's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

George W Bush: Dishonest or incompetent?(32 posts)

George W Bush: Dishonest or incompetent?czardonic
Jun 4, 2003 12:08 PM
Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report report. You decide.
This will go nowhere!Live Steam
Jun 4, 2003 12:13 PM
The intelligence on Iraq has been amassed over decades. A precedes B and D follows C, etc.. There would have to be a massive cover-up spanning many administrations for there to have been some stretching of the truth. I see you like conspiracies too :O)
Jun 4, 2003 12:15 PM
Clinton stood up many times and stated Iraq had WMD's....Iraq is the size of California..they had years to hide stuff, it may take years to find it...
'Fraid not.czardonic
Jun 4, 2003 12:22 PM
The question is not whether Saddam had these weapons at some point in past decades -- at the very least we can be certain that he had the ones that we gave to him.

The question is whether he was stockpiling them, as was asserted by the President, and whether he could be legitimately expected to use them, as was also asserted by the President.

There is also the issue of the "evidence" that was presented to the UN. Either it was falsified, or the Administration managed to lose track of them after taking the pictures. Dishonest? Or incompetent?
The "Administration"?jesse1
Jun 4, 2003 3:39 PM
Your comment:
"or the Administration managed to lose track of them after taking the pictures. Dishonest? Or incompetent?"

Do you try to blame everything on the Pesident and his advisors?
You do realize that it's not Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Condi Rice, etc. that are monitoring satellites and going over photos with a magnifying glass don't you? The people that do this may actually be Republicans AND Democrats who are
working for the armed services, NSA & CIA.
His competence, or lack of, has nothing to do with your statement.
Sheesh. Is this Administration responsible for <i>anything</i>?czardonic
Jun 4, 2003 3:52 PM
That is, other than shamelessly trying to shift blame?

From the article:

    The same magazine also reported that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) formally concluded that, "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons" in September 2002, just as Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld was telling Congress that the Baghdad "regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas."

    - - - -

    Retired intelligence officials from both the CIA and the DIA are also coming out with ever-stronger statements accusing the intelligence community of twisting and exaggerating the evidence to justify war.

    They say both agencies were intimidated by the political pressure exerted in particular by neo-conservative hawks under Cheney and Rumsfeld, who even established a special unit in the defense secretary's office to determine what intelligence was "missing."
If this is proof, impeachment must be close at hand. (nm)jesse1
Jun 4, 2003 3:57 PM
Nah. Bush has no controlling authority over Don and Dick. (nm)czardonic
Jun 4, 2003 4:02 PM
Gimme a breakfiltersweep
Jun 5, 2003 11:06 AM
The intelligence was good enough to avoid significant civilian casualties (actually extremely accurate, considering the amount of ordinance involved). Why is the rest of the "intelligence" so lacking?

Why would there necessarily be a "massive cover-up spanning many administrations for there to have been some stretching of the truth?"
verdict in on CLinton..convicted perjurer....nmClydeTri
Jun 4, 2003 12:14 PM
How many troops died because of this perjury? (nm)czardonic
Jun 4, 2003 12:17 PM
quite a few people died in the balkans as a result....ClydeTri
Jun 4, 2003 12:22 PM
every time Monica or somebody else was scheduled for a grand jury deposition the cruise missiles went flying...WAG THE DOG!
So what's your point? Bush is no better than Clinton?czardonic
Jun 4, 2003 12:23 PM
Given the degree to which your ilk has demonized Clinton, that's not much of a defense.
Jun 4, 2003 12:28 PM
history demands time to be fairly judged..this situation is still will be many years before the real truths are reached..
His perjurous tendencies really ...Live Steam
Jun 4, 2003 12:24 PM
have nothing to do with it, though it is a sad but true fact. This is just another attempt to plant some seeds of doubt into the minds of the "simple minded" person who just reads headlines and listens to sound bites.

England gathered their own intelligence on this too. They would not have relied just on ours. Blair would not have put his political career on the line without double checking the facts. Again this is just seeds being planted by the DNC machine.
Are you freakin' kidding!czardonic
Jun 4, 2003 12:27 PM
British "intelligence" has already been exposed to be the product of outdated conjecture and plagiarism.
Sounds like the stuff Lyndon LaRouche spews. (nm)jesse1
Jun 4, 2003 3:09 PM
"Denial" isn't just a river Bush couldn't find on a globe. (nm)czardonic
Jun 4, 2003 3:33 PM
czardonic: dishonest or troll? ;-) nmDougSloan
Jun 4, 2003 12:27 PM
Dishonest with regards to. . .? (nm)czardonic
Jun 4, 2003 12:29 PM
needed that for poetic effect ;-) nmDougSloan
Jun 4, 2003 12:36 PM
?? But it doesn't rhyme. (nm)czardonic
Jun 4, 2003 12:40 PM
not all poetry is rhyming; to mirror your original statement nmDougSloan
Jun 4, 2003 12:44 PM
Not all jokes include a winking emoticon. }: Þ (nm)czardonic
Jun 4, 2003 12:54 PM
I always wondered what they were called :O)Live Steam
Jun 4, 2003 1:04 PM
EMOTICONS!!! Hey we have a whole new vocabulary because of the NET.
The name may be new, but...Matno
Jun 4, 2003 1:59 PM
I found a couple in the King James Bible last week:

Genesis 49:24
Exodus 23:15

And there are more... I'll bet they didn't think of them as smiley faces back then though. I'm sure they look different in Hebrew anyway.

(: instead of :) ???

Good eye. That crack about. . .czardonic
Jun 4, 2003 2:07 PM
. . .the stone of Israel always seemed a little facetious to me. {: D
The left isn't thinking this out.jesse1
Jun 4, 2003 3:04 PM
C'mon guys. If the administration is smart enough to carry out this conspiricy of deception, how hard would it have been to get some WMD planted to back it up. That's what I would have done as a dishonest leader of the most powerfull nation on the face of the Earth.
Heck, just a few rods of uranium would satisfy all but the most suspicious on this board. Do you think it would be that hard to do or involve that many agents?
I'll put you down for "incompetent". (nm)czardonic
Jun 4, 2003 3:07 PM
Your M.O. is obvious.jesse1
Jun 4, 2003 3:14 PM
Make assumptions. Read what isn't there. Distort the truth. There are better ways of arguing/debating.
IOW, "I know you are, but what is Bush?" (nm)czardonic
Jun 4, 2003 3:31 PM
For your own good...jesse1
Jun 4, 2003 3:43 PM need to do better than that to prevent you from getting the label of troll.