phoenix80
Banned
good for you... let me know if you need a tissue thou, i have plenty!
Congress falters in public satisfaction survey
good for you... let me know if you need a tissue thou, i have plenty!
mmarsh
Active member
No, prior to 2003 it was the ONLY reason. Please don't try to rewrite History all of us were there and we all know what happened.
Marinerhodes
Active member
You said it yourself, note that it says "informed". i.e. He didnt go out and get the informaiton himself. He relied on others to get the information for him. Kind of like me telling my Cpl to find out how many MREs we have and he tells me XXX amount. I, knowing my Cpl is a good to go individual, brief that to the Capt and it turns out we actually have XX amount. I was misinformed and passed that information over to my Captain. Well you can follow the logic.
All the rigamarole about: he should have done this or should have done that when we knew this and we knew that...bunch of armchair quarterbacking. Shut up and run for the Presidency. See how much better you can do it.
Last edited:
mmarsh
Active member
Thats absolutly no excuse, even if were the truth -which it isn't. From the infomation we have gleamed the intelligence was cherry picked by Senior White House officials, and even if Bush were deaf, dumb, and blind as Truman once said "The Buck Stops Here". The President is responsible no matter what happens. Bush seems to want it both ways, he'll take the credit when things go seemingly right like his ego-stroking aircraft carrier stunt (all paid for by the US taxpayer) but will shift the blame to underings (Powell, Tenant, Brown, Libby) when the dog poo hits the fan.
Even if being President were the toughest job on the planet, its not really much of a challenge to be better than Bush. It fact its hard to imagine a worse one. I'd even take thief like Warren G Harding or the incompetent dunce James Buchanan. Heck, even YOU would make a better President, so would my cat. But I tell you what, I'll be 35 on August 28, thats the minimum age for running for US President. You write me out a check for the $50 Million for my campaign and I guarantee you I'll will be a better President, perhaps not a 'good' president (although I'll try, which is more than I can say for the Texas Terror), but definately better one. Its really not as hard as you think. All you have to be is one of the following and your already a better President than Bush.
Honest, competent, kind, humble, dedicated, polite, intelligent, wise, etc...
Infern0
Banned
cant.....unless you want to change your constitution so i can run?
damn pesky ferners
Marinerhodes
Active member
I will agree to a point that the President is responsible. But to say the President is responsible for verifying intelligence reports to make sure they are 100% accurate is rediculous. He has how many agencies working in the Federal Government that report to him or to those working directly for him? How many people work for them? How many work for those? You see my point? 10,000 people can see the same thing and you will get 5,000 different interpretations of the same event. Which one is correct? If 1,000 are essentially the same does that make them all right? I hope you can at least see the point I am making even if you do not agree with it.
The above is just pure bashing and political posturing. Not worthy of some of the more intelligent conversations you and I have had.
mmarsh
Active member
Well herein lies a major difference between the Bush and Clinton Administrations.
Clinton has said that every report, every briefing, every dossier that was put on his desk he made sure to read. He would even read them twice. He would also read books newspapers and magazines articles of a particular subject. I saw him say this on a interview on CNN. Whether you agree with his politics or the decisions he made, you cannot say that he wasn't uninformed.
Bush on the other hand has stated that doesn't like to read (and seeming proud of it too). Not books, never a newspaper, and that he only glances at the government reports that are marked for his attention. Those are his own words.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1192218,00.html
Now, is it any wonder why things got as fouled up as are now by our disinterested president? You cannot be president by being totally uninformed about your surroundings...That goes for any leadership job civilian or military. I run the IT of my company. It would be like me having no interest in computers or technology. Bush is so far out of his league it isn't even funny anymore.
As for the rest, it may be posturing, but the fact remains he's a terrible president and we deserve better. I do stand by what I said, that it isn't hard to do better with either Liberal or Conservative political ideologies, with things as bad as they are either political doctrine is better than what we have now.
Clinton has said that every report, every briefing, every dossier that was put on his desk he made sure to read. He would even read them twice. He would also read books newspapers and magazines articles of a particular subject. I saw him say this on a interview on CNN. Whether you agree with his politics or the decisions he made, you cannot say that he wasn't uninformed.
