[eklipse]

Is anyone else surprised that WMD haven't been 'discovered' in Iraq yet?

I mean, if the Bush administration was willing to lie/exaggerate/distort/all-of-the-above in order to 'get their war on' in the first place - why stop there? Why not go all out and plant the 'evidence' to vindicate their Iraqi escapade?

Perhaps I'm being a little premature - there's still a couple of months before the elections....

[GG Allin]

===============================
THE DAILY MIS-LEAD
< http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u...52&amp;l=16927 >
===============================

BUSH SABOTAGES WMD COMMISSION BEFORE IT STARTS

Over the last two days, President Bush and the White House have claimed that
they are going to establish an "independent" commission to promptly
investigate the over-hyping of intelligence before the Iraq war. But as
details come out about the White House's proposal, it appears the commission
will be neither independent nor prompt.

Specifically, the president will appoint the entire commission himself,
breaking the previous tradition of allowing lawmakers from both parties to
appoint commission members. Although lawmakers have raised objections to the
commission's lack of independence, the White House is moving forward with
its plans.

Additionally, despite the fact that the commission's work will be critical
to national security, the president will only authorize a commission that
produces a report after the election -- so as to minimize any political
fallout for himself. This contrasts sharply to British Prime Minister Tony
Blair, who is putting national security ahead of politics. As the Los
Angeles Times reports, "in contrast to a bipartisan investigating committee
announced by Bush, the British panel is to announce its conclusions by July.
That would put any damaging disclosures for Blair's government well in
advance of parliamentary elections, expected in 2005." It also contrasts
with similar investigations in the United States. In 1983, after the
terrorist attacks on U.S. troops in Beirut, a commission was appointed and
finished its work within 3 months.

As one major newspaper editorial board summed up, "The president's goal is
to delay any objective findings about prewar intelligence until after the
election, leaving him free to decide what the administration knew and didn't
know and who is to blame." And the President's continued misleading on WMD
could come at a price. As Republican Senator Chuck Hagel said, a failure to
convince the public that Bush did not "exaggerate" the case for war "would
put the president in a very bad position. He said people would start asking,
"Do we trust his word? Do we trust him to lead this country?"

[lil'babykitten]

If the investigations become a little too damaging we might suddenly discover WMD.
Or they will wait until we get nearer to that all important month.

[thunderous_funker]

Nah. They'll just announce that the WMD are in Syria and start the whole thing over again.

After all, the media is still playing stenographer rather than watchdog.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
If the investigations become a little too damaging we might suddenly discover WMD.
Or they will wait until we get nearer to that all important month.

That's right...prep your myriad of anti-Bush, anti-US explanation in the case that WMD are found.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
That's right...prep your myriad of anti-Bush, anti-US explanation in the case that WMD are found.

Hold On Tight by Electric Light Orchestra

Hold on tight to your dream
Hold on tight to your dream
When you see your ship go sailing
When you feel your heart is breaking
Hold tight to your dream.

It's a long time to be gone
Time just rolls on and on
When you need a shoulder to cry on
When you get so sick of trying
Just hold tight to your dream

CHORUS:
When you get so down that you can't get up
And you want so much but you're all out of luck
When you're so downhearted and misunderstood
Just over & over & over you could

[don't forget the french part]
Accroches-toi a ton reve
Accroches-toi a ton reve
Quand tu vois ton bateau partir
Quand tu sents -- ton coeur se briser
Accroches-toi a ton reve.

REPEAT CHORUS:

Hold on tight to your dream
Hold on tight to your dream
When you see the shadows falling
When you hear that cold wind calling
Hold on tight to your dream.

Oh, yeah
Hold on tight to your dream
Yeah, hold on tight...
To your dream.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Hold On Tight by Electric Light Orchestra

Hold on tight to your dream
Hold on tight to your dream
When you see your ship go sailing
When you feel your heart is breaking
Hold tight to your dream.

quelle évaluation piquante!

[gadster]

Why haven't WMD been 'found' yet?

Because there ain't none there?

But there IS lots of oil and a nice strategic military platform. Which will probably do Israel and the US nicely.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
That's right...prep your myriad of anti-Bush, anti-US explanation in the case that WMD are found.

I'm surprised you haven't seen this coming yet.

[Millennium]

I've got to say, given the beating that Bush is taking over this fiasco, I'd think that if he had intent to plant evidence that he'd have done so already.

'Discovering' evidence in October or so would be too risky, because his approval ratings could easily drop too far in the intervening time, such that even finding WMD wouldn't be enough to recover in time for the election.

Of course, there are also consipracy theories out there stating that we may have already found Osama bin Laden, but are keeping that hush-hush until October. Again, I'm not sure that is entirely plausible; Bush needs a boost sooner than that.

The one talent the guy has really shown during his administration is that he plays excellent political chess. Of course, that could just be Karl Rove talking, but either way someone knows what they're doing. That's why I don't think he's intending to plant WMD; doing it in October is a mistake on an order of magnitude that I think we can count on him not making, and he needs the boost badly enough that were he going to do it at all I think he'd have already done so.

[Spliffdaddy]

Two things...

1) Dubya is far enough away from November that anything negative happening now or soon will (likely) no longer be an issue by election time.

2) The Democrats haven't chosen a target yet. When we know the nominee, then we can take him apart.



things are still rosey for the shrub.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Is anyone else surprised that WMD haven't been 'discovered' in Iraq yet?

I mean, if the Bush administration was willing to lie/exaggerate/distort/all-of-the-above in order to 'get their war on' in the first place - why stop there? Why not go all out and plant the 'evidence' to vindicate their Iraqi escapade?

Perhaps I'm being a little premature - there's still a couple of months before the elections....

Why would they plant anything?
This is just a wild guess on my part,
but don't you think after 12 years of
searching by the UN, Saddam would
have learned to mobilize his labs or
find a way to spirit them into another
country?

He had them, he used them on his own
people, this we know is a fact so, why
do you continue to say this is a cover
up and lies?

In this instance, we not only have rid
the world of Saddam Hussein, but we
have a stronghold in the center of all
the terrorist supporting nations to
work from. This is a good thing.

The bad guys are actually hiding,
on the run, or planning their next
cowardly attack on innocent people.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
He had them, he used them on his own
people, this we know is a fact so, why
do you continue to say this is a cover
up and lies?

He used them on his own people in the late 80's, the inspections disarmed him in the 90's. Just because the president is ignorant of history doesn't excuse you.

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
In this instance, we not only have rid
the world of Saddam Hussein, but we
have a stronghold in the center of all
the terrorist supporting nations to
work from. This is a good thing.

The bad guys are actually hiding,
on the run, or planning their next
cowardly attack on innocent people.

Oh goody. Just what we needed, yet another occupied Arab country to be the rallying cry of Arab nationalists and Islamic extremists everywhere. Palestine wasn't enough?

So now terrorists are hiding, running or attacking. So exactly how is that different than before we invaded Iraq?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
The bad guys are actually hiding,
on the run, or planning their next
cowardly attack on innocent people.

I actually agree with the last line.

[dialo]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
This is just a wild guess on my part,
but don't you think after 12 years of
searching by the UN, Saddam would
have learned to mobilize his labs or
find a way to spirit them into another
country?

Move *exactly* what biological or chemical weapons out of the country?

As for the mobile labs, think it through a little.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
He had them, he used them on his own
people, this we know is a fact so, why
do you continue to say this is a cover
up and lies?

We know he had them before he was ordered to get rid of them. We don't know that he still had them after (which was the main arguement for Iraq being in violation of the UN resolutions against it).

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
In this instance, we not only have rid
the world of Saddam Hussein, but we
have a stronghold in the center of all
the terrorist supporting nations to
work from. This is a good thing.

And aren't these, then, the main reasons for the invasion of Iraq and not all the hogwash about "WMD" and "liberation"? Furthermore, don't you only have a stronghold in the center of all the terrorist supporting nations if the recently liberated people of Iraq invite you to station a base there, or will they have a choice in the matter?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
The bad guys are actually hiding,
on the run, or planning their next
cowardly attack on innocent people.

