|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,281
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,281 |
That's the thing Mike, you "get it"............
You either go out and get what you want, or you sit on the sidelines while you get passed up. Gotta establish yourself young. Glad to hear things have worked out well for ya.....
The thing that pisses me off about living in Minnesota, is that no one leaves. Seriously, you rarely find young people that pick up shop and leave, cause they don't have too. For such a small population state, they have a ton of opps due to the crazy ammount of fortune 500 activity that is here.
Target, General Mills, Best Buy, 3M, USbank, UHG, Medtronic, CH Robinson etc. all have their headquarters in the Twin Cities. I could go on and on about all the companies, and like I said, it is kind of frustrating knowing we dont have it like that in Ohio. Sure, Ohio headquarters some large companies, but all in all it just doesnt compare.
I heart winning
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,363
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,363 |
Bring back the paddle and watch the school system improve 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Your name should be Dawg Doody........'cause that's what most of your posts remind me of. 
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Ah, and old otto chimes in again. Nothing to say, nothing to add, just a slam. Typical.
Seems to me calling dawg what you did is against the rules. I know it used to be not okay to play on a users name. Ref's?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577 |
Webbage There isn't a lot of positive about Bush's tenure for me.. here's another article to consider... Op-Ed Columnist Mr. Bush, Lead or Leave By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: June 22, 2008 Two years ago, President Bush declared that America was “addicted to oil,” and, by gosh, he was going to do something about it. Well, now he has. Now we have the new Bush energy plan: “Get more addicted to oil.” Actually, it’s more sophisticated than that: Get Saudi Arabia, our chief oil pusher, to up our dosage for a little while and bring down the oil price just enough so the renewable energy alternatives can’t totally take off. Then try to strong arm Congress into lifting the ban on drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It’s as if our addict-in-chief is saying to us: “C’mon guys, you know you want a little more of the good stuff. One more hit, baby. Just one more toke on the ole oil pipe. I promise, next year, we’ll all go straight. I’ll even put a wind turbine on my presidential library. But for now, give me one more pop from that drill, please, baby. Just one more transfusion of that sweet offshore crude.” It is hard for me to find the words to express what a massive, fraudulent, pathetic excuse for an energy policy this is. But it gets better. The president actually had the gall to set a deadline for this drug deal: “I know the Democratic leaders have opposed some of these policies in the past,” Mr. Bush said. “Now that their opposition has helped drive gas prices to record levels, I ask them to reconsider their positions. If Congressional leaders leave for the Fourth of July recess without taking action, they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act.” This from a president who for six years resisted any pressure on Detroit to seriously improve mileage standards on its gas guzzlers; this from a president who’s done nothing to encourage conservation; this from a president who has so neutered the Environmental Protection Agency that the head of the E.P.A. today seems to be in a witness-protection program. I bet there aren’t 12 readers of this newspaper who could tell you his name or identify him in a police lineup. But, most of all, this deadline is from a president who hasn’t lifted a finger to broker passage of legislation that has been stuck in Congress for a year, which could actually impact America’s energy profile right now — unlike offshore oil that would take years to flow — and create good tech jobs to boot. That bill is H.R. 6049 — “The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008,” which extends for another eight years the investment tax credit for installing solar energy and extends for one year the production tax credit for producing wind power and for three years the credits for geothermal, wave energy and other renewables. These critical tax credits for renewables are set to expire at the end of this fiscal year and, if they do, it will mean thousands of jobs lost and billions of dollars of investments not made. “Already clean energy projects in the U.S. are being put on hold,” said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. People forget, wind and solar power are here, they work, they can go on your roof tomorrow. What they need now is a big U.S. market where lots of manufacturers have an incentive to install solar panels and wind turbines — because the more they do, the more these technologies would move down the learning curve, become cheaper and be able to compete directly with coal, oil and nuclear, without subsidies. That seems to be exactly what the Republican Party is trying to block, since the Senate Republicans — sorry to say, with the help of John McCain — have now managed to defeat the renewal of these tax credits six different times. Of course, we’re going to need oil for years to come. That being the case, I’d prefer — for geopolitical reasons — that we get as much as possible from domestic wells. But our future is not in oil, and a real president wouldn’t be hectoring Congress about offshore drilling today. He’d be telling the country a much larger truth: “Oil is poisoning our climate and our geopolitics, and here is how we’re going to break our addiction: We’re going to set a floor price of $4.50 a gallon for gasoline and $100 a barrel for oil. And that floor price is going to trigger massive investments in renewable energy — particularly wind, solar panels and solar thermal. And we’re also going to go on a crash program to dramatically increase energy efficiency, to drive conservation to a whole new level and to build more nuclear power. And I want every Democrat and every Republican to join me in this endeavor.” That’s what a real president would do. He’d give us a big strategic plan to end our addiction to oil and build a bipartisan coalition to deliver it. He certainly wouldn’t be using his last days in office to threaten Congressional Democrats that if they don’t approve offshore drilling by the Fourth of July recess, they will be blamed for $4-a-gallon gas. That is so lame. That is an energy policy so unworthy of our Independence Day.
