3) You're lying, and you know it. You've already backtracked on your supposed intentions to enlist. You left yourself an escape hatch, and you'll take it.

4) I want you to stand up and tell someone who has suffered a loss that their dead loved one was a "small price". You ain't got the balls to say that to someone's face, coward.

1.) Congressman Boehner chose to blog on this site, which I appreciate, but the Congressman is busy contributing to our country and should not be expected to answer his lying science-fiction writing critics here.

2.) Saddam Hussein was actively pursuing WMDs.

3.) Not true, and all options including the military are still on the table for me as I've made clear in the past.

4.) You want me to harass families who have paid the sacrifice now? You're using a disgusting moral play that relies solely on emotion and not on facts. Of course.

I absolutely agree with Congressman Boehner that in the long-term, our investment will be a small price. In the long-term, we'd be facing a more dangerous regime with the very real potential of funneling weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups, and if we pulled out now, we'd face another al-Qaeda training ground similar to Afghanistan cerca 2000. Deaths are horrific, but when they are made in sacrifice to protect the American people from even more death and destruction, they are a necessary sacrifice. The number of Americans lost in Iraq vs. the potential number from a funneled nuclear weapon? A small price.

Mr. Boehner:

Last year, the web site "The Carpetbagger Report" carried the following report:

--- begin quote ---

Way back in April, during the first round of debate on war funding, Bush excoriated lawmakers for “spend[ing] billions of dollars on pork barrel projects and spending that are [sic] completely unrelated to this war.” It was one of his more disingenuous complaints -- the president’s own war funding proposal included funds for federal prisons, Kosovo debt relief, flood control on the Mississippi, and nutrition programs in Africa, among other things.

Similarly, just a couple of weeks ago, Bush devoted his radio address to complaining about federal spending. “Earmarks are spending provisions that are slipped into bills by individual members of Congress, often at the last hour and without discussion or debate,” the president said. “It’s not surprising that this leads to unnecessary Federal spending.”

It’s why the White House should probably find this embarrassing.

Just a few months after blasting the congressional practice of diverting millions in taxpayer dollars to pet projects, President Bush has slipped into current legislation more than 100 so-called “earmarks” worth over $1 billion — including nearly $6 million for work on the White House. […]

The president’s earmarks, for projects including national park improvements, land purchases and new government facilities, have drawn unusual on-the-record criticism from Republican lawmakers, who typically eschew public displays of disaffection with the White House.

“It would appear the administration likes earmarks from their perspective,” Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., told the Hill newspaper, which first reported the White House earmarks. Aderholt is a member of the House Appropriations Committee. He termed the White House stance as “inconsistent,” though another Republican, Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, told the paper it was “duplicity.”

The Bush White House? Duplicitous? Never.

--- end quote ---

So, Mr. Boehner, my question to you is: Did you personally at any time decry or object to the earmarks inserted into the budget legislation last year by the Bush administration?