And then, you reply with hundreds of lines of propaganda.
Your interpretation was flawed.
Ditto.
Saddam claimed he had WMD. The Democrats in congress agreed that Saddam had WMD (yes, I can provide the link to the cites. Again.) AQ didn't like us. The stated reason for going to war, which the Democrats agreed with (and now pretend they never heard of) was to keep Saddam from giving the WMDs that all agreed he had, to AQ.
Bush is in Britain now?
Yawn.
What the HELL was Bush supposed to do about that? You give the guy credit for more power than he has.
Yeah, because he controls the weather now (rolls eyes)
The Governor controls the National Guard and you (should) know it. Bush sending federal troops into a state without a request from the governer would have been a serious abuse of constitutional protections.
Follow-ups fixed. I DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS IN ALT.POLITICS DAMMIT! If I did, I'd have subscribed there. This thread was started in rec.woodworking by somebody ostensibly discussing woodworking.
He's provided you dozens of cites. That you choose to ignore the fact that both sides of the aisle agreeed that SH had WMD's says more about your "open-minded" politics and "careful study and search for the truth" than anything else
You will gain tons more credibility in this regard if you were to simultaneously call for an all-out investigation in determining who leaked to the press the fact that the NSA was monitoring phone calls from areas in foreign countries with Al Quaeda activity to people in the US. Oh, BTW, this was shortly after 9/11 (remember that date? Just in case you, like many in the opposition party seem to have forgotten, that is when agents of Al Queada hijacked 4 jetliners and destroyed the World Trade Center and flew one into the Pentagon. At the time, we were seriously trying to determine whether additional attacks were in the offing) *That* is a serious breach of national security, was probably classified with handling caveats in addition to the highest level of classification and *seriously* undermines our effort to defeat the terrorists.
The Plame issue was a non-issue. Plame was *not* working as a covert agent when her identity as a CIA employee was discussed. The current NSA issue is one of those things that is
... snip
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
No, you didn't fix them. You misdirected this thread again.
What you do or do not want is not relevent. Usenet is divided up into newsgroups according to topic for very good and obvious reasons. Just WTF do you think you are to put a higher priority on some bizarre quirky preference of your own?
Which you said was inapproriate, yet somehow, you seem to think it is not inapproriate for YOU to do so.
False. He did not provide me with any cites in which Saddam Hussein admitted having WMD. Also, AFAIK, Saddam Hussein has never been on either side of the aisle.
As to "careful study and search for the truth", maybe you should have at least considered reading the exchange once before responding to it?
That was never a secret.
Again, it was NEVER a secret that the NSA intercepts and monitors telecomunications. The fact that you didn't know that doesn't mean that everyone else, espeicially al Queda, shared your ignorance. What was, and still is a secret are the identities of the persons whose telecomunications were being monitored.
The warrants issued by FISA were, and still are secret. The program NEVER was secret. Al Queda had no way of knowing whether or not FISA had issued warants to monitor their communications.
Did you even think for a second before you wrote that, or are you just regurgitating your talking points for this week?
The only thing that was a secret and no longer is, is the fact that the Bush Administration bypassed FISA oversight. NO classified information was released by that revelation.
First and foremost it is a moral issue. Taking political revenge on a man by attacking his wife is morally unjustifiable. It certainly is something no Christian would ever consider doing.
Secondly, Plame's status as a liason to the FBI on WMD issue was classified, which qualifies her for protection under the statute.
Third, consider the effect on morale. Not only can our CIA operatives not rely on this administration to protect them, they now know that they may be attacked at any time as retailation against someone else in their family.
Yeah sure, look at America's Haiti if you want to see what American style 'free enterprise' does to a nation. Castro is a much better human being than GWBush.
It still amazes me the hatred and negative emotion that GWBush brings out in some people. An intelligent and rational discussion of the reasons would be facinating.
Not possible. The idelogical Left is far worse than the ideological Right (which is pretty bad) in abandoning reason and honor in the neverending quest for power... i.e., There is neither reason nor intelligence being brought to bear from the Left (though both certainly appear on an individual level) when it comes to political matters. They just want to win at any cost.
I'm actually thinking more on the level of "the common man"... average people that normally might not be that interested in politics or current events, and wouldn't be considered ideologically extreme. Among many otherwise regular people, there is the belief that GW (and those around him) are both profoundly evil and/or profoundly stupid, and that GW is personally the root cause of just about any happening they believe to be "bad". For those "regular people", I don't think it's about a quest for power. Actually I'd think a bit of "mob mentality" might have something to do with it.
