Bush on WMD: None so blind as those who would not see

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Oelewapper, Jan 31, 2004.

  1. Oelewapper

    Oelewapper Guest

    When it came to acting on intelligence about Iraq, there were none so blind as those who
    would not see

    So the spooks are supposed to fall on their swords. In Washington and London, it's the spies who are
    taking the heat for all that wildly misleading stuff shoveled out of the White House and Downing
    Street stables about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. But, you know, it's not just bad
    intelligence that got us into Iraq, it's bad judgment about the consequences of invading and
    occupying such a place. And for that the Bush and Blair administrations have no excuses.

    It was never a secret that Saddam was a genocidal megalomaniac who wanted WMD. The trick was always
    to balance the risks he posed against the risks of deposing him. Intelligence is supposed to help
    make those choices, but all the decisions are up to the politicians. After Saddam steamrollered
    Kuwait in 1990, the first Bush administration wanted him out, and the Clinton administration
    subsequently made "regime change" in Iraq its official goal. But when it came to the crunch, Daddy
    Bush and Slick Willie worried more, and wisely, about the uncertainties of the aftermath.

    The current Bush administration simply, and willfully, ignored that aftermath problem, and that's
    the real reason for the mess we're in now. The relative costs and benefits weren't weighed. In the
    end, they weren't even put on the scale. And not for lack of information. Millions of dollars were
    spent by the State Department's Future of Iraq Project in 2002, laying out just about all the post-
    invasion needs and difficulties. But during its plunge into Iraq, the Bush administration not only
    tossed away those findings, it excluded from the upper levels of the first transition team just
    about anyone who'd taken part in the State Department's studies.

    "It was ideological," says an administration official who watched this spectacle from up close.
    "These guys convinced themselves this would be a one-week war, we'd be out of there by August,
    democracy would be in full blo om, [the Pentagon's favored exile leader Ahmed] Chalabi would
    recognize Israel and they'd all live happily ever after." If you were off message you were on the
    outs. "Anyone who disagreed with them didn't just have a different opinion," says this official,
    "they were considered wrong to the point of being evil."

    The administration's behavior in public bears this out and makes it easy to guess the kind of
    pressure put on men and women in the shadows. In 2002, when the president's chief economic adviser
    Larry Lindsey ventured an opinion that the Iraq operation might actually cost $100 billion to $200
    billion-at a time when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was talking something under $50 billion-
    Lindsey was soon out of a job.

    In February 2003, just one year ago, and weeks before the war, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric C.
    Shinseki was asked at a Senate hearing how many troops he thought would be necessary to pacify Iraq
    after the war.

    "Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers," said Shinseki. "We're talking
    about posthostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the
    kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground-
    force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that
    water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a
    situation like this."

    Perfectly reasonable, perfectly predictable, perfectly responsible-but not the kind of thing the
    Bush administration wanted to hear at all. General Shinseki, whose uniform, ribbons and stars
    testified to his expertise, was publicly rebuked by the Pentagon's civilian No. 2 , Paul Wolfowitz.
    The suit knew better. Such estimates, said Wolfowitz, were wildly "off the mark," and a figure of
    100,000 was closer to the Pentagon's expectations.

    Well, the number of U.S. troops has been kept fairly close to that promised level of 100,000. (Those
    Pentagon bureaucrats do have iron wills.) But there's no question that many more troops were needed,
    and badly. "A safe and secure environment" still doesn't exist in Iraq, and from the start "the
    normal responsibilities" of occupiers simply have not been met. The borders were not secured. The
    cities were abandoned to looters. (To this day, Baghdad is without electricity for hours at a time.)
    More than 500 Americans are dead, most of them killed during the occupation. The monetary costs are
    upward of $1 billion a week and the chances of Iraqi or foreign forces effectively easing that
    burden are distant and slight. Even if "sovereignty" is transferred back to Iraqis on July 1, U.S.
    forces are supposed to stay on and keep fighting.

    Last November, the U.S. administration and the Iraqi Governing Council (which the American
    authorities appointed) agreed that Coalition forces would be given "wide latitude to provide for the
    safety and security of the Iraqi people." Even after July, it's going to be a long goodbye.

    Of course the Bush administration didn't want to acknowledge the likely costs before it started
    shooting. That kind of intelligence-just straightforward information, really-might have scared off
    the public. Polls last February showed that most Americans supported a war to oust Saddam, if
    necessary, but they weren't in any rush. They wanted to see United Nations weapons inspectors have a
    chance to do their jobs. They wanted to see more allies get on board with us, to share the costs in
    blood and treasure, if war really was required. But that didn't satisfy the suits at the Pentagon,
    or Bush-or Tony Blair for that matter.

    It's easy to imagine how angry, and even desperate, intelligence analysts become in a situation like
    this. John le Carre, the great master of espionage fiction (and a former spy who's presumably in
    touch with his old colleagues) gets the ferocious tone about right in his latest novel, "Absolute
    Friends": "The Iraq war was a criminal and immoral conspiracy. It was an old Colonial war dressed up
    as a crusade for Western life and liberty, and it was launched by a clique of war-hungry Judaeo-
    Christian geopolitical fantasists who hijacked the media and exploited America's post-Nine Eleven
    psychopathy."

    As it happens, I finished reading Le Carre's novel this week, just about the same time as the
    release in Britain of the "Report of the Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Dr.
    David Kelly C.M.G." by Lord Hutton, and I couldn't help wondering what the spooks are thinking about
    that case. Arguably, Kelly was one of their own. He was one of Britain's most respected biological-
    weapons experts and a former U.N. inspector in Iraq.

    In the old days, Kelly was a colleague of the American inspector David Kay, who went on to head up
    Washington's own postwar search for Saddam's WMD. It is Kay's high-profile resignation and his
    conclusion that WMDs probably don't exist-along with his finger-pointing at the intelligence
    agencies for getting the facts all wrong-that has created such a stir on Capitol Hill.

    Kelly, though, was a quiet man. He worked on the fringes of the secret world at the Ministry of
    Defense, was decorated by the crown and even considered for a knighthood. Like most good scientists
    and intelligence analysts, he was strongly committed to objective truths. But last summer, after
    trying to explain the facts to a BBC reporter, Kelly was named by government officials as "the
    source" for a report that claimed Prime Minister Blair's aides had

    they knew might be false to create a greater sense of urgency. As the BBC and the Blairites traded
    accusations, Kelly took an afternoon stroll deep into the Oxfordshire countryside and opened the
    vein of his left wrist with a knife he'd owned since boyhood.

    Hutton's report finds no fault with the government in this case. Blair and his boys acted in good
    faith when they issued their WMD report, Hutton concludes. They couldn't know that all the pressure
    on Kelly last June and July might lead to his suicide, and he shouldn't have had unauthorized
    contacts with the press anyway. The BBC, for its part, is nailed for exaggerating and distorting
    Kelly's remarks, then defending indefensible reporting. Within hours after the Hutton findings were
    published, the chairman of the state-financed broadcast network resigned. Blair appeared in
    Parliament to crow that he and his aides were cleared.

    But of what? Blair, acting as a shill for Bush, insisted even more vehemently than the Americans
    that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ready to use. That information, we now know, was
    totally bogus. Therefore the judgments based on it were false. Therefore uncounted thousands of
    lives in Iraq have been, and continue to be, lost. Hutton, the punctilious jurist, says he might
    have tried to find out just how so much "intelligence" could be so wildly wrong, but he conveniently
    declares in paragraph nine, page two, of his 328-page report that this question is outside the scope
    of his inquiry.

    And in the end, we still don't know why David Kelly took his own life. Maybe he was depressed about
    events we've never heard about. Maybe he feared official retribution for talking to the press. Maybe
    he just couldn't bear the distortion of the truth as he saw it. Or maybe he thought he was
    protecting somebody, or his ideals or his country, like one of the quiet, conscientious spies in a
    Le Carre novel.

    "Time, when you're stringing together the net that has snared you, doesn't count for much," says a
    once-heroic agent who knows his life is about to end in "Absolute Friends." "Thinking is far more
    important. Comfortable ignorance ... is no longer the acceptable solution, however hard it is to
    face reality." No wonder people of conscience feel abandoned and overwhelmed.

