Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by diamond geezer, Feb 15, 2004.
well at least he didnt lie about getting a BJ from a chubby chick.....................................................................................................................
I hope someone can force a similar confession about some of the newspeak about Iraq.
I resent your trivialization of an important issue.
And anyway, what's her being "tubby" got to do with anything?
I think you are misunderstanding Me. Bush will be unlucky if he sees even a few drops of sweat over this. clintion was impeached... This is REAL absturction of justice.
hrm... that site looks kind of tabliod to me. Dont get me wrong, I know the bu**sh**v2.0 administration doesnt open thier mouth without telling you a bold face lie and putting a newspeak word to label it as the exact oposite of what it actually is ect... but none the less; either people dont care, or they have to be told every 10 minutes on CNN.
So I'm suppposed to believe that Bush knew at the time of the SotUA that there were no such plans extant?
I'm supposed to believe that nobody ever believed incorrect information? And never made statements based on this incorrect information?
Folks sure love to play fast and loose with the language.
youd have me belive politicans are truthful?
I hate looking up online news articles, but I also belive there was some blurb from Chaney on meet the press before iraq about CIA evidence that the CIA now claims didnt exist. wonder how halliburton got its pockets stuffed by taxes that you havent even payed yet.
You're suppose to hope that the presidents staff does some fact checking before presenting a case for war in the most important speech of the year and on one of the most important subjects a president can address.
The more important the situation the more you are supposed to be sure of your facts.
Bush is totally fast and lose and peoples lives are at stake. He clearly shows a life long lack of resonsibilty for his own actions.
i can't find this story on the majors. is it real? anyone have a link to a WSJ article that can confirm?
Delawareonline are not a major, but they seem to mention it.
also, International Herald Tribune
Bush sure seems to make a lot of statements based on BS.
there we go. that's a respectable publication. so what do they say?
that's the story. quite a ways off from:
i've not seen anything reliable that says the administration admitted anything.
maybe it's out there and i haven't seen it, but from what i have seen i think democracynow.org overstepped its bound in the interpretation of the event.
There's some comment about the Information Age and the Internet that speaks to the quality of the information presented. A flood of information, and much less time to analyze each piece.
We've had high-up folks from both parties making definite statements about Saddam Hussein having WMDs, for over ten years. They've all had access to the same information; same sources, such as the CIA.
I gotta assume this Afghan thing comes from the CIA's searches of papers siezed after the Taliban was run out of power. (They've been doing the same sort of searches in Iraq.) To me, then, this seems to tie to the reasons for the inquiry as to how our intelligence agencies operate and how they assess data before passing it on up the line.
Whether it's the President of the U.S. or the President of a small company or large corporation, that person must rely on information from down the ladder. He either trusts them or he doesn't. If the folks on top can't trust the information from below, then what?
And that's what's scaring a lot of people. How could Pres. Kerry,, for instance, be better able to trust the information flowing to him than Bush, now? Tenet was Clinton's appointee, so any politically-oriented preference doesn't seem to matter.
All that power at the mercy of folks way down the ladder...
It seems that Bill Clinton was provided with much the same information about Saddam as GWB, but it was Bush who decided to use it as justification to invade Iraq. Now, when it turns out that much of this information was flat-out wrong, Bush chooses to shift blame, instead of accepting responsibility as the one who decided how the information would be acted upon.
It's the old story: Great leaders give credit and take blame; poor leaders take credit and give blame.
I have seen a lot of state of the union speaches and I do not recall ever hearing so many take-backs. Nor do I recall hearing Bush ever really take responsibility for the take-backs except when he is forced to, then in a grudging manner.
If we want to have this CEO "I didn't know" style lack of accountability then what's next? Lying is OK? A true leader should be accountable for his organization. Over and over Bush blames someone else and expects to get a way with it. This is the long pattern in his life of privalage. Bad grades and connections got him into Harvard. Connections got him into the NGaurd and out of it when he wanted. Connections rescued his failed businesses. Connections got him a baseball team with minimal investment. Connections got him the presidency. Connections hid his drunk driving record.
I bring up his past because it has bearing and somewhat mirrors the way he deals with things now. He keeps telling lies or "mis-statements" and then complains that they are "just words", "just 16 words". I think we deserve a president who believes in his word.