Please define "cowardly attack on innocent people"

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Please define "cowardly attack on innocent people"

I believe that would be things like flying airliners into buildings full of innocent victims, or maybe something really clever like poisoning a municipal water supply, or touching off a radiological device in downtown DC, or suicide bombs, or any number of other ways that innocent civilians are massacred to make a political statement.

[FeLiZeCaT]

crisse de bon film.


Hollywood could not have done it better..
;o))


And the Oscar goes to....

[swrate]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Is anyone else surprised that WMD haven't been 'discovered' in Iraq yet?

I mean, if the Bush administration was willing to lie/exaggerate/distort/all-of-the-above in order to 'get their war on' in the first place - why stop there? Why not go all out and plant the 'evidence' to vindicate their Iraqi escapade?

Perhaps I'm being a little premature - there's still a couple of months before the elections....

Surprised WMD ....
no: WMD, undercover MAFIA and terrorism, moves around fast.(Big Business)

Millenium wrote
"good at political chess and he needs the boost badly "

I wonder how far bushad will go for the campaign, I am surprised to read the above, it means his quota goes down fast lately

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Please define "cowardly attack on innocent people"

You mean you don't understand what the
phrase "cowardly attack on innocent people"
means?

I can provide examples if that would help.

The bad men took four of my country's planes.
So, far so good?

After they took the planes, they flew two of
them into the World Trade Centers, thereby
killing the people on board that had no ill
will towards these men.

Are you still with me?

Well, after the planes went into the buildings
and all the jet fuel ignited and poured over
several floors below, burning; melting; and
cremating those innocent people, it then
weakened the structures to the point of
collapse, and the floors fell upon each other
like dominoes, crushing any innocent people
that could not escape.

The third plane crashed into the ground
on it's way to kill more innocent people,
but thankfully some brave people on board
overtook the bad men, and the plane only
killed all those aboard.

The fourth, and you are going to like this one,
crashed into the pentagon, killing many people
there too.

I hope I dumbed this down enough for you,
But if you need me to explain anything
else in more detail, I can.

(e.g., How body parts of innocent people
were found blocks away from the WTC,
or how the networks were showing how
some innocent people lept to their deaths
to escape the burning fuel.)

Or do you consider this to be a brave act,
perpetrated by brave men, against evil
and malevolent people?

[Wiskedjak]

I agree, those are all cowardly actions. I was just curious as to where you drew the line. I would add attacking a nation that can't defend itself and killing 10,000 people process to the list.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I agree, those are all cowardly actions. I was just curious as to where you drew the line. I would add attacking a nation that can't defend itself and killing 10,000 people process to the list.

How about dropping laser guided bombs from planes thousands of feet in the air. And only entering the field of battle after you know the enemy has either left the area or been decimated.

How about declaring and forcing young men and women to fight in an unnecessary war even though you've never fought yourself.

How about corporations using the military to invade a country and take control of its resources and people.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
You mean you don't understand what the
phrase "cowardly attack on innocent people"
means?

I can provide examples if that would help.

Are you still with me?

I hope I dumbed this down enough for you,
But if you need me to explain anything
else in more detail, I can.

We don't need you to dumb down anything for us a**face. Maybe your beer guzzling stoner friends can't figure out what your saying. We here have no trouble understanding that you are a hypocrite.

[tie]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Why would they plant anything?
This is just a wild guess on my part,
but don't you think after 12 years of
searching by the UN, Saddam would
have learned to mobilize his labs or
find a way to spirit them into another
country?

He had them, he used them on his own
people, this we know is a fact so, why
do you continue to say this is a cover
up and lies?

In this instance, we not only have rid
the world of Saddam Hussein, but we
have a stronghold in the center of all
the terrorist supporting nations to
work from. This is a good thing.

The bad guys are actually hiding,
on the run, or planning their next
cowardly attack on innocent people.

Calm down everyone. This is yet another instance of libbies misinterpreting a quote by taking it out of context. Like when Powell said our "conservative estimate" was that "Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent," enough "to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets," he obviously meant that we needed to attack Iraq because of the humanitarian crisis there, to help the poor Iraqi people. Look at the statements in the broader context.

I'm not sure ghost-flash merits comparison to Colin Powell, but similarly, when ghost-flash said "innocent people," he obviously meant "Americans." Why should he -- or we -- care about the Iraqis?

And he's 100% prencet correct that it's a good thing we now have a stronghold in the middle of the Middle East. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Oman, Qatar, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Djibouti were all rather peripheral.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Quoted from tie:
I'm not sure ghost-flash merits comparison to Colin Powell, but similarly, when ghost-flash said "innocent people," he obviously meant "Americans." Why should he -- or we -- care about the Iraqis?
______________________________________________


Well, actually, why should you care for your neighbour?

Let's say you see his wife (you neighbour's wife) and you want her for yourself, and the house and the land. On top of that, you see that neighbour as "ugly" and his cooking does not please you. Another good reason: he has stuff you need.

So you bring in your friends, beat the guy up, take over the place. You share the bounty with your friends, have the guy live in the streets. You don't really need the kids either so you send them away (don't bother where; you do not care anyway right?).

Then surprise! surprise!

The guy comes back with HIS friends.

But see, since you are a good guy (I mean, you see yourself as a Right person because your principles are Good and God-Driven) and you feel you are doing a favor to the world, you rally more friends to defend yourself and your God-Given Right to be Right.

So you hit the ex-neighbour and his "thugs". To give him a lesson, you make sure you humiliate him more by doing a show and tell of your Goodness in exposing the Evil of this World; you strip him off his clothes, have him stripped off any privacy and expose him to do things you would do only privately (I do not believe I need to be explicit here).

But you DO NOT care because you are Good and Right and Civilized and Know Better. I mean you are Free in a Land of Plenty that you harvested (with the hands and sweat of others by God Given Right) and made sure that you clean up That Promised Land, that Eden, from "Parasites". The Land Of God has to be Clean.

And you feel So Good in your Rightness, that only those who think like You are worthy of your friendship. After all, you shared the same chores and challenges; therefore, you HAVE TO BE Right. Right?

Actually, you are so Right, that it is Impossible for Others to think differently than you. Therefore, if they are not, they are a threat since they are abnormal and could do the unexpected (like opposing you in your God-Given Mission).

So you have to Clean Up. And since it is Difficult and Painful to Do the Right Thing (command Others to do the Job which is your God-Given Duty), the Reward will have to be God-Like proportional.

And the Punishment as well: because the Wrong understand only One Language, that of the Force, because their Dumbness and Eternal Evil Insistance to be Different eliminates any other ways.

But the Wicked Critters are so many! Why God would give you such an Incredible Task?

Well, since you are Right, this must be to make you Stronger.

So you play the wicked against one another. You arm them and ensure they decrease their number through their Evilness. After all, you are doing them a favor to do what seems so natural of animals! Until you can strike back with a God-Given Blow with Full Rightness.

And after a day of (Others) Work, you Rest the Rest Of the Right, and contemplate Rightfully your Rightness. And you Feel Rightfully Good and Divine.


Now, I really wonder why the kids would not come back and **** on your lawn.

But then, who cares again? There is nothing you can't clean with a revolver and a piece of paper...

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by tie:
I'm not sure ghost-flash merits comparison to Colin Powell, but similarly, when ghost-flash said "innocent people," he obviously meant "Americans." Why should he -- or we -- care about the Iraqis?

And he's 100% prencet correct that it's a good thing we now have a stronghold in the middle of the Middle East. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Oman, Qatar, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Djibouti were all rather peripheral.

So if we don't care about Iraqis why did we just spend over $80 billion to rebuild the country?

You are a sad excuse for a human being. I am ashamed to even be on the same forum with someone like you. I am ashamed to speak the same language and be in the same country with someone like you. Keep it to yourself you racist imperialist swine. You don't even deserve the time that it took FeLIZeCaT to write the post above this.

[Logic]

Calm down everyone!

I think tie was joking......

[FeLiZeCaT]

Well, if he was joking, it was certainly not that clear to me.

In regards of his previous posts (at least the few I have seen so far), there was a strange consistency to them.

Nevertheless, I feel my point, though long, was appropriate.

It does not suit specifically the U.S... I believe it suits pretty much any group of people feeling more blessed than others, regardless of the Nation.

[chris v]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/po...tDe1Je3aYqOyDg

user: macnn
pass: macnn

CV

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by chris v:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/po...tDe1Je3aYqOyDg

user: macnn
pass: macnn

CV

a VERY interesting section of that story:

Rather than uniform and disciplined, their answers have been ad hoc and inconsistent. And the result is that the president appears very much on the defensive just at a moment when his aides thought he would be reaping the political benefits of ridding the world of Saddam Hussein.

hmmmm.....

[FeLiZeCaT]

Quote from Lerkfish:

hmmmm.....


__________________________

hmmmm..... indeed....

[gadster]

Because they are looking in the wrong country? There is one nearby, with a shîtload.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by gadster:
Because they are looking in the wrong country? There is one nearby, with a shîtload.

Of oil?

And if Tie was kidding then he should make it more clear.

[gadster]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
Of oil?

And if Tie was kidding then he should make it more clear.

No, not oil.

WMDs, silly™.

It's just a jump to the left, then down a bit.

[Eriamjh]

Saddam was an idiot and a genius.

Consider these possibilities (Saddam as genius):
Assume Saddam had weapons in early 1990s.
Saddam destroys weapons.
Saddam destroys proof of weapons and their destruction.
No weapons can be found, but no evidence they were destroyed.
The US thinks Saddam has them.
Saddam denies he does, truthfully, but no one really knows.
Saddam is regarded as a threat without ever being one.
Other arab nations see him stand up to the US.

Saddam was also an idiot:
Without definite proof, the US attacked him anyway.
Saddam now out of power and captured.

He should have complied and done everything to prevent an attack. He would still be in power, and no one would really know how weak he truly was.

If he actually had WMD and hid them or moved them out of the country, then what purpose did that serve?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by gadster:
No, not oil.

WMDs, silly™.

It's just a jump to the left, then down a bit.

It's astounding;
Time is fleeting;
Madness takes its toll.
But listen closely...

Magenta:
Not for very much longer.

RiffRaff:
I've got to keep control.
I remember doing the time-warp
Drinking those moments when
The Blackness would hit me

RiffRaff:
And the void would be calling...

Transylvanians:
Let's do the time-warp again.
Let's do the time-warp again.

Narrator:
It's just a jump to the left.

All:
And then a step to the right.

Narrator:
With your hands on your hips.

All:
You bring your knees in tight.
But it's the pelvic thrust
That really drives you insane.
Let's do the time-warp again.
Let's do the time-warp again.

Magenta:
It's so dreamy, oh fantasy free me.
So you can't see me, no, not at all.
In another dimension, with voyeuristic intention,
Well secluded, I see all.

RiffRaff:
With a bit of a mind flip

Magenta:
You're into the time slip.

RiffRaff:
And nothing can ever be the same.

Magenta:
You're spaced out on sensation.

RiffRaff:
Like you're under sedation.

All:
Let's do the time-warp again.
Let's do the time-warp again.

Columbia:
Well I was walking down the street just a-having a think
When a snake of a guy gave me an evil wink.
He shook-a me up, he took me by surprise.
He had a pickup truck, and the devil's eyes.
He stared at me and I felt a change.
Time meant nothing, never would again.

All:
Let's do the time-warp again.
Let's do the time-warp again.

Narrator:
It's just a jump to the left.

All:
And then a step to the right.

Narrator:
With your hands on your hips.

All:
You bring your knees in tight.
But it's the pelvic thrust
That really drives you insane.
Let's do the time-warp again.
Let's do the time-warp again.

[Evan_11]

Lerk, posting pictures of yourself in drag will not further your arguement.

[boots]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Lerk, posting pictures of yourself in drag will not further your arguement.

Sorry, Lerk, but that was funny.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I've got to say, given the beating that Bush is taking over this fiasco, I'd think that if he had intent to plant evidence that he'd have done so already.

'Discovering' evidence in October or so would be too risky, because his approval ratings could easily drop too far in the intervening time, such that even finding WMD wouldn't be enough to recover in time for the election.