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803 |
Quote:
Actually I don't think I'd do well in the military cuz I never did well in Laser Tag or paintgun fights.
 The reason I'm laughing so hard is because I don't know if you are being serious or not.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803 |
Quote:
The economy. NO ONE is hiring right now. No one I know can find jobs right now, and the overwhelming majority graduated from college.
Here's a new flash....Jobs are moving out of Ohio. It's been that way for some time now. Want to get a job? Move. Columbus is full of people born in raised in Mahoning County because we haven't had growth in this county for over thirty years. It might suck, but you have to follow the work. Down south, and out west I believe are still growing.
Arch is absolutely right. Try getting degrees for a useful proffesion. Computers, engineering, enviromental sciences are still growing proffesions. Want to be a teacher? Move out of Ohio, unless you want to teach special ed.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253 |
Quote:
Your name should be Dawg Doody........'cause that's what most of your posts remind me of.
Hey, good one. Thats about the 4th or 5th time i've heard it though.
Sorry you don't approve of the posts. What is it you don't like about them? That I don't hate Bush or America?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803 |
Don't bother asking him. I'm not sure if he has ever made a serious post. What he usually does is crack on people, who he claims cracks on others.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253 |
Quote:
Don't bother asking him. I'm not sure if he has ever made a serious post. What he usually does is crack on people, who he claims cracks on others.
I'm not familar with CrazyOtto. Is he another Bleeding heart liberal?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For me to read these books you want me to read and believe them with the same conviction you have I'd have to ignore a plethora of information that counteracts their assertions.
free....The one request I made...and you chose "not" to read...
I did not ask you to read a book, did I?
Anyone who claims to care about this country...needs to expend a little of your time and intellect to the subject of "The Office of Special Plans".
To read...is to gain knowledge...
When you chose not to read, you remain as you are...
Free, I could not make it any easier...
The rest is up to you and all the rest who refuse to read about the "Office of Special Plans"
It's not that hard to do a little search on the subject, is it?
My guess is your afraid of what you might read??
My guess your afraid to show us what your reading because the people who are doing the writing have an agenda and manipulating data and make unproven claims to support thier agenda.
PS. I've read about the OSP, for the most part I think it's a bunch BS. Even an independent review from the Pentegon said they did nothing "Illegal".
Free... you still won't read about the last office to vet the intell that lead this country to war, called the Office of Special Plans. Try this, read the article below. It is written by a USAF officer who worked in the OSP.
Published on Thursday, August 7, 2003 by the Inter Press Service
Pentagon Office Home to Neo-Con Network
by Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - An ad hoc office under U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith appears to have acted as the key base for an informal network of mostly neo-conservative political appointees that circumvented normal inter-agency channels to lead the push for war against Iraq.
The Office of Special Plans (OSP), which worked alongside the Near East and South Asia (NESA) bureau in Feith's domain, was originally created by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to review raw information collected by the official U.S. intelligence agencies for connections between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
Retired intelligence officials from the State Department, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have long charged that the two offices exaggerated and manipulated intelligence about Iraq before passing it along to the White House.
But key personnel who worked in both NESA and OSP were part of a broader network of neo-conservative ideologues and activists who worked with other Bush political appointees scattered around the national-security bureaucracy to move the country to war, according to retired Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski, who was assigned to NESA from May 2002 through February 2003.
The heads of NESA and OSP were Deputy Undersecretary William Luti and Abram Shulsky, respectively.
Other appointees who worked with them in both offices included Michael Rubin, a Middle East specialist previously with the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI); David Schenker, previously with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP); Michael Makovsky; an expert on neo-con icon Winston Churchill and the younger brother of David Makovsky, a senior WINEP fellow and former executive editor of pro-Likud 'Jerusalem Post'; and Chris Lehman, the brother of the John Lehman, a prominent neo-conservative who served as secretary of the navy under Ronald Reagan, according to Kwiatkowski.
Along with Feith, all of the political appointees have in common a close identification with the views of the right-wing Likud Party in Israel.
Feith, whose law partner is a spokesman for the settlement movement in Israel, has long been a fierce opponent of the Oslo peace process, while WINEP has acted as the think tank for the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which generally follows a Likud line.
Also like Feith, several of the appointees were protégés of Richard Perle, an AEI fellow who doubles as chairman until last April of Rumsfeld's unpaid Defense Policy Board (DPB), whose members were appointed by Feith, also had an office in the Pentagon one floor below the NESA offices.
Similarly, Luti, a retired naval officer, was a protégé of another DPB board member also based at AEI, former Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich. Luti in turn hired Ret Col William Bruner, a former Gingrich staffer, and Chris Straub, a retired lieutenant colonel, anti-abortion activist, and former staffer on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Also working for Luti was another naval officer, Yousef Aboul-Enein, whose main job was to pore over Arabic-language newspapers and CIA transcripts of radio broadcasts to find evidence of ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that may have been overlooked by the intelligence agencies, and a DIA officer named John Trigilio.
