Bush Comes Out Swinging!

Scott J · Nov 11, 2005

BTW, Bush's greatest failure isn't one of integrity or policy. It is his failure to be politically savvy while governing.

Clinton was a master politician. He spun even his lies and affairs into a "cruel partisan attack".

He never stopped campaigning. Bush did. He thought that there is a difference between campaigning and governing in today's media culture... but there isn't.

Bush has done a very poor job of using the bully pulpit to explain and sell his policies... of course that might have something to do with the media's unwillingness to let him present his side... but he should try more anyway.

Today was a pretty good start in substance but how did the headlines read? Bush has "attacked" his "Iraq critics"... Not that he had defended his Iraq policies and certainly not that he had confronted the attackers. No... Reid criticizes. Hillary differs. Dean debates... but Bush he "attacks".

poncho · Nov 11, 2005

Bill Clinton and George Bush are at best third level managers in the North American Region whatever they do is done in line with the globalist agenda.

Sure they have their little sibling rivalries for show and tell but they are still brothers and accomplices in ruining America for the "greater good" of globalism.

JamieinNH · Nov 11, 2005

Scott,

While I have my opinion, and will continue to have them, I will not argue about who's 'more' right.

Across the board, I don't believe in our political system, or politicians. I don't vote just to the RIGHT or LEFT, I vote who I think will do the best job.

It's times like this that I wish I knew my Bible better, and I pray that I learn it well. Without knowing, just going from what I was taught in my Christian family. What Bush has done is wrong. WAR in general, no matter who brings it is WRONG.

Again, I don't get into debates about who is more 'right', so this ends my contribution to this.

Jamie

Rocko9 · Nov 12, 2005

Again whenever Bush needs to prop himself up, he always calls on armed services to be used as a background prop . This might have worked well a year or two ago but the public is getting tired of this type of macho man theatrics scripted by Karl Rove for the most part.Bush put our country into a war which consisted of poor planning and that was by his own choosing.With public opinion against Bush at an all time low only a few followers he has left will stand behind him and that may be because they don't want to admit they are backing a loser.

emeraldctyangel · Nov 12, 2005

Yes Rock, we propped him up in a speech on Veteran's Day. I guess that speech should have taken place in downtown Manhattan or in Tienaman Square? Whatever.

Your comments are quite silly, immature, and at best - regurgitation of whatever hate outlet you suscribe to. Not really a Christian value where I come from, however, I will still pray for you.

KenH · Nov 12, 2005

Originally posted by Rocko9:
only a few followers he has left
Click to expand...

I follow Jesus Christ, not any politician. I support the United States of America as it is my country and I wish the best for her which means I also wish the best for our president and other government officials to keep our country strong, safe, and prosperous, and a continuing shining light to the rest of the world despite our flaws.

carpro · Nov 12, 2005

In his speech, he pointed out the blatant hypocricy of many of his critics.

"He said those critics have made those allegations although they know that a Senate investigation "found no evidence" of political pressure to change the intelligence community's assessments related to Saddam's weapons program."

The Senate Investigation's conclusions include these:
NIGER CONCLUSIONS

(U) Conclusion 12. Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents2 on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence.

(U) Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.

(U) Conclusion 14. The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's findings.

(U) Conclusion 15. The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Directorate of Operations should have taken precautions not to discuss the credibility of reporting with a potential source when it arranged a meeting with the former ambassador and Intelligence Community analysts.

(U) Conclusion 21. When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting. A CIA official's original testimony to the Committee that he told an NSC official to remove the words "Niger" and "500 tons" from the speech, is incorrect.

(U) Conclusion 22. The Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) should have taken the time to read the State of the Union speech and fact check it himself. Had he done so, he would have been able to alert the National Security Council (NSC) if he still had concerns about the use of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting in a Presidential speech.

(U) Conclusion 23. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Defense Humint Service (DHS), or the Navy should have followed up with a West African businessman, mentioned in a Navy report, who indicated he was willing to provide information about an alleged uranium transaction between Niger and Iraq in November 2002.

(U) Conclusion 25. The Niger reporting was never in any of the drafts of Secretary Powell's United Nations (UN) speech and the Committee has not uncovered any information that showed anyone tried to insert the information into the speech.

(U) Conclusion 26. To date, the Intelligence Community has not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa as stated in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Likewise, neither the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) nor the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which both published assessments on possible Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium, have ever published assessments outside of their agencies which correct their previous positions.

(U) Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

(U) Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.

(U) Conclusion 102. The Committee found that none of the analysts or other people interviewed by the Committee said that they were pressured to change their conclusions related to Iraq's links to terrorism.

For the whole report:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5403731/

This report, by itself, makes liars out of a lot of the President's opponents who accuse hiom of lying about the intel used to make the decision to go to war. Many of the Senators screaming the loudest now took part in this investigation and signed off on its conclusions.

Rocko9 · Nov 12, 2005

Originally posted by emeraldctyangel:
Yes Rock, we propped him up in a speech on Veteran's Day. I guess that speech should have taken place in downtown Manhattan or in Tienaman Square? Whatever.

Your comments are quite silly, immature, and at best - regurgitation of whatever hate outlet you suscribe to. Not really a Christian value where I come from, however, I will still pray for you.
Click to expand...

If anybody is spewing hate , it is you emeraldcityangel, through your personal atttacks on me. So when are you going to grow up? And where are your Christian values? Oh yeah , I keep forgeting, it's al;ways about you, isn't it and your need for attention.

poncho · Nov 12, 2005

Originally posted by carpro:
In his speech, he pointed out the blatant hypocricy of many of his critics.

"He said those critics have made those allegations although they know that a Senate investigation "found no evidence" of political pressure to change the intelligence community's assessments related to Saddam's weapons program."

The Senate Investigation's conclusions include these:
NIGER CONCLUSIONS

(U) Conclusion 12. Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents2 on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence.

(U) Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.

(U) Conclusion 14. The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's findings.

(U) Conclusion 15. The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Directorate of Operations should have taken precautions not to discuss the credibility of reporting with a potential source when it arranged a meeting with the former ambassador and Intelligence Community analysts.

(U) Conclusion 21. When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting. A CIA official's original testimony to the Committee that he told an NSC official to remove the words "Niger" and "500 tons" from the speech, is incorrect.

(U) Conclusion 22. The Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) should have taken the time to read the State of the Union speech and fact check it himself. Had he done so, he would have been able to alert the National Security Council (NSC) if he still had concerns about the use of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting in a Presidential speech.

(U) Conclusion 23. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Defense Humint Service (DHS), or the Navy should have followed up with a West African businessman, mentioned in a Navy report, who indicated he was willing to provide information about an alleged uranium transaction between Niger and Iraq in November 2002.

(U) Conclusion 25. The Niger reporting was never in any of the drafts of Secretary Powell's United Nations (UN) speech and the Committee has not uncovered any information that showed anyone tried to insert the information into the speech.

(U) Conclusion 26. To date, the Intelligence Community has not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa as stated in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Likewise, neither the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) nor the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which both published assessments on possible Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium, have ever published assessments outside of their agencies which correct their previous positions.

(U) Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

(U) Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.

(U) Conclusion 102. The Committee found that none of the analysts or other people interviewed by the Committee said that they were pressured to change their conclusions related to Iraq's links to terrorism.

For the whole report:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5403731/

This report, by itself, makes liars out of a lot of the President's opponents who accuse hiom of lying about the intel used to make the decision to go to war. Many of the Senators screaming the loudest now took part in this investigation and signed off on its conclusions.
Click to expand...

Aaaarrgh, gotta keep those barbarians from coming together to give all us globalist traitors the boot, Aaaarrgh! Mix it up boys gotta make it look good for the cameras, the sheople are watching!

mioque · Nov 12, 2005

Bush Comes Out Swinging!

Good for him!

[snipped]

[ November 13, 2005, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

poncho · Nov 12, 2005

Originally posted by mioque:
Bush Comes Out Swinging!

Good for him!

If your into wife swapping you shouldn't hide it!

{Runnning away}
Click to expand...

As we used to say in little league baseball. He's a whiffer!

Rocko9 · Nov 12, 2005

If seven of the members on the Select Commitee of Intelligence are liars and participated in the investigation, doesn't that make the report in itself rather tainted.

poncho · Nov 12, 2005

Originally posted by Rocko9:
If seven of the members on the Select Commitee of Intelligence are liars and participated in the investigation, doesn't that make the report in itself rather tainted.
Click to expand...

White Wash is more discriptive don't you think Rocko9?

carpro · Nov 12, 2005

Originally posted by Rocko9:
If seven of the members on the Select Commitee of Intelligence are liars and participated in the investigation, doesn't that make the report in itself rather tainted.
Click to expand...

Committee membership at the time of the investigation
The following nine Republicans were members of the Committee at the time the investigation was launched: Committee Chairman C. Patrick Roberts (R-KS), Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), R. Michael DeWine (R-OH), Christopher S. "Kit" Bond (R-MO), C. Trent Lott (R-MS), Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME), Charles Hagel (R-NE), C. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), and John W. Warner (R-VA).

The following eight Democrats made up the rest of the Committee: Vice-Chairman John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-WV), Carl Levin (D-MI ), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ronald L. Wyden (D-OR), Richard J. Durbin (D-IL), B. Evans "Evan" Bayh III (D-IN), Johnny R. "John" Edwards (D-NC), and Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD).

Any conclusions they could not agree on were left out of the report.

And Carl Levin has recently stated most emphatically on national TV that "There was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that."

Which seven do you contend are lying in this report?

Rocko9 · Nov 12, 2005

It is what it is, Poncho.

Ro 3:10
All Have Sinned 10 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one;

poncho · Nov 12, 2005

I tend to think Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo have some righteousness left. The others for the most part have sold their souls and pledged our posterity to the NWO.

Rocko9 · Nov 12, 2005

Originally posted by carpro:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Rocko9:
If seven of the members on the Select Commitee of Intelligence are liars and participated in the investigation, doesn't that make the report in itself rather tainted.
Click to expand...

Committee membership at the time of the investigation
The following nine Republicans were members of the Committee at the time the investigation was launched: Committee Chairman C. Patrick Roberts (R-KS), Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), R. Michael DeWine (R-OH), Christopher S. "Kit" Bond (R-MO), C. Trent Lott (R-MS), Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME), Charles Hagel (R-NE), C. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), and John W. Warner (R-VA).

The following eight Democrats made up the rest of the Committee: Vice-Chairman John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-WV), Carl Levin (D-MI ), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ronald L. Wyden (D-OR), Richard J. Durbin (D-IL), B. Evans "Evan" Bayh III (D-IN), Johnny R. "John" Edwards (D-NC), and Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD).

Any conclusions they could not agree on were left out of the report.

And Carl Levin has recently stated most emphatically on national TV that "There was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that."

Which seven do you contend are lying in this report? [/QUOTE]Thank-you Carpro, I stand corrected, although I did not see John Edwards mentioned in the report.
BTW, I do not contend that any were liars. I based the statement I made on your assumption that the report, by itself, makes liars out of a lot of the President's opponents .
By my stating of "IF" does not mean I am contending that anyone is lying.

Rocko9 · Nov 12, 2005

Originally posted by poncho:
I tend to think Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo have some righteousness left. The others for the most part have sold their souls and pledged our posterity to the NWO.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheatedly and yet they are always attacked for standing up for what is right.

emeraldctyangel · Nov 12, 2005

Originally posted by Rocko9:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by emeraldctyangel:
Yes Rock, we propped him up in a speech on Veteran's Day. I guess that speech should have taken place in downtown Manhattan or in Tienaman Square? Whatever.

Your comments are quite silly, immature, and at best - regurgitation of whatever hate outlet you suscribe to. Not really a Christian value where I come from, however, I will still pray for you.
Click to expand...

If anybody is spewing hate , it is you emeraldcityangel, through your personal atttacks on me. So when are you going to grow up? And where are your Christian values? Oh yeah , I keep forgeting, it's al;ways about you, isn't it and your need for attention. [/QUOTE]Yeah I guess that is why I have about half as many posts as you do.

This is why you dont belong in politics or world events discussions, you cannot figure out what hate really is and from whom it comes. Watch out for those wayward bus drivers looking your way...you never know if they are one of "them".

Attention, no. Laughing at you, yes. So the President should have held his Veteran's Day speech in China? Would that have held more merit for you?

As ever, standing by to hear the utterly pointless things you have to say about the President.

Rocko9 · Nov 12, 2005

emeraldcity, you do have a problem, get a grip girl.
It was nice of Bush to take time from honoring Veterans on Veterans Day to do his whinning.

Bush Comes Out Swinging!

Scott J Active Member
Site Supporter

poncho Well-Known Member

JamieinNH New Member

Rocko9 New Member

emeraldctyangel New Member

KenH Well-Known Member

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rocko9 New Member

poncho Well-Known Member

mioque New Member

poncho Well-Known Member

Rocko9 New Member

poncho Well-Known Member

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rocko9 New Member

poncho Well-Known Member

Rocko9 New Member

Rocko9 New Member

emeraldctyangel New Member

Rocko9 New Member

Useful Searches

Bush Comes Out Swinging!

Scott J Active Member Site Supporter

poncho Well-Known Member

JamieinNH New Member

Rocko9 New Member

emeraldctyangel New Member

KenH Well-Known Member

carpro Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Rocko9 New Member

poncho Well-Known Member

mioque New Member

poncho Well-Known Member

Rocko9 New Member

poncho Well-Known Member

carpro Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Rocko9 New Member

poncho Well-Known Member

Rocko9 New Member

Rocko9 New Member

emeraldctyangel New Member

Rocko9 New Member

Scott J Active Member
Site Supporter

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter