Dude, I don't think anyone, even bush, thinks the intel on this was either right or good. He'd say it's the best we could do, I don't think so given what all the other people I've cited have said. If it's the best we can do, I don't have to worry about being audited on my taxes. Man, they suck.
Ummm, no. Bush retracted the statement. It was a big-to-do.
In my last political posting, I suggested Bush was one of the worst Presidents in history. My reasoning was straight forward: no matter what your position on the war in Iraq, his handling of the planning up to war, the execution of the war itself, and the poor after-thought about the conflict's aftermath, make him a nominee for Lousy Prez. So, many more conservative bloggers took me to task on the intelligence leading up to the war. "No," they write, "hind sight is 20/20, and it's easy to
not proud to have beat the rap this part is wrong. i don't know about you liberals but i would be very happy that the charges had been dropped and i needn't worry about going to jail or losing my job. All we have in this life is our word and our honesty. Everything else is not important, save our family. I can tell you, if I was basically accused of corruption, I would hang my head in shame. And when I was exhonorated, (and I would
wrong? really? Hmmmm. "most people would be to embarassed to admit they were being investigated, not proud to have beat the rap." wrong really? Hmmmmm. That surprises me.
Bingo! And in many cases that is what the detractors will judge one by. Regardless of the sanctitiy of the person. I don't care how sanctimonious a person is, if they tailor intelligence to fit their hypothesis, they are not acting in good faith. They are only hearing what they want to hear. They are ignoring every other option. That is not a great leader.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." President Bush, State of the Union Address. The CIA knew this was not true AS THE PRESIDENT SAID IT. Later, the statement was retracted by the Administration. Remember the leaked British Memo, shortly after the 2004 elections, that the Bush administration tailored intel to make the case for invasion? Remember the "unamed Whitehouse Official" that said, "yup,
Conservative point taken. Gotta run! Maybe later this evening some other members will read what we've written and go off on both of us. That'd be way cool! I'm sure it's coming.... if not, I'll write another, um, post.
I don't disagree, Col. Maybe I've watched to many crime shows. What you can prove and what you suspect are just two different things. If I was investigating this, I'd look to rat boy (Rove) and then see where that trail takes me. But it is to soon to be presenting a case against Cheney and Bush based on what is publicly known. Note the wording of that. Then, in terms of politics, you have another thing. Politically, it just won't happen in my view. Though, maybe I'm wrong. (I'm
I will not say at this point that I totally agree with you on your assessment, but for the first time (for the record, I have a lot of problems with Bush outside this issue), I am looking at it from your perspective and seeing some merit to your arguments. Even with your caveots, I think this is a great compliment, thank you. It is all anyone should ever ask of anybody. I try to look at everything outside of my own sphere. Some people have good ideas t
Oh, boy, I have tons of problems with Bush outside of Iraq. I don't know enough about economics to properly address Reagan at this point, but I will say that Bush has brought a new standard to Tax and Spend...conservatives. Trillion dollar deficits are thrown around like they don't exist or matter. In fact, I think Bush is terrible on many fronts. Let's take stem cells, the first legislation he ordained to veto. I cover a lot of research organizations; his position on stem cells i
Well done. You have just marginalized the rhetoric of the supporters, and shown the left how to debate/discuss this issue - in a sane way. I take that as a supreme compliment! Thanks! I've thought a lot about his whole debate, and this is what I've come up with. I don't know enough of presidents past Nixon to be able to say who was THE WORST. I can only say the blinders that this administration has used when dealing with Iraq is really scary.
Clinton is not relavent here, though I understand your point. The Republicans did spare no expense to persue him on purely political grounds. My point remains this administration will never be impeached. It's just not going to happen - whether it should or not. I did want to clear up one thing. Plame got approval to recommend her husband (who was very qualified to go) for this job to begin with, from her boss. In fact, she claims it was her boss who suggested it. <b
SHE DID SHE DID. Remember, she LIKES being in the kitchen (with her manservant) She just forgot the part I've added for her. I should explain further, with her illegal immigrant manservant whose papers will come through any day now.
Yes, but THOSE weren't used as the justification to the American people for going to war, nor did we go in front of the UN and say we wanted to take out SH because CNN was being tortured (instead, of course, of torturing us) I seem to remember satellite photos of trucks supposedly pulling up to bunkers and unloading materials out the back door, as inspectors entered into the front. The only problem? Those photos were later discredited, and even before Powell went in front of the world, they we
Sigh. Unfortunately, politically, there is no way in hell either Cheney or Bush will ever be impeached. Whether they should or not is another matter all together, but it won't happen. However, that does not mean this case will go away. An administration can only spin so long. As the rats (and I really dislike McClellan) leave the ship, there are all kinds of incentives to talk. And they all talk. That's why history will not judge Bush well. We've discussed this in othe
I think Hillary is more capable of answering a direct question than you are... and if she has ever done it, it was purely by mistake. SHE DID SHE DID. Remember, she LIKES being in the kitchen (with her manservant) She just forgot the part I've added for her.
The funny thing about the intel on this war is that there was no big screw up- leading up to it the CIA continually sent accurate reports to the higher-ups stating that Iraq posed no threat and had little to no WMD capabilities. These reports were read over by one Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz (may they both burn in hell for what they've done) and sent back to the CIA saying essentially "not what we wanted to hear, re-do it" Yup, that's my understand
Joe, don't take this the wrong way, but I have to take some of those Republicans' comments with a small grain of salt, No, not taken the wrong way and no offense taken. BUT, it was written that "Congress had the same intel as Bush". We just agreed that not to be the case. Whether they had sufficient intel to make a proper decision is another matter, which you hint at. Oh, I must admit I feel mildly victorious! Now, as for t
I've not heard any Congressman say that those authorized to access all the intelligence had anything hidden from them. I have. Repeatedly. And they have been Republicans. Let's see: McCain, (Senate ARmed Services Committee), Warner (same committee plus Senate Select Committee on Intelligence), Biden (Democrat)(Foreign Relations), Specter (Veteran Affairs). Even members of the president's party don't like being shut out.
money which was one of the goals of the cold war. to bankrupt them. money and technology go hand in hand. And in driving the Soviet Union towards bankruptcy with programs like star wars, we drove up our own deficit in a dangerous game of cat and mouse.
Congress, the institution, indeed had the same intelligence. No, Congress did not. I'm sorry, this is a matter of fact and record. Briefing reports for congress are blocked out with top secret matters, and at the time much of this info was top secret. The Senate Armed Services Committee complained bitterly they were not shown all the intelligence. If they weren't shown the intel, who was???? In fact, I'm not sure BUSH had all the intelligen
i guess you forgot the clinton boom years. that was due to reagon not anything clinton did. in fact clinton tried to destroy it. Ummmm -- we're off topic here. Perhaps my next article will be why Bill was the best president ever. At least, according to Monica. I will say this: I'm not sure trickle down works. I'm not sure it doesn't work. I know I think the economy does better when people are spending their own money. My
the seeds of the end to the Soviet Union were sown before Reagan. Well, the Soviet Union's downfall was a lack of technology. When an associate of mine was there, who was a scientist, the infrastructure of the Soviet Union was pitiful. This was right before the fall. I think Reagan's timing was great, and he lucked out. But that's a whole 'nother discussion. I will never forgive Reagan for his initial response to AIDS. Again, that's a whol
So Hackers hijacked the NY Times Web site. They go after anyone these days I missed that upon the first reading. LMAO. Now, if we can just make some "arrangement" for Michael Savage.
JoeUser Forums