Through Feith, both offices worked closely with Perle, Gingrich, and two other DPB members and major war boosters -- former CIA director James Woolsey and Kenneth Adelman -- in ensuring that the ''intelligence'' they developed reached a wide public audience outside the bureaucracy.
They also debriefed ''defectors'' handled by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an opposition umbrella group headed by Ahmed Chalabi, a long-time friend of Perle, whom the intelligence agencies generally wrote off as an unreliable self-promoter.
Karen Kwiatkowski:
''It looked like Cheney's office was pulling the strings''.
Karen Kwiatkowski [ksusiek@shentel.net] is a recently retired USAF lieutenant colonel, who spent her final four and a half years in uniform working at the Pentagon.
''They would draw up 'talking points' they would use and distribute to their friends'', said Kwiatkowski. ''But the talking points would be changed continually, not because of new intel (intelligence), but because the press was poking holes in what was in the memos''.
The offices fed information directly and indirectly to sympathetic media outlets, including the Rupert Murdoch-owned 'Weekly Standard' and FoxNews Network, as well as the editorial pages of the 'Wall Street Journal' and syndicated columnists, such as Charles Krauthammer.
In inter-agency discussions, Feith and the two offices communicated almost exclusively with like-minded allies in other agencies, rather than with their official counterparts, including even the DIA in the Pentagon, according to Kwiatkowski.
Rather than working with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, its Near Eastern Affairs bureau, or even its Iraq desk, for example, they preferred to work through Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security (and former AEI executive vice president) John Bolton; Michael Wurmser (another Perle protégé at AEI who staffed the predecessor to OSP); and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of the Vice President Dick Cheney.
At the National Security Council (NSC), they communicated mainly with Stephen Hadley, the deputy national security adviser, until Elliott Abrams, a dyed-in-the-wool neo-con with close ties to Feith and Perle, was appointed last December as the NSC's top Middle East aide.
''They worked really hard for Abrams; he was a necessary link'', Kwiatkowski told IPS Wednesday. ''The day he got (the appointment), they were whooping and hollering, 'We got him in, we got him in'''.
They rarely communicated directly with the CIA, leaving that to political heavyweights, including Gingrich, who is reported to have made several trips to the CIA headquarters, and, more importantly, I Lewis ''Scooter'' Lilly, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and national security adviser.
According to recent published reports, CIA analysts felt these visits were designed to put pressure on them to tailor their analyses more to the liking of administration hawks.
In some cases, NESA and OSP even prepared memos specifically for Cheney and Libby, something unheard of in previous administration because the lines of authority in the Vice President's office and the Pentagon are entirely separate. ''Luti sometimes would say, 'I've got to do this for Scooter' '', said Kwiatkowski. ''It looked like Cheney's office was pulling the strings''.
Kwiatkowski said she could not confirm published reports that OSP worked with a similar ad hoc group in Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office.
But she recounts one incident in which she helped escort a group of half a dozen Israelis, including several generals, from the first floor reception area to Feith's office. ''We just followed them, because they knew exactly where they were going and moving fast''.
When the group arrived, she noted the book which all visitors are required to sign under special regulations that took effect after the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks. ''I asked his secretary, 'Do you want these guys to sign in'? She said, 'No, these guys don't have to sign in' ''. It occurred to her, she said, that the office may have deliberately not wanted to maintain a record of the meeting.
She added that OSP and MESA personnel were already discussing the possibility of ''going after Iran'' after the war in Iraq last January and that articles by Michael Ledeen, another AEI fellow and Perle associate who has been calling for the U.S. to work for ''regime change'' in Tehran since late 2001, were given much attention in the two offices.
Ledeen and Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, recently created the Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI) to lobby for a more aggressive policy there. Their move coincided with suggestions by Sharon that Washington adopt a more confrontational policy vis-a-vis Teheran.
Iran recently said it was prepared to turn over five senior al-Qaeda figures, including the son of Osama bin Laden, who are currently in its custody if Washington permanently shuts down an Iraqi-based Iranian rebel group that is listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department.
Pentagon officials, particularly Feith's office, have reportedly opposed the deal, which had been favored by the State Department, because of the possibility that the group, the Mujahadeen Khalq, might be useful in putting pressure on Tehran.
web page
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Here in Nevada they cant get enough teacher's, and the school system just suck's!
Maybe that's why they can't get enough teachers...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I believe he'll be just the type of engineer you are looking for....and you can't take him down south!! 
Right... you wouldn't want him to live in a beautiful growing city, with good weather, tons of job opportunities, 2 hours from the beach.. and oh by the way, Raleigh was voted the #1 city in the country for single people... You don't love him enough to want him to be happy do you? 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803 |
Quote:
Quote:
Don't bother asking him. I'm not sure if he has ever made a serious post. What he usually does is crack on people, who he claims cracks on others.
I'm not familar with CrazyOtto. Is he another Bleeding heart liberal?
