Context would be the key word here. I would like to see the sentences before and after his quote. Martin pretty much stole my thunder on this one red. Thanks martin. Who is to say your ideas are best for the country. There are many times that I have to believe that Pres. Bush must know something that I don't. You people seem to think that you know it all. In fact, that is one of your biggest flaws, thinking you know more than you do. There is no doubt that you are an intelligent person red, but neither you, nor I are briefed by the presidents advisors. As far as being a leader is concerned, I believe that I do know a thing or two about the subject. I'll say this, I never led by my subordinates wishes. There was a reason I was entrusted to lead my men and I expected them to follow my orders, even if they didn't always understand my reasoning. Being a leader isn't a popularity contest, being a politician is. Which makes some of Bush's decisions even more confusing. He doesn't seem to care what the polls and talking heads say. He is doing what he feels is right, damn public opinion polls. He is honorable, and decent. That is why I trust him.
Geez, I tire of point by point rebuttals. You really miss every point. The military forces of the USA went and checked, did you forget? WMD's not there, nor was any evidence that they ever were there. The military has stated this. Public record. The president made the statement, not me. All the parties involved have admitted that the intelligence was wrong. Get on the bus, martin. The public record indicates what was said including the information that the intelligence was faulty. Bush was talking about the present, he was trying to get us to go to war. Saddam certainly had chemical weapons in the 1980's. But ten years of UN Sanctions and UNSCOM inspections resulted in the demolition of many tons of the stuff. Our own inspectors warned us that it had all been destroyed and that we would not find WMD's in Iraq. And that is exactly what happened. Public records. Retired generals can speak the truth without getting fired. Wait until you see how bad history treats the Bush administration.
I think you underestimate the importance of public opinion in this country. Politicians can't get elected without doing what the vast majority of the public wants to be done. A party can't stay in power by not listening to public opinion. I agree that the people don't have all the facts that polticians have to make decisions and we have to trust them to a certain degree. But make no mistake about it, Bush, and any politician, will give in when there is overwhelming opposition. Vietnam ended because of public opinion. This Iraq war will probably end earlier than they want if public opinion doesn't change soon. Bush's social security proposal went nowhere b/c public opinion opposed his idea. Bush finally came out firing on the immigration issue this week b/c that's what the public demanded after all the recent protests. I know you don't want politicians to govern this way, but they do. That's our system of government.
Or yours for that matter? We are just discussing politics here. Everybody has ideas. I know what I know and I state it. If you can prove me wrong, then do it. Nobody is correct all of the time, i won't take it personally. Political debate is what we are here for. But suggesting that I "think I know more than I do" doesn't prove me wrong at all. I think you are wrong about a lot of things, Salty, but I don't have a need to point out your faults. However, I will take advantage of them in a debate any time I can. :wink: Well, we can only stretch that so far before beneficial results must happen, Salty. He serves to represent the people of the United States and he must do so with a certain amount of openness. He is an elected politician, not an emperor. Many feel that he is hiding his blunders behind a veil of secrecy including the notion that "he knows something that we don't". So do I, my friend. I suggest to you that leadership does exist outside of the military. I have never characterized him as dishonorable or indecent and I'm sure he means well. I consider him humble and likeable and I do not think that he is crazy or "evil". But I cannot trust him. Despite those virtues, he has also demonstrated that he is imprudent, untrustworthy, unwilling to admit error, politically inflexible, and fiscally irresponsible.
bad intelligence is not a bush lie. again, if the intelligence was wrong, then bush was telling the truth. you are the one lying. if the brits say something, and bush reports what they say, and they were wrong, bush is not the one who made a mistake, and he damn sure wasnt lying. again, who was telling bush they needed more troops during the war and was being ignored? (not a person who was retired t the time of the war, an active general)
of course, i understand, democracy is not a perfect system. politicians must represent us. i am saying that people are fickle and i prefer a leader who doesnt change his opinion quickly back and forth on something if americans do. for instance i know lots of politicians will change their opinions to make them more electable. this makes them a better politician but a worse leader, because they dont really stand for anything except themselves. and of course i recognize that the system rewards politicians who will say whatever to get elected. i just happen to believe that bush is a really rare sort of politician who actually believes what he says. not that i agree with everything he says (how could i, he is christian), but at least i take him at his word. most politicians are psychos, they want to be loved so badly, they want attention and power. i feel like bush just enjoys being president, and if he had lost the election, he would have been ok and said something like "dang, i lost, yall wanna go to my ranch and go fishin!". because bush doesnt have a megalomaniacal personality like clinton or most other power obsessed freaks.
But he was made aware that the intelligence was bad yet continued to promote it as evidence afterwards. Was he lying or is he stupid? Either way, We need a change. Ok, So if he didn't lie and was still dead wrong, then: 1. Bush was misled by faulty advise from the advisors he selected. 2. Bush was foolishly naive and heard only what he wanted to hear. 3. Bush was not competent to appraise the situation and erred. 4. Bush imprudently jumped the gun and stated unsubstantiated "facts". 5. Bush wasn't bright enough to remember what he had been briefed on. I think all of the above, but I suspect you think it is : 6. Bush made an honest mistake, but refuses to accept it. OK, no Norman Swartzkopft, Anthony Zinni, or Wesley Clark even though they are all experienced former CINC's and full Generals. Lets see, these generals were active participants in the Iraq war . . . Obviously there was General Eric Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, who told Congress a month before the 2003 invasion of Iraq that occupying the country could require "several hundred thousand troops,". He was active and was in fact the Army's ranking officer when we went to war. He was forced into early retirement by Rumsfeld. His replacement does and says only as ordered . . . for the present. Serving officers cannot get criticize a political decision. You know this. Other serving officers who felt their requests were dismissed by Rumsfeld include: General Jack Keane, who was Army vice chief of staff in 2003. Lt. General Gregory Newbold of the Marine Corps. Maj. General Charles H. Swannack Jr., who led troops on the ground in Iraq as recently as 2004 as the commander of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division. Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the First Infantry Division in Iraq.
when? i get the impression you are paraphrasing somebody other than yourself again. especially with your list of "lies". it wasnt a mistake to take action against iraq. even if the wmd stuff is wrong, which i am not convinced it is, ther were many other reasons to go to war. likei said earlier, bush detractors only mention wmd. you can read all the other reasons in his speech to the UN: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html i dont think wmd is even mentioned until he mentioned 4 other things that saddam was doing to violate the terms of the 1991 agreement.
Some good news on the border issue. Now they need several thousand new beds (or tents, floors etc.) to house them until they can ship them back across the border. >>Link<<
Looks like Iowa residents are being robbed so the government can fund Spanish/English classes for employers and their employees. >>Link<<
