0
cubiod

BUSH...A good president???

Recommended Posts

Interesting indeed. Clinton as President was obligated to enforce the laws of our land and he didn't. Now you think GWB was supposed to know what was going on inside a company he had no interest in. Yes, your logic is VERY INTERESTING INDEED.




edited for spelling.



I fail to understand.

Enron, a company run by a buddy of GWB, defrauds investors of $billions. Neither Clinton nor GWB's administrations detect it, which shows that Clinton is evil while Dubya just a friend who's been deceived.

Is that what you're saying?

***

No thats NOT what I'm saying and you know it. Do you know whats going on inside of corporations your friends run? Oh, sorry, I forgot, you wouldn't know anyone who ran a corporation because they are all evil. :)
What I said was GWB had no apparent interest in Enron and therefore wouoldn't have any idea what was going on. What do you think Ken Lay and GWB were having dinner one night and Lay said "Yeah, George, we are really cooking the books over there at Enron. I imagine we are gonna screw our investors out of millions this year. So whats up with you and Laura"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There are many explanations, but the simplest (and therefore most probable) is that GWB lied.



You seem to keep forgetting that maybe he had bad intel...And therfore is not a liar....But you would rather think he was criminal than just fed bad info.

Also Saddam never complied. All he ever had to do was show where/how he got rid of them. He never did. And we knew he had them...And he admitted to having them...Hell he used them...so where did they go? Last time the only thing I knew that just dissapeared was money.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In the case the case of Iraq and the WMDs, the Administration has to show us proof that he -did- have the weapons of mass destruction.



He had them...He used them...He admitted to having them...the question is what did he do with them?

And he never answered that question.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Did you ever have a friend get in trouble for doing something that you weren't aware of?



So . . . when Enron does something bad . . . it's Clinton's fault even though he's not affiliated with them in any way, shape or form, but it has nothing to do with GWB, who is?

Interesting.



I hope that you are generalizing. I personally have never said any of this.



never pull low......unless you are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

There are many explanations, but the simplest (and therefore most probable) is that GWB lied.



You seem to keep forgetting that maybe he had bad intel...And therfore is not a liar....But you would rather think he was criminal than just fed bad info.

Also Saddam never complied. All he ever had to do was show where/how he got rid of them. He never did. And we knew he had them...And he admitted to having them...Hell he used them...so where did they go? Last time the only thing I knew that just dissapeared was money.



Bad intel or intentionally ignored intel going through all administrations back to FDR.?

Colon Powell said we had pictures of 600 sites where we were sure WMDs were stored. Last I heard 400 had been checked (months ago) and no weapons found. There was one report early on about drums suspected to contain Sarin gas but they needed further testing. Never heard about them again. Two Al Samud missles were found on a trailer parked in the woods. Missles of the same type that were being actively destroyed. Sounds to me like a truck driver decided not being in that truck with an invasion going on was a good idea.

Again we have an issue of which president did the right thing. The intelligence gatherers don't change with the administration, only the administrations interpretation of the intel does I don't see how you can say one president was stupid and ignored good intel and another was stupid and paid attention to bad intel.

The last time Saddam used serious weapons of mass destruction was when the US government supplied them or the technology to him in the 80's.

The plans used to invade Iraq were drawn up by Dick and Rummy during the GHWB administration and dusted off as soon as 9/11 happened.

I don't know why I let myself get sucked in to these.


"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

There are many explanations, but the simplest (and therefore most probable) is that GWB lied.



You seem to keep forgetting that maybe he had
Quote

bad intel...And therfore is not a liar....But you would rather think he was criminal than just fed bad info.

Also Saddam never complied. All he ever had to do was show where/how he got rid of them. He never did. And we knew he had them...And he admitted to having them...Hell he used them...so where did they go? Last time the only thing I knew that just dissapeared was money.



Bad intel or intentionally ignored intel going through all administrations back to FDR.?

Colon Powell said we had pictures of 600 sites where we were sure WMDs were stored. Last I heard 400 had been checked (months ago) and no weapons found. There was one report early on about drums suspected to contain Sarin gas but they needed further testing. Never heard about them again. Two Al Samud missles were found on a trailer parked in the woods. Missles of the same type that were being actively destroyed. Sounds to me like a truck driver decided not being in that truck with an invasion going on was a good idea.

Again we have an issue of which president did the right thing. The intelligence gatherers don't change with the administration, only the administrations interpretation of the intel does I don't see how you can say one president was stupid and ignored good intel and another was stupid and paid attention to bad intel.