I have no idea. I don't remember him ever adding anything of substance to these type of conversations. I have no problems with "bleeding heart liberals." I think they are wrong, but I apperciate their point of view.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449 |
Quote:
Retired intelligence officials from the State Department, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have long charged that the two offices exaggerated and manipulated intelligence about Iraq BEFORE PASSING IT ALONG TO THE WHITE HOUSE
That all capitalized section tells me that Bush didn't see the "finished product" until after it was manipulated. Who's to say he knew it was manipulated? Where does it say that he knew it was manipulated? It doesn't, so just because the people that gave him bogus information manipulated the information is not a basis to say Bush lied and manipulated the information. There is no proof that Bush knowingly lied. Get off of it already. All that can be proved is that the information was faulty and that someone fudged the facts. Whether the president or congress or Jaimy Lee Curtis knew about it is a non issue because there is no HARD EVIDENCE.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Good luck in getting mac to see the logic in that. It doesn't fit the agenda, so it's not applicable in his eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
What Shep said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,217
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,217 |
Quote:
But if Saddam had fully complied with the UN inspectors, then IMO there is no way Bush would of had enough to get Congress to authorize the war.
27 January, 2003 – While Iraq has cooperated in allowing United Nations inspectors into various sites, the top UN arms expert, Hans Blix, told the Security Council today that Baghdad should be more forthcoming with information and allow greater access to key personnel with knowledge of the country's weapons programmes.
On the whole, Iraq has cooperated rather well with the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), Mr. Blix, the Commission's Executive Chairman, said in his statement at an open session of the UN Security Council. "The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception, it has been prompt," he stressed.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030127-unnews05.htm
You were saying?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,217
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,217 |
Yes, Mac, they "created" an office "designed to do this" but didn't know they were doing it. Some people will go to any length to deny, deny, deny. But they've had a good teacher.........................................Bush.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
Quote:
But if Saddam had fully complied with the UN inspectors, then IMO there is no way Bush would of had enough to get Congress to authorize the war.
27 January, 2003 – While Iraq has cooperated in allowing United Nations inspectors into various sites, the top UN arms expert, Hans Blix, told the Security Council today that Baghdad should be more forthcoming with information and allow greater access to key personnel with knowledge of the country's weapons programmes.
On the whole, Iraq has cooperated rather well with the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), Mr. Blix, the Commission's Executive Chairman, said in his statement at an open session of the UN Security Council. "The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception, it has been prompt," he stressed.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030127-unnews05.htm
You were saying?
Saying what??????
Iraq ignored 16 UN resolutions on inspections and kicked the inspectors out! Read the first line of your blurb from the Swede and tell me how this reads.....pretty pretty please......because I must be missing something here.
After that, please tell me how many bombs are "not" in North Korea and Iran as well....
OMG.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,217
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,217 |
You have your dates out of whack my friend. Yes, at one point in time, the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq. Then they were permitted BACK in and were fully complying with the U.N. inspectors. But Bush told them to leave even AFTER they were in full compliance.
You really need to do your homework on this one.
Saddam was afraid of an invasion of Iran. He "needed to put up a front" for his own nation's security from its neighbor. But when push came to shove from the U.S., it fully complied with these inspections and Hans Blix (the lead U.N. inspector) stated as much not long before Bush told them to leave so we could attack Iraq.
That's what went down Shep. Like it or not.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,217
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,217 |
Quote:
After that, please tell me how many bombs are "not" in North Korea and Iran as well....
Well you see, in order to attack a "real threat" you need kahunna's. What we did was find "the weakest link in the chain" (Iraq) and attack someone who we KNEW lacked the capability to put up a real fight. Iraq was the weakest country in the region. So we sought out to attack the weakest link. Unfortunately for us, the backwards thinking and strategy used has us there almost six years later.
Good God man! If we attacked a "real threat" like Iran or N. Korea we might actually accomplish something with the trillions we're spending for basicly "nothing" now.
But you see, we "talk" to "real threats" and just "attack" the "weak one's". That's what we do best!
Name ONE COUNTRY with nuclear capability we have ever attacked? But if you don't have nukes? We won't even talk to you first!
Sort of sounds like this bully I knew in high school. Pick out the weak one's and avoid the strong one's. That's how we look and deservidly so on a global scale.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
You have your dates out of whack my friend. Yes, at one point in time, the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq. Then they were permitted BACK in and were fully complying with the U.N. inspectors. But Bush told them to leave even AFTER they were in full compliance.
You really need to do your homework on this one.
Break down that first line for me again please.......I missed it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
Quote:
But if Saddam had fully complied with the UN inspectors, then IMO there is no way Bush would of had enough to get Congress to authorize the war.
27 January, 2003 – While Iraq has cooperated in allowing United Nations inspectors into various sites, the top UN arms expert, Hans Blix, told the Security Council today that Baghdad should be more forthcoming with information and allow greater access to key personnel with knowledge of the country's weapons programmes.
On the whole, Iraq has cooperated rather well with the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), Mr. Blix, the Commission's Executive Chairman, said in his statement at an open session of the UN Security Council. "The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception, it has been prompt," he stressed.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030127-unnews05.htm
You were saying?
I said that IMO if Saddam had fully complied with the UN inspectors instead of complying "mostly" then Bush would have not gotten the authorization to go to war. 
I seem to remember the Resolution stating he must comply fully I don't remember any "exceptions" in the resolution. 
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,217
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,217 |
Quote:
Break down that first line for me again please.......I missed it.
“The deadline we have before us right
now is on the 27th of January…and we
will see what the inspectors have found or
not found and what Dr. Blix and Dr.
ElBaradei think with respect to the
presence or absence, or ‘we don’t know
yet,’ of weapons of mass destruction. At
that point, we will have to make some
judgments as to what to do next. What’s
the next step? But it is not necessarily a
D-day for decision-making.”
Secretary of State Colin Powell
Washington Post, January 9, 2003
Here's your explanation....................
In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix's team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml
Heres the full interview of "the man IN CHARGE of the U.N. inspections" leading up to the war....................
BERKELEY – Speaking on the anniversary of the United States' invasion of Iraq, originally declared as a pre-emptive strike against a madman ready to deploy weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the man first charged with finding those weapons said that the U.S. government has "the same mind frame as the witch hunters of the past" — looking for evidence to support a foregone conclusion.
"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981 to 1997 he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We went to sites [in Iraq] given to us by intelligence, and only in three cases did we find something" - a stash of nuclear documents, some Vulcan boosters, and several empty warheads for chemical weapons. More inspections were required to determine whether these findings were the "tip of the iceberg" or simply fragments remaining from that deadly iceberg's past destruction, Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council. However, his work in Iraq was cut short when the United States and the United Kingdom took disarmament into their own hands in March of last year.
Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking." The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix's team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."
Blix spoke with veteran CNN war correspondent Christiane Amanpour at UC Berkeley's Zellerbach Hall last night (March 17) in the most anticipated event of the Media At War conference currently under way on campus. The university's Graduate School of Journalism and the Human Rights Center organized the three-day conference to foster discussion of the challenges that U.S., European, and Middle Eastern reporters faced when covering the war for the past year, and to raise issues they should keep in mind as they report on the ongoing occupation, upcoming international war-crimes trials, and the country's anticipated regaining of sovereignty.
The Blix event was sold out several days in advance, and the crowd outside Zellerbach Hall included several people holding plaintive "Blix Tix?" signs more befitting a sold-out rock concert. As Journalism Dean Orville Schell said in his introduction for Blix, "Who would have thought a year ago that 2,000 people would come to hear a weapons inspector speak?"
Blix has written a new book, "Disarming Iraq," about the events leading up to the war. During that period he was lambasted by both doves and hawks: by the former for failing to state unequivocally that Iraq had no WMDs, and by the latter for failing to find them. As he explained Wednesday night, part of the problem was that he himself had believed the weapons probably existed. "I'm not here to have gut feelings," he said. "But yes, in December 2002 I thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction." Still, "the objective was to inspect effectively and to report objectively."
The important thing to remember, Blix said repeatedly, was that Saddam was cooperating with the inspections, despite the difficulties they create for a leader. "No one likes inspectors, not tax inspectors, not health inspectors, not any inspectors," Blix chuckled. Not only did Saddam have to endure the indignity of submitting to searches of his palaces, he explained, but the dictator also harbored the valid fear that the inspectors would pass on their findings of conventional weapons to foreign intelligence agencies, providing easy future targets.
Blix tried hard to reassure the Iraqis about this concern. "Inspectors shouldn't be intertwined with intelligence," he emphasized. "There should be only one-way traffic: the intelligence groups give the inspectors tips on where to look, but they understand that there is no quid pro quo."
Amanpour brought up how Blix's credibility as an inspector had been attacked by Vice President Dick Cheney, among others, for his failure as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to detect Iraq's advanced nuclear weapons program, discovered only after the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Blix accepted responsibility for that failure, and said that the system of inspections had been vastly improved since then.
"Cosmetic inspection is worse than no inspection at all, because it can lull people into a false sense of security," he allowed. IAEA practiced a weak form of inspection until 1991, he explained, one that had been designed in the 1970s to check countries like Germany for compliance with nonproliferation laws, not for totalitarian regimes trying to build weapons in secrecy. As a result of the 1991 failure in Iraq, the IAEA had launched a systematic change in its protocols that were formally adopted in 1997.
'[The Iraqis] didn't mind the suspicion from the neighbors - it was like hanging a sign on the door saying "Beware of the dog" when you don't have a dog.'
-Hans Blix
The primary difficulty with looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, said Blix, was the "problem of proving the negative. For example, how can you prove that there is not a tennis ball in this room? Or that there is no anthrax in all of Iraq?" The United States and the United Kingdom wanted black-and-white answers, and instead they got "lots of shades of gray in the reports."
What Blix's inspectors had needed was more time, he emphasized. The Bush administration should have halted its military buildup in the area at 50,000 troops, the point at which the Iraqis had become much more cooperative, providing the lists of scientists and bureaucrats to Blix's team. "Given time, we would have been able to interview the many people who destroyed weapons of mass destruction after 1991," he told Amanpour.
Amanpour asked why, if those weapons had been destroyed, would Saddam have continued to let the world believe he still possessed them at the risk of losing his country? Blix surmised that the bluffing was a cheap and effective deterrent. "[The Iraqis] didn't mind the suspicion from the neighbors - it was like hanging a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the dog' when you don't have a dog," he speculated.
But instead the Bush administration continued to pour troops into the area, an ominous presence portending war. "Once there got to 250,000 troops sitting in the hot desert sun, there was a momentum built up that couldn't be halted," said Blix.
Amanpour pressed him to identify the source of that momentum - in effect, why did the U.S. invasion of Iraq seem in retrospect such a foreordained action? Partly it was because, despite the lack of evidence for remaining WMDs, the Bush administration continued to believe in them, Blix said. Although he places some of the blame on a failure of U.S. intelligence processes - the Pentagon relied too much on its own "silo" of sources rather than more heavily vetted intelligence from the CIA and the State Department, as has been documented extensively by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker - the real problem was the lack of "critical thinking," he argued.
"In academia, when you write your thesis, you have an opponent on the faculty and you must defend it. And in a court, there is cross-examination from the prosecutor," said Blix. But in the intelligence arena, because of the confidentiality of the subject matter, it is difficult to find those who will play devil's advocate. The Bush Administration, he said, did not try. "They took away the question marks [in the reports] and put in exclamation points instead!"
Blix did not rule out that even if inspections had been allowed to continue, military intervention in Iraq might still have been necessary. "I am not a pacifist," he said. But he is a lawyer and a diplomat, and he believes that it was the responsibility of the Security Council to uphold its own resolutions regarding Iraq, not the responsibility of one or two council members acting alone. Had Iraq resisted further inspections, or had they turned up evidence of another nuclear weapons program - the area Blix said that sanctions and inspections had been most effective in squelching - Security Council members Russia and China would most likely have voted for military action, giving it international legitimacy.
Blix speculated that the Bush administration's real motivation for invading Iraq was in reaction to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. "The U.S. was attacked on its own soil. I was here; it was like an earthquake in this country," he said. "It was as if Afghanistan was not enough."
Amanpour asked Blix to respond to a statement by Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi defector who along with affiliated sources provided much of the faulty WMD intelligence. "We were heroes in error. Saddam is gone, the Americans are in Baghdad, and that's all that matters," she quoted Chalabi as having said. Blix called it a "cynical" statement, yet admitted that he was troubled by the idea that had he been allowed to continue his inspections, Saddam would probably have remained in power.
How to deal with such tyrants and failed states is the biggest challenge facing the world, Blix stated, echoing many other prominent diplomats and thinkers invited to speak by the Journalism School in the months past. He claimed that a global shift had occurred in the world's tolerance for genocide such as had occurred in Kosovo or Rwanda. Thanks in part to media attention, which brought the world's citizens closer to one another, he said he thought such acts would no longer be considered protected by state sovereignty, and that humanitarian intervention would be more common.
In a press conference held at Eshlemann Hall shortly before his interview with Amanpour, Blix had elaborated on this topic, citing the need to use the "carrot as well as the stick." Ironically, the man whose name is synonymous with the world's fears of nuclear, biological, or chemical annihilation says he has other concerns on his mind.
"Part of the hype is that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the 'greatest existential threat' - as I think Tony Blair put it," he said. "But to my mind, the north-south divide [between developed and emerging countries], the fact that hundreds of millions of people go hungry, the effects on the global environment, are just as big a threat," said Blix. "I personally am more worried about global warming than I am about WMDs."
___________________________________________________
That's what the world knows and sees. While some just stick to "the party line".
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I seem to remember the Resolution stating he must comply fully I don't remember any "exceptions" in the resolution.
I don't really remember "exceptions" in the resolutions condemning Israel or Saudi Arabia, either...but we don't really care what they do. And unlike Hussein, they both possess weapons of mass destruction.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Another point I'd like to make...
Everyone talks about government "hand outs" and how they're "bad" and "steal from those who worked hard for their money."
Look, I see the point, but here's the fact of the matter...If you don't keep the poor living a sustainable life (no one says they have to be living a good life), there's going to be a Revolution.
History has time and time again showed us this. When the poor become sick of the way their government is treating them, they will overthrow that government. The have-nots have always outweighed the haves throughout history.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
You have a vailid point. The problem is we are taxed too heavily right now. Social programs have shown, over the years, that for the VAST majority of people the programs don't help them to get on their own. Most social programs (take from the haves to give to the have nots) actually pull people in - they create MORE needy, not less.
Yes, I know there are many instances of people needing short term help, they get it, and then they get back on their own 2 feet. Many, many instances. However, when you look at the number of people that abuse social programs (the people that don't contribute but are darn good at taking), social programs have failed from the outset. I'm not saying people don't benefit from them, because everyone that get's help benefits. But way too many, the vast majority, feel like living on the public dole is just fine. Those are the people that bug me. Hurricane Katrina victims that are still living in hotels on the taxpayers dime and have no desire to get a job - that's the first thing that comes to mind. And I know, percentage wise, hurricane Katrina victims are a very small percentage of people abusing the system. But when the system is looked at on the whole, too, too many people are getting free rides.
That's not America. Well, unfortunately it IS america today, but it's not what america was.
Watch. Our country is going down. My personal opinion is the attempt to create equality for everyone is the reason. (social programs). Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253 |
Quote:
Another point I'd like to make...
Everyone talks about government "hand outs" and how they're "bad" and "steal from those who worked hard for their money."
Look, I see the point, but here's the fact of the matter...If you don't keep the poor living a sustainable life (no one says they have to be living a good life), there's going to be a Revolution.
History has time and time again showed us this. When the poor become sick of the way their government is treating them, they will overthrow that government. The have-nots have always outweighed the haves throughout history.
Our "Poor" have Cable TV, plenty to eat, nice threads, subsadised housing and drive Caddys to the welfare office. They also wear tennis shoes I can't afford to buy. I have done a lot of work in welfare housing and could tell you storys that would curl your hair Ammo. But you keep right on listening to those liberal Professors. Revolution my ass!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
and drive Caddys to the welfare office.
You know Reagan made that woman up, right?
Corporate welfare is a far, far, far more draining and pressing issue facing America. The pork, the lobbyist subisidies, the tax breaks for corporations....all needs to be faced.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Quote:
Quote:
Another point I'd like to make...
Everyone talks about government "hand outs" and how they're "bad" and "steal from those who worked hard for their money."
Look, I see the point, but here's the fact of the matter...If you don't keep the poor living a sustainable life (no one says they have to be living a good life), there's going to be a Revolution.
History has time and time again showed us this. When the poor become sick of the way their government is treating them, they will overthrow that government. The have-nots have always outweighed the haves throughout history.
Our "Poor" have Cable TV, plenty to eat, nice threads, subsadised housing and drive Caddys to the welfare office. They also wear tennis shoes I can't afford to buy. I have done a lot of work in welfare housing and could tell you storys that would curl your hair Ammo. But you keep right on listening to those liberal Professors. Revolution my ass!
History is on my side. Look at the French Revolution.
Shrink the middle class enough and the U.S. will experience American Revolution #2.
Or as the Joker says, "When the chips are down, these civilized people will eat each other." If that happens, our government is going down with it.
I'll argue the New Deal is what set us up to take over as the premier power after WW2, because we created jobs via building infrastructure. That infrastructure is outdated and we are so far behind many countries in that aspect.
Last edited by Ammo; 06/28/08 07:30 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253 |
Quote:
Quote:
and drive Caddys to the welfare office.
You know Reagan made that woman up, right?
Corporate welfare is a far, far, far more draining and pressing issue facing America. The pork, the lobbyist subisidies, the tax breaks for corporations....all needs to be faced.
Phil, don't tell me it doesn't happen. I have seen it and so have a lot of other people. But Ammo was talking about Revolution. Do you really believe a Revolution is possible in todays America. We don't even have the will to defend ourselves against foreign aggression.
The American Revolution was about unfair taxes. Today we must love taxes because it sounds like Obama is going to get elected.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
Ok, so how does this prevent or hinder you're ability to get a job out of college?
The economy. NO ONE is hiring right now. No one I know can find jobs right now, and the overwhelming majority graduated from college.
The company I work at always looks to hire people (in Syracuse, New York) both here, and in our Southern Tier office (Binghamton). If you are willing to move to where a job opportunity is, your employment chances greatly improve.
To me at least - it seems that you feel entitled to employment because you graduated from college. Truth is, prove yourself to be worthy of a job to a prospective employer and you'd certainly have that job.
It's true that in slow economic times, fewer jobs are available. That only means that you have to prove yourself that much more.
Trust me when I tell you that if you don't prove your worth to your employer (unless you are a tenured teacher or government employee), you won't hold your job for long. You have to make sure, almost every day, to let your employer know that you provide them good value for your work.
Becoming a liability to your employer, either legally or productively, will cause your employment to become endangered. Don't give your employer regrets over the decision to hire you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,217
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,217 |
Quote:
Our "Poor" have Cable TV, plenty to eat, nice threads, subsadised housing and drive Caddys to the welfare office. They also wear tennis shoes I can't afford to buy. I have done a lot of work in welfare housing and could tell you storys that would curl your hair Ammo. But you keep right on listening to those liberal Professors. Revolution my ass!
I can't believe you are saying this. Yes, revolution. You think the 60's were bad? That's NOTHING to what will happen "this time". I know you're not into Ozzy, but the title of one of his songs best describes it. "Blood Bath In Paradise".
People aren't going to sit back and starve. They'll kill to get it first. It appears you fail to realise the depths people will go to in order to survive. But if your line of thinking wins out, you'll find out.
And what % of those at the welfare office drive Cadillacs there"? Yes, a small % "abuse the system". But it's more the acception than the rule. So do away with it? Is that what you suggest because a minority of people abuse it?
Try that one out. And if conditions and trends continue as they are, you'll see it sooner than later. Have you seen the crime statistics over the past few years? Just a sign of things to come if you get your way.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Exactly.
Under Clinton, crime went down. Under Bozo the Clown, crime is high again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Phil, don't tell me it doesn't happen.
It happens, but it's not the albatross the rhetoric of Reagan made it out to be.
Quote:
Do you really believe a Revolution is possible in todays America.
Absolutely not.
Why fight a Revolution when you can just save up for an iPod and forget about it? America is way too doped on sex and television and consumerism.
Quote:
We don't even have the will to defend ourselves against foreign aggression.
Well, that's because we're too busy in Iraq.
Quote:
Today we must love taxes because it sounds like Obama is going to get elected.
Obama and McCain are interchangeable to me. They're pawns for the corporate interests that run this country...Bush is no different, except he's embarrassingly ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,267
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,267 |
Quote:
Our "Poor" have Cable TV, plenty to eat, nice threads, subsadised housing and drive Caddys to the welfare office. They also wear tennis shoes I can't afford to buy. I have done a lot of work in welfare housing and could tell you storys that would curl your hair Ammo.
I guess I have a charater flaw after 37 years of working I don't want to do it anymore. My back hurts, my knees hurt, I'm crabby and tired
Could anyone please provide me information as to where I might investigate/sign up for these lavish welfare benefits. I don't need a Caddy a Chevy would be OK.Come to think of it,with the cost of gas and all can't they just direct deposit and save money? Can I trade a Caddy for a small Chevy and say a Vegas vacation? I don't even have to stay at the Wynn or the Bellagio an older place like Ballys would suffice.I like the sports book there anyway and I wouldn't want to be too large a burden on the noble hard working folks. I'm embarrased to be so weak but with a luxurious lifestyle readily available I don't think I'll be able to say no. I really had no idea opulence was available to the poor but I'm so relieved to hear that it is. Sayonara to that crappy alarm clock! Now where do I sign up again? I don't have to stand in line, do I?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Obama and McCain are interchangeable to me. They're pawns for the corporate interests that run this country...Bush is no different, except he's embarrassingly ignorant.
Interesting. Scott McClellan doesn't say that about him in his book.
Actually, while McClellan takes some shots at Bush, they are rather subdued (and not the vile shots that some GOP pundits would have you believe). His greatest shots come at the expense of the members of the U.S. Congress.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253 |
Quote:
Quote:
Our "Poor" have Cable TV, plenty to eat, nice threads, subsadised housing and drive Caddys to the welfare office. They also wear tennis shoes I can't afford to buy. I have done a lot of work in welfare housing and could tell you storys that would curl your hair Ammo. But you keep right on listening to those liberal Professors. Revolution my ass!
I can't believe you are saying this. Yes, revolution. You think the 60's were bad? That's NOTHING to what will happen "this time". I know you're not into Ozzy, but the title of one of his songs best describes it. "Blood Bath In Paradise".
People aren't going to sit back and starve. They'll kill to get it first. It appears you fail to realise the depths people will go to in order to survive. But if your line of thinking wins out, you'll find out.
And what % of those at the welfare office drive Cadillacs there"? Yes, a small % "abuse the system". But it's more the acception than the rule. So do away with it? Is that what you suggest because a minority of people abuse it?
Try that one out. And if conditions and trends continue as they are, you'll see it sooner than later. Have you seen the crime statistics over the past few years? Just a sign of things to come if you get your way.
Who the hell is Ozzy? Are you talking about Ozzy Newsom?
What do you mean people arn't going to sit back and starve? Anybody that starves in America today is either selling their foodstamps or is to far gone mentaly to apply. I worked in welfare apts that the people moved out and left canned Honey Baked hams. I'm not sure what they cost but I don't imagine they are cheap.
That was just a crack about the welfare caddys. It does happen but is not around as much as it used to be. Welfare is not a lavish lifestyle but its damn sure easier than starting a Revolution.
And Ammo, I'm not even going to answer that I hate Bush crap. If you were as smart as you think you are you would know 90% of it is bs. Talk to me in 10 years when you pay some taxes get robbed and have exsperienced life a little.
Things are NOT as bad as you guys make them out to be. Most of the people I know that want to work and are able to work are working. I think Ammo wants a job where he starts out at Vice President and works his way up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449 |
Quote:
Yes, Mac, they "created" an office "designed to do this" but didn't know they were doing it.
Some people will go to any length to deny, deny, deny. But they've had a good teacher.........................................Bush.
Find me HARD EVIDENCE that Bush created this group with the purpose to manipulate information. Not speculation by a journalist reporting on the group, but HARD EVIDENCE reported somewhere.
Its funny, Bush is blamed for not having hard evidence to go to war in Iraq, but the same people that blame him with knowingly going to war under false pretenses have no hard evidence of their accusations. IT IS ALL SPECULATION.
If their were any HARD EVIDENCE out there, Bush would have been impeached by now.
I'm not sticking up for Bush or the people that still believe in his cause. But you can not possibly give facts that ties Bush to direct lying and manipulation. It is all speculation. Maybe it might be pretty accurate speculation, maybe not, but it is still speculation. Speculation does not equal hard evidence.
Until you can show people hard evidence, than your opinion on the matter is no more accurate than the person you are debating with.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Bush's Resignation Speech???
|
|