Bush on the other hand has stated that doesn't like to read (and seeming proud of it too). Not books, never a newspaper, and that he only glances at the government reports that are marked for his attention. Those are his own words.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1192218,00.html
Now, is it any wonder why things got as fouled up as are now by our disinterested president? You cannot be president by being totally uninformed about your surroundings...That goes for any leadership job civilian or military. I run the IT of my company. It would be like me having no interest in computers or technology. Bush is so far out of his league it isn't even funny anymore.
As for the rest, it may be posturing, but the fact remains he's a terrible president and we deserve better. I do stand by what I said, that it isn't hard to do better with either Liberal or Conservative political ideologies, with things as bad as they are either political doctrine is better than what we have now.
Last edited:
Damien435
Active member
We had to invent the WMD story because the American people have grown so (literally) fat and lazy that if the President had said "Saddam has been butchering and murdering his own people for years, hundreds of thousands dead, threatened his neighbors and our allies, tried to assassinate and United States President and has violently oppressed the people of Iraq for almost three decades. This type of activity can not be tolerated in the 21st Century, we must act now." Everyone would have responded with "Why should we? What's in it for us?" Back in 1991 public support for the war was wavering even when that was such a complete and total success, that's why Saddam was not removed from office, it's (part of) the reason Bush Sr. lost his bid for re-election.
Anyway, back to the subject. The reason, I think, that Congress' support has dropped so dramatically so quickly (12 points in two months) is because they appear to be stuck on this issue of Iraq. The Democrats know that this is pretty much the only area where they have the Republicans by the balls so they keep hammering away at this issue. Time and again they try to tie the President's hands and force him to do their bidding, time and again the Democrats have tried to place unrealistic objectives for the military. Everybody whom I have talked to who served/is serving in Iraq paints a much rosier picture than the media and seeing as how soldiers are usually so straight forward (since being a trained killing machine and all, they don't usually worry about anybody trying to beat them up for what they say and for good reason) I highly doubt they are lying just to "glorify" what they have done. I have heard far, far more complaints about the heat than the enemy, forcast for later this week in Iraq is 135 degrees. To quote one of the guys in the ROTC program at school. "We drank 10 quarts of water a day and never had to take a piss."
Anyway, back to the subject. The reason, I think, that Congress' support has dropped so dramatically so quickly (12 points in two months) is because they appear to be stuck on this issue of Iraq. The Democrats know that this is pretty much the only area where they have the Republicans by the balls so they keep hammering away at this issue. Time and again they try to tie the President's hands and force him to do their bidding, time and again the Democrats have tried to place unrealistic objectives for the military. Everybody whom I have talked to who served/is serving in Iraq paints a much rosier picture than the media and seeing as how soldiers are usually so straight forward (since being a trained killing machine and all, they don't usually worry about anybody trying to beat them up for what they say and for good reason) I highly doubt they are lying just to "glorify" what they have done. I have heard far, far more complaints about the heat than the enemy, forcast for later this week in Iraq is 135 degrees. To quote one of the guys in the ROTC program at school. "We drank 10 quarts of water a day and never had to take a piss."
Infern0
Banned
i think if that had been stated...even i would've supported it.
but of course, acknowledging the US's past support for this butcher would've been nice too
phoenix80
Banned
When did US support Saddam? Any solid evidence? :hide:
Infern0
Banned
picture solid enough for you?
thats right, your friend and mine, rummy, shaking hands with ol' saddam.
be clear that "dual use" is a nice euphemism for chemical weapons. if you can use it as a pesticide...it's dual use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war
Last edited:
Infern0
Banned
AHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA
yeah, because peer reviewed history pieces are a haven for left leaning FACT chum.
tell you what...you find an piece that states the US DIDN'T support Iraq in the eighties
phoenix80
Banned
Was that funny? Or you have nothing to say?
Infern0
Banned
it was funny because you're tilting at windmills denying history.
evem that joke of a website, conservapedia, agrees with me;
http://www.conservapedia.com/Iran-Iraq_War
Last edited:
Infern0
Banned
what does who i vote for have to do with this discussion? are you familiar with New Zealand political parties?
thought not, keep to the discussion at hand, or just admit you're wrong and bow out with some class.
either that or keep digging
Infern0
Banned
oh so it's post count that denotes worth is it?.
nice way to avoid the fact that you are wrong about the US not supporting Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. you dont have a shred of proof to back up your claim...so you revert to attacking me.
P80, i'm starting to come to the conclusion that you are nothing more than a bucket....you can make a lot of noise...but there is nothing in it