The last time Saddam used serious weapons of mass destruction was when the US government supplied them or the technology to him in the 80's.

The plans used to invade Iraq were drawn up by Dick and Rummy during the GHWB administration and dusted off as soon as 9/11 happened.

I don't know why I let myself get sucked in to these.



Perhaps you can explain to us why The UN and Clinton Administration all thought he had WMD's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I love how the lefties now act like the only thing Clinton ever did wrong was get a blow job. How about sitting aroun getting a blow job while corporations were transferring missle technology to the Chinese?



I didn't know Clinton was President this month??? :S

UC officials disclose another Los Alamos lab security breach 12/10/2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You made reference to technology secrets being transferred to the Chinese while Clinton was president, and that specifically relates to securtiy problem at Los Alamos. The linked article demonstrates that the same problem exists.

You're right though, they don't say anything about the Chinese, because they don't know where the info went. Could have been Al Queda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Perhaps your brain needs a little jogging. Does Lawrence Livermore Labs ring a bell?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/20/china.spy/



Nope, I remember....interestingly, the only reference to Livermore in that article appears in the same sentence with Los Alamos. What's your point? Secrets were exposed during Clinton's watch...the same thing has happened under Bush's watch.

You claimed the "liberals" are ignoring what happened when Clinton was pres. Actually, personally, I'm not. But there's nothing I can do about that now. There's a chance we can do something about what is going on currently under Bush's command....which the "conservatives" happen to be ignoring. Maybe it's because they're distracted by ubiquitous terrorist plots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Of course, Clinton should have kept a better eye on GWB's brother, as well.



Gee... the article says he's done nothing wrong. Just a lot of black helicopter conspiracy stuff we always get from the lefties. I also took a little time to check this site out. I think it's wondeful you hold sites like this in such high regard. Just remember this nect time you criticize Fox News.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Gee... the article says he's done nothing wrong. Just a lot of black helicopter conspiracy stuff we always get from the lefties. I also took a little time to check this site out. I think it's wondeful you hold sites like this in such high regard. Just remember this nect time you criticize Fox News.



Maybe you should have checked this site out when Clinton was in office. It had the same type of links. It's not a partisan site, it's a site that provides information that the current administration, whomever that may be, is trying to supress. But I guess you know all about it i the 30 seconds you spent to "check this site out:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Well, the US has now had LONGER than the UN inspectors and is in total control of the country, but STILL can't find WMDs. Which, IMO and that of most of the rest of the world, makes us look stupid and venal. Even worse is the excuse the right keeps bleating about how big Iraq is. Has Iraq magically grown bigger since GWB was criticizing the UN inspectors for taking too long?

There are many explanations, but the simplest (and therefore most probable) is that GWB lied.



UN inspectors were only looking in known and suspected facilities. We on the other hand are damn near turning over every rock and suspicious crevice in the country with the help of many locals who no longer have to fear for their families disappearing in the middle of the night simply for speaking to the 'wrong' person...how much 'cooperation' do you really think was possible while Saddam was in power??

i'd wait a while longer before forming a complete opinion on the existence of WMD ...
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Perhaps your brain needs a little jogging. Does Lawrence Livermore Labs ring a bell?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/20/china.spy/



Nope, I remember....interestingly, the only reference to Livermore in that article appears in the same sentence with Los Alamos. What's your point? Secrets were exposed during Clinton's watch...the same thing has happened under Bush's watch.

You claimed the "liberals" are ignoring what happened when Clinton was pres. Actually, personally, I'm not. But there's nothing I can do about that now. There's a chance we can do something about what is going on currently under Bush's command....which the "conservatives" happen to be ignoring. Maybe it's because they're distracted by ubiquitous terrorist plots.

***

You really don't remember Janet Reno commiting treason, in many's view, in her efforts to block this investigation? Is your memory really that short?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They had a VERY long time to hide them. They could have moved them to a neighbouring country, buried them in the desert, disassembled them and hid the parts separately, any number of possibilities. Or GWB could have been misinformed. Or he could have been lying. I don't know for sure, but I think they will eventually find some very nasty things hidden in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You really don't remember Janet Reno commiting treason, in many's view, in her efforts to block this investigation? Is your memory really that short?



I'll ask the question I've been implying and you've been avoiding. What does that have to do with Bush? I love the cries of "the liberals didn't say anything when Clinton did " , whenever Bush is criticized about something. Look in the mirror, the conservatives aren't saying anything about Bush doing the same things, other than telling us to look at what Clinton did.

Please defend security leaks under Bush's administration without resorting to, "But Clinton...."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites