|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 26, 2008 15:12:09 GMT -5
Hind sight is twenty twenty. Saunterelle will never admit the fact that there were just as many in congress, and an ex-president, who all believed that WMD's existed. Ever pushing the Democrat mantra, Bush lied, Bush lied. Never mind that the failures of our intelligence gathering community were caused when they were greatly damaged by the previous administration with the cutting of funding, thanks to Democrats in Congress prior to the Republican majority.
History is obviously one of saunterelles failings. As is his knowledge of the operation of our government. He keeps mistakenly saying that Bush got us into a war. Well, only Congress has the power to declare war. And, if I recall correctly, somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% or more of congress voted for the war. Of course, the yellow bellied cowards that made the vote and then complained are generally of one persuasion, Democrat. And, because of their lower then average intelligence, preceded to tell the world that, "Bush tricked me."
What an argument that is for re-election. But, there are plenty of gullible individuals out there who will believe it. And, in further proof of their gullibility, they repeat the mantra of their dogmatic leaders for all to see. Which leaves me with but a single question.
If the Democrats are so damned smart, as to be the de facto leaders of this great nation, why is it they were duped by a man that they have convinced the world is so much dumber then they are?
Do you really want people who are so easily fooled to lead us?
And if you do, why are you so gullible?
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 26, 2008 15:32:33 GMT -5
Hind sight is twenty twenty. Saunterelle will never admit the fact that there were just as many in congress, and an ex-president, who all believed that WMD's existed. Ever pushing the Democrat mantra, Bush lied, Bush lied. Never mind that the failures of our intelligence gathering community were caused when they were greatly damaged by the previous administration with the cutting of funding, thanks to Democrats in Congress prior to the Republican majority. History is obviously one of saunterelles failings. As is his knowledge of the operation of our government. He keeps mistakenly saying that Bush got us into a war. Well, only Congress has the power to declare war. And, if I recall correctly, somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% or more of congress voted for the war. Of course, the yellow bellied cowards that made the vote and then complained are generally of one persuasion, Democrat. And, because of their lower then average intelligence, preceded to tell the world that, "Bush tricked me." What an argument that is for re-election. But, there are plenty of gullible individuals out there who will believe it. And, in further proof of their gullibility, they repeat the mantra of their dogmatic leaders for all to see. Which leaves me with but a single question. If the Democrats are so damned smart, as to be the de facto leaders of this great nation, why is it they were duped by a man that they have convinced the world is so much dumber then they are? Do you really want people who are so easily fooled to lead us? And if you do, why are you so gullible? Unbelievable passing of the buck. The first paragraph in particular is a real stretch. You folks are in some serious denial. And the Dem's mantra is When Bush lied, people died. |
|
mrbose
Senior Member
Posts: 898
|
Post by mrbose on Aug 26, 2008 15:39:01 GMT -5
The Presidential election was too close to call. Neither the Republican
candidate nor the Democratic candidate had enough votes to win. There was
much talk about ballot recounting, court challenges, etc., but a week-long
ice fishing competition seemed the sportsmanlike way to settle things. The
candidate that caught the most fish at the end of the week would win the
election.
Therefore, it was decided that there should be an ice fishing contest
between the two candidates to determine the winner.
After much of back and forth discussion, it was decided that the contest
take place on a remote frozen lake in northern Minnesota.
There were to be no observers present, and both men were to be sent out
separately on this isolated lake and return at 5 P.M. with their catch for
counting and verification by a team of neutral parties. At the end of the
first day, John Mc. returned to the starting line and he had ten fish.
Soon, Obama returned and had no fish. Well, everyone assumed he was just
having another 'bad hair' day or something and hopefully, he would
catch up
the next day.
At the end of the 2nd day John Mc. came in with 20 fish and Obama came in
again with none.
That evening, Harry Reid got together secretly with Obama and said, 'Obama,
I think John Mc. is a low-life, cheatin' son-of-a-gun. I want you to go out
tomorrow and don't even bother with fishing. Just spy on him and see just
how he is cheating.'
The next night (after John Mc. returns with 50 fish), Harry said to Obama,
'Well, tell me, how is John Mc. cheating?'
Obama replied, 'Harry, you're not going to believe this, but he's
cutting
holes in the ice.'
Experience Does Count
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Aug 26, 2008 16:25:57 GMT -5
When Biden speaks, the nation listens.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Aug 26, 2008 16:57:32 GMT -5
Hind sight is twenty twenty. Saunterelle will never admit the fact that there were just as many in congress, and an ex-president, who all believed that WMD's existed. Ever pushing the Democrat mantra, Bush lied, Bush lied. Never mind that the failures of our intelligence gathering community were caused when they were greatly damaged by the previous administration with the cutting of funding, thanks to Democrats in Congress prior to the Republican majority.
Unbelievable passing of the buck. The first paragraph in particular is a real stretch. You folks are in some serious denial. And the Dem's mantra is When Bush lied, people died.Saunterelle, please tell us which part of Bloverk's first paragraph you claim is a stretch. Is it the part where Congress also believed that Saddam had WMDs? Or, is it the part where Clinton also believed that Saddam had WMDs? Or, is it the part about the intelligence failures being caused by budget cutbacks in that sector under previous administrations? |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 26, 2008 17:11:51 GMT -5
Unbelievable passing of the buck. The first paragraph in particular is a real stretch. You folks are in some serious denial. And the Dem's mantra is When Bush lied, people died.Saunterelle, please tell us which part of Bloverk's first paragraph you claim is a stretch. Is it the part where Congress also believed that Saddam had WMDs? Or, is it the part where Clinton also believed that Saddam had WMDs? Or, is it the part about the intelligence failures being caused by budget cutbacks in that sector under previous administrations? It's the ludicrous idea that Democrats were somehow responsible for failures in our intelligence community and that somehow that was the reason for our rush to war. It is well documented that the Bush Administration were using shady sources to obtain their information and that "Curveball" was an extremely unreliable source. Bush was strongly advised against including the phrase "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" in his 2003 State of the Union speech but did it anyway to stoke the fires of fear that allowed him to drive us to war. Curveball, who claimed to be an Iraqi chemical engineer with knowledge of even the country's most secret weapons programs, was actually a twitchy, possibly mentally disturbed drunk who was prone to rapid mood-swings and whose story tended to shift according to what he thought investigators wanted to hear. The Bush Administration used him as an "exhibit A" to prove that Iraq was harboring WMDs. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 26, 2008 18:33:23 GMT -5
Ha ha ha, I love people like you saunterelle. You are just to funny. I quote, from the New York Times: Defying stern warnings from the Clinton Administration, Democrats in Congress are preparing to cut more than $1 billion from a White House intelligence budget request. The cuts would leave the nation's intelligence agencies with only about as much money for next year as they were given by Congress this year. President Clinton had asked for an increase that would have outpaced inflation, contending that the national security requirements in the post-cold war era justified the steeper rise. The SourceAnd, those cuts went through, over a billion dollars removed from their budget, in spite of Bill Clinton requesting they not be cut. He eventually went along with the cuts, and signed the budget. But Bill is not a man with much backbone, that is for sure. But, I have proven my point. The cuts in our intelligence agencies were made by Democrats, during a Democrat controlled House and Senate. Lucky for us, that majority only lasted for a short time. Unfortunately, we were not able to get that money back into the budget in time for stopping 9/11. Now, care to address that, saunterelle? No? I understand. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 26, 2008 18:36:20 GMT -5
How about this nice dish, just for you saunterelle:  |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 26, 2008 18:44:51 GMT -5
Saunterelle, please tell us which part of Bloverk's first paragraph you claim is a stretch. Is it the part where Congress also believed that Saddam had WMDs? Or, is it the part where Clinton also believed that Saddam had WMDs? Or, is it the part about the intelligence failures being caused by budget cutbacks in that sector under previous administrations? It's the ludicrous idea that Democrats were somehow responsible for failures in our intelligence community and that somehow that was the reason for our rush to war. It is well documented that the Bush Administration were using shady sources to obtain their information and that "Curveball" was an extremely unreliable source. Bush was strongly advised against including the phrase "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" in his 2003 State of the Union speech but did it anyway to stoke the fires of fear that allowed him to drive us to war. Curveball, who claimed to be an Iraqi chemical engineer with knowledge of even the country's most secret weapons programs, was actually a twitchy, possibly mentally disturbed drunk who was prone to rapid mood-swings and whose story tended to shift according to what he thought investigators wanted to hear. The Bush Administration used him as an "exhibit A" to prove that Iraq was harboring WMDs. You forgot to insert two words that would make your sentence correct. You wrote were using shady sources to obtain their information it should read were forced into using shady sources to obtain their informationYour entire post fails to address the very reasons President Bush was forced to seek intelligence elsewhere, rather then from his own intelligence gathering agencies. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 26, 2008 19:15:26 GMT -5
It's the ludicrous idea that Democrats were somehow responsible for failures in our intelligence community and that somehow that was the reason for our rush to war. It is well documented that the Bush Administration were using shady sources to obtain their information and that "Curveball" was an extremely unreliable source. Bush was strongly advised against including the phrase "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" in his 2003 State of the Union speech but did it anyway to stoke the fires of fear that allowed him to drive us to war. Curveball, who claimed to be an Iraqi chemical engineer with knowledge of even the country's most secret weapons programs, was actually a twitchy, possibly mentally disturbed drunk who was prone to rapid mood-swings and whose story tended to shift according to what he thought investigators wanted to hear. The Bush Administration used him as an "exhibit A" to prove that Iraq was harboring WMDs. You forgot to insert two words that would make your sentence correct. You wrote were using shady sources to obtain their information it should read were forced into using shady sources to obtain their informationYour entire post fails to address the very reasons President Bush was forced to seek intelligence elsewhere, rather then from his own intelligence gathering agencies. Not true. They went looking for sources that would support their agenda. A more competent administration probably would have prevented 9/11. The confidential President's Daily Brief (PDB) for August 6, 2001 contained a two-page section entitled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US," and refers to possible hijacking attempts by Osama bin Laden disciples and the existence of about 70 FBI investigations into alleged al-Qaeda cells operating within the United States. It was presented to Bush while he vacationed at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. So, to blame this on the intelligence is unfair. Perhaps if Bush had not been so busy shoveling brush he could have keep our country safe. Obama/Biden (or Gore/Lieberman) would not have dropped the ball in that situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Aug 26, 2008 20:29:48 GMT -5
Obama/Biden (or Gore/Lieberman) would not have dropped the ball in that situation.[/quote]
I concur with saunterelle!
What bush did was deliberate, going into Iraq, and used false intelligence to make his case. He also had prior knowledge of threats and what kind they were from our community and from the Filipino govt. way before 9/11 terrorist attack.
The only thing is , I'm not sure he was clearing brush as much as he was vacationing.
The change we need is a change from this failed administration, not a carbon copy.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Aug 27, 2008 0:36:06 GMT -5
Saunterelle says....
Saunterelle, I honestly don't know how you can have a karma in positive territory when you spout things like this. Please tell me what a President Gore (shudder) would have done on Aug 6 if he got a PDB saying that bin Laden was determined to strike at the US. Knowing what we know now about the 9/11 attackers, what would President Obama have done to stop them?
Go back and read the 9/11 Commission's report before you make claims like that again. While you're at it, also read the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee on intelligence failures in Iraq.
My only regret is that I can only smite you once an hour.
|
|
