Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been on a lot of forums and this is without a doubt the worst topic ever conceived.. how low on the food chain does one have to be to even think something like this?? wow, please stay away from me on the road...
i'm sorry for suggesting with certainty that bush intentionally made false statements about wmd, when another possible explanation is his incompetence.
it's too bad some people will have to carry the shame of having voted for arguably the worst president in us history. i wonder just how long they can keep on the rose-colored glasses to defend their preference. day by day, they face the mistake they made:
Is it a lie or incompetence that explains why Hillary made statements that Iraq had WMD's? How about Bill Clinton? Kerry? Albright? Berger? John Edwards? Al Gore? Ted Kennedy? British intelligence, Chirac?
Bush ratings are low - almost as low as the democratic Congress in office now.
Is it a lie or incompetence that explains why Hillary made statements that Iraq had WMD's? How about Bill Clinton? Kerry? Albright? Berger? John Edwards? Al Gore? Ted Kennedy? British intelligence, Chirac?
a combination of
1) not having access to the same information bush did (huge factor--recall powell finally showing congress some evidence of the "wmds." they made their advocate for diplomacy into the whipping boy for their b/s. poor guy). the bush regime was *at best* incompetent for not scrutinizing evidence they *did* have access to that congress *didn't*
and
2) not wanting to look like political cowards by questioning bush after his fear-mongering defined the issue for america starkly as "iraq=terror threat" based on "evidence". no, i'm not proud of the dems who did this and it's one reason why i support obama. i thought this notion of "evidence" was shaky from the start (why can't we see any of it from the start if it's so damned convincing), and i'm proud to be able to tell my grandkids that i took to the streets of chicago to help show the world via nightly news that not all americans bought the b/s at the time.
1) not having access to the same information bush did (huge factor--recall powell finally showing congress some evidence of the "wmds." they made their advocate for diplomacy into the whipping boy for their b/s. poor guy). the bush regime was *at best* incompetent for not scrutinizing evidence they *did* have access to that congress *didn't*
and
2) not wanting to look like political cowards by questioning bush after his fear-mongering defined the issue for america starkly as "iraq=terror threat" based on "evidence". no, i'm not proud of the dems who did this and it's one reason why i support obama. i thought this notion of "evidence" was shaky from the start (why can't we see any of it from the start if it's so damned convincing), and i'm proud to be able to tell my grandkids that i took to the streets of chicago to help show the world via nightly news that not all americans bought the b/s at the time.
The intelligence committee certainly had access to the information. I will say that the intelligence community - not only the CIA but the world - certainly did a bad job. I will also place some responsibility on Iraq who wanted to continue to look like the had WMD's and thought that we would never do anything.
If they were trying to not look like cowards by questioning Bush, then they are cowards and should not be in government.
No, we must skip 2nd and move directly to 3rd. Bush has ruined this country completely. We have millions of immigrants from poor countries here who can't even get the government to pay for their house, raise their wages, and provide them with free health care and public tranportation.
Also, while the stock market is soaring to numbers never seen before, the 95%+ of Americans come home from their jobs to a situation of despair. Many of these people who have been stripped of their wealth by Bush and his big stock market buddies are forced to go shopping for new electronic gadgets for their new homes to help relieve the stresses of dealing with learning the features of their new cars.
Once again, I vote for 3rd world status, 2nd world would make us look far to rich.
ha ha ha, outstanding post, but unfortunately I can't give it any positive rep, I would if I could, but it says I have to spread it around more, whatever that means..
I love picturing the people that don't get the sarcasm in posts like that.. I can hear them screaming "Yeah!!" "uh, wait, huh?" "Yeah!!" "ummm, I don't get it"
No, we must skip 2nd and move directly to 3rd. Bush has ruined this country completely. We have millions of immigrants from poor countries here who can't even get the government to pay for their house, raise their wages, and provide them with free health care and public tranportation.
Also, while the stock market is soaring to numbers never seen before, the 95%+ of Americans come home from their jobs to a situation of despair. Many of these people who have been stripped of their wealth by Bush and his big stock market buddies are forced to go shopping for new electronic gadgets for their new homes to help relieve the stresses of dealing with learning the features of their new cars.
Once again, I vote for 3rd world status, 2nd world would make us look far to rich.
Also, while the stock market is soaring to numbers never seen before, the 95%+ of Americans come home from their jobs to a situation of despair. Many of these people who have been stripped of their wealth by Bush and his big stock market buddies are forced to go shopping for new electronic gadgets for their new homes to help relieve the stresses of dealing with learning the features of their new cars.
yeah, the economy's *much* better now than when clinton was in office. but oh wait, i also seem to recall from that era the republican position that the executive isn't responsible for the economy. and aren't we also supposed to think it's fruitless to get involved in conflicts in factionalized regions??? will you republicans please stop flip-flopping?
yeah, the economy's *much* better now than when clinton was in office. but oh wait, i also seem to recall from that era the republican position that the executive isn't responsible for the economy. and aren't we also supposed to think it's fruitless to get involved in conflicts in factionalized regions??? will you republicans please stop flip-flopping?
Will you liberals quit calling everyone a republican who disagrees with Bush crybabies?
The original poster needs to move to a "2nd world" communist state if they think things are bad in America.
As for Clinton, he walked into a rebounding economy. The Bush1 recession ended in 1991 and the economy was already growing for 3 straight quarters at an increasing pace. Then came the .com boom and a global market that fed fuel to the fire. Clinton did a great job of managing the economy while in office and I have no gripes about his economic policies. Republicans may have tried to discredit him, but the news stations, papers, magazines, etc. certainly didn't.
But now they can't seem to say a positive thing about the economy. Why? Because Bush might have something he's done look positive, and the mostly liberal media refuses to allow that.
I'm no Bush fan, but I dislike the leftist MSM even more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