Of course, there are also consipracy theories out there stating that we may have already found Osama bin Laden, but are keeping that hush-hush until October. Again, I'm not sure that is entirely plausible; Bush needs a boost sooner than that.

The one talent the guy has really shown during his administration is that he plays excellent political chess. Of course, that could just be Karl Rove talking, but either way someone knows what they're doing. That's why I don't think he's intending to plant WMD; doing it in October is a mistake on an order of magnitude that I think we can count on him not making, and he needs the boost badly enough that were he going to do it at all I think he'd have already done so.

Following your train of thought, expect something late August early September -ish. Just in time to be included in the Republican National Convention in NYC around 9/11/04.

That's when I expect Bush/Rove inc. to blow it's wad.

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Following your train of thought, expect something late August early September -ish. Just in time to be included in the Republican National Convention in NYC around 9/11/04.

That's when I expect Bush/Rove inc. to blow it's wad.

BlackGriffen

sounds about right. If you view the graph, you see there is only a limited push from events before his popularity wanes again as people remember who he is again.

Therefore, they're going to need to trot Osama out within one month from the election, or their ride on that will peter out too soon. Midway through Sept. (11th) would be the most logical time frame.

though I have no idea what "event" they'll trigger. It could be trotting out Osama, invading Syria, or it could be some conveniently timed event that they did not overtly trigger themselves, such as a large scale terrorist attack.

Something will happen, though, because Dubya does not have enough popularity on his own without these "events", so they will have to trigger one if one does not conveniently happen on its own.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

Something will happen, though, because Dubya does not have enough popularity on his own without these "events", so they will have to trigger one if one does not conveniently happen on its own.

[RooneyX]

What happened to Schwarzenegger's investigation into his own conduct?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Fanatic:

it remains to be seen. Certainly an invasion of Syria or similar would be a triggered event, the timing of which would be in the control solely of the administration.

I'm basing my statements on the provided graph earlier up the thread.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
it remains to be seen. Certainly an invasion of Syria or similar would be a triggered event, the timing of which would be in the control solely of the administration.

I'm basing my statements on the provided graph earlier up the thread.

Actually, to be perfectly honest, part of me wouldn't be surprised if we just so happened to capture Osama in October... but that's the cynical part of me... The rest of me thinks that the Bush admin isn't as malicious as some people claim... just incompetent.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
Actually, to be perfectly honest, part of me wouldn't be surprised if we just so happened to capture Osama in October... but that's the cynical part of me... The rest of me thinks that the Bush admin isn't as malicious as some people claim... just incompetent.

I think they have an agenda, and will use any tool or justification to achieve it. In some ways, they are hopelessly naive, and in other ways manipulative and dangerous. I would never call them incompetent when they obtain all they seek to obtain. They are incredibly successful, for incompetent folk.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I think they have an agenda, and will use any tool or justification to achieve it. In some ways, they are hopelessly naive, and in other ways manipulative and dangerous. I would never call them incompetent when they obtain all they seek to obtain. They are incredibly successful, for incompetent folk.

Well, that's where we differ, my friend... You think that the Bush administration maliciously and purposefully carried out the actions that have led us to our current situation. I give Bush the benefit of the doubt. I think he rushed to judgement with respect to intel on Iraq's capability to produce/deploy WMD. I think he rushed to judgement on plans for post-war Iraq. But I don't think he abused his power. Maybe I'm too naive, who knows... but there's no proof that Bush deceived the world.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
What happened to Schwarzenegger's investigation into his own conduct?

Stalled. It seems that he's not cooperating with himself.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
Well, that's where we differ, my friend... You think that the Bush administration maliciously and purposefully carried out the actions that have led us to our current situation. I give Bush the benefit of the doubt. I think he rushed to judgement with respect to intel on Iraq's capability to produce/deploy WMD. I think he rushed to judgement on plans for post-war Iraq. But I don't think he abused his power. Maybe I'm too naive, who knows... but there's no proof that Bush deceived the world.

To me, for a man with his power and stature to have done that is grounds for voting him out of office.

He's shown demonstrably bad judgment twice. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

But, then, Bush never had me fooled about his (lack of) judgment.

BlackGriffen

[voodoo]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Stalled. It seems that he's not cooperating with himself.