Dave, take off the blinders. Someone on TV said ( I don't think I remember who, but I think it's true) Bush is on track to be our worst president ever. What can you think of that is better since he became president? And don't blame circumstances for his problems, or you have to defend Jimmy Carter.
Both sides had the same "intelligence," but only 1 decided to invade another country on the basis of faulty intelligence, having decided first and then flopping all over the place for an excuse. Bush is a war criminal.
Wrong, both sides agreed to invade. It was only later that the left flip flopped with tails between their legs claiming bad intelligence. It was expected of them to go the other way. Totally predictable. It is the same old same old. One side is against the other side regardless of what is right.
Someone on TV says a lot of things. A lot of those someones are not really worth paying attention to. Surely you know that, so why repeat such a lame statement?
Lots of people are war criminals depending on who you ask and who wins the war. War criminal is pretty subjective and has been batted around at so many people it really doesn't have much meaning anymore.
A couple of corrections: Congress granted the authority to invade (after insisting that they needed a second resolution despite the fact that the
2001 resolutions gave the president that authority). The second resolution was insisted upon by the opposition because they thought it would help them in the 2002 elections. Thus, both sides agreed upon the action. Only one person had the authority to issue the order to invade, so your comment that only one "side" decided to invade is nonsensical.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Oh, somebody on TV said it, thus it must be true. Dang (slaps forehead, if I'd have only known, after all someone on TV said ....) Someone on TV also said that a National Guard commander typed a memo in the 1970's detailing how Bush was given special treatment -- that turned out to be forged documents. The person who most strongly pushed that story on TV never really did admit that a forgery had occurred (what was the phrase, "the documents were fake, but factually correct"?) When looking at statements, there are 1) facts, 2) opinions, 3) feelings, and 4) beliefs. What you saw on TV was someone stating an opinion based upon their opinions formed from their beliefs. Did they cite any facts that backed up their statement?
Let's see, the economy is recovering quite nicely from the Clinton recession. The stock market has recovered from both the 2000 "correction" and the severe drop that occured after 9/11. The unemployment rate has achieved what is considered virtual full employment (around 5%). The housing market has been humming along and doing very well. The deficit has decreased during the past year. Afghanistan is no longer controlled by a bunch of wild-eyed islamofascists who harbor terrorists and terrorist training camps and is well on the way to a democratic society. Iraq just held not one, not two, but three elections in which the people were able to freely choose those they want to lead them and a constitution. This after decades during which anything even resembling dissent got one's tongue cut out or worse.
The only good news for the Dems is the fact that the housing market took a large drop this past month. Anybody want to take any bets how much play that is going to get over the next month? That will get huge play time to illustrate how we live in a soup-line America in which everyone is just one paycheck away from living under an underpass somewhere. The sad thing is that the opposition party has set themselves up such that for them to do well, the rest of America must suffer some setback or major tragedy.
Are things perfect? No, but to paint Bush as the worst president ever is the ultimate in hyperbole.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Interesting question - to tie it back to Jimmy Carter, I'm not sure either really deserves their infamy.
I think the reaction to GW comes from the fact that he's the "Face man." As such he gets to bask in the limelight of the astoungly effective Republican PR machine. (Gets guaranteed standing ovations, mostly speaks only to carefully picked audiences, almost never answers questions that aren't vetted first, etc.) On the down side, that role makes him the lightning rod for criticism every time someone in his administration does something wrong. The lightning rod effect is probably magnified due to the efforts to make him seem so heroic. Go around telling people how good or perfect you are and you'll experience a similar increase in criticism.
The average person on the street probably doesn't follow politics much, but in their eyes politicians over time tend to suffer from the death of a thousand cuts as scandals and negatives start to stick. The key to long-term success is to keep the positives outweighing the negatives. GW's positives are pretty weak right now. Current opinion polls show a majority of Americans don't approve of his handling of foreign or domestic issues. And as for negatives, unless a person gets their news exclusively from a Rupurt Murdoch owned outlet (FAUX news anyone?) there have been plenty of negatives reported in the last five years:
There's loyalty oaths that had to be signed to see him during 2004, responding slowly and poorly to the Katrina disaster, torturing POWs, secret CIA prisons overseas, a screwed up invasion of Iraq, failure to bring Bin Laden to justice, mass firings of people who disagree with GW, huge deficits, jobs and capital going overseas in record amounts, and corruption in congress. And now the NSA is spying on American citizens.
Bush isn't directly responsible for many of those things, but as 'CEO' and face man he sets the tone for the administration, and the buck does stop at his desk.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.