    By Christopher Dickey Newsweek Updated: 3:59 p.m. ET Jan. 30, 2004Jan. 30 - © 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
     
    Tags:


  2. This doesn't belong cross-posted on all of thes newsgroups. How about alt.gossip.asshole

    "Oelewapper" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > When it came to acting on intelligence about Iraq, there were none so
    blind
    > as those who would not see
    >
    > So the spooks are supposed to fall on their swords. In Washington and London, it's the spies who
    > are taking the heat for all that wildly misleading stuff shoveled out of the White House and
    > Downing Street
    stables
    > about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. But, you know, it's
    not
    > just bad intelligence that got us into Iraq, it's bad judgment about the consequences of invading
    > and occupying such a place. And for that the Bush and Blair administrations have no excuses.
    >
    > It was never a secret that Saddam was a genocidal megalomaniac who wanted WMD. The trick was
    > always to balance the risks he posed against the risks
    of
    > deposing him. Intelligence is supposed to help make those choices, but all the decisions are up to
    > the politicians. After Saddam steamrollered Kuwait in 1990, the first Bush administration wanted
    > him out, and the Clinton administration subsequently made "regime change" in Iraq its official
    goal.
    > But when it came to the crunch, Daddy Bush and Slick Willie worried more, and wisely, about the
    > uncertainties of the aftermath.
    >
    > The current Bush administration simply, and willfully, ignored that aftermath problem, and that's
    > the real reason for the mess we're in now.
    The
    > relative costs and benefits weren't weighed. In the end, they weren't even put on the scale. And
    > not for lack of information. Millions of dollars
    were
    > spent by the State Department's Future of Iraq Project in 2002, laying out just about all the post-
    > invasion needs and difficulties. But during its plunge into Iraq, the Bush administration not only
    > tossed away those findings, it excluded from the upper levels of the first transition team just
    > about anyone who'd taken part in the State Department's studies.
    >
    > "It was ideological," says an administration official who watched this spectacle from up close.
    > "These guys convinced themselves this would be a one-week war, we'd be out of there by August,
    > democracy would be in full
    blo
    > om, [the Pentagon's favored exile leader Ahmed] Chalabi would recognize Israel and they'd all live
    > happily ever after." If you were off message
    you
    > were on the outs. "Anyone who disagreed with them didn't just have a different opinion," says this
    > official, "they were considered wrong to the point of being evil."
    >
    > The administration's behavior in public bears this out and makes it easy
    to
    > guess the kind of pressure put on men and women in the shadows. In 2002, when the president's
    > chief economic adviser Larry Lindsey ventured an opinion that the Iraq operation might actually
    > cost $100 billion to $200 billion-at a time when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was talking
    > something under $50 billion-Lindsey was soon out of a job.
    >
    > In February 2003, just one year ago, and weeks before the war, Army Chief
    of
    > Staff Gen. Eric C. Shinseki was asked at a Senate hearing how many troops
    he
    > thought would be necessary to pacify Iraq after the war.
    >
    > "Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers," said Shinseki. "We're talking about
    > posthostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of
    > ethnic tensions
    that
    > could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground-force presence to maintain a
    > safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the
    > normal responsibilities that
    go
    > along with administering a situation like this."
    >
    > Perfectly reasonable, perfectly predictable, perfectly responsible-but not the kind of thing the
    > Bush administration wanted to hear at all. General Shinseki, whose uniform, ribbons and stars
    > testified to his expertise, was publicly rebuked by the Pentagon's civilian No. 2 , Paul
    > Wolfowitz. The suit knew better. Such estimates, said Wolfowitz, were wildly "off the mark," and a
    > figure of 100,000 was closer to the Pentagon's expectations.
    >
    > Well, the number of U.S. troops has been kept fairly close to that
    promised
    > level of 100,000. (Those Pentagon bureaucrats do have iron wills.) But there's no question that
    > many more troops were needed, and badly. "A safe and secure environment" still doesn't exist in
    > Iraq, and from the start
    "the
    > normal responsibilities" of occupiers simply have not been met. The
    borders
    > were not secured. The cities were abandoned to looters. (To this day, Baghdad is without
    > electricity for hours at a time.) More than 500
    Americans
    > are dead, most of them killed during the occupation. The monetary costs
    are
    > upward of $1 billion a week and the chances of Iraqi or foreign forces effectively easing that
    > burden are distant and slight. Even if
    "sovereignty"
    > is transferred back to Iraqis on July 1, U.S. forces are supposed to stay
    on
    > and keep fighting.
    >
    > Last November, the U.S. administration and the Iraqi Governing Council (which the American
    > authorities appointed) agreed that Coalition forces would be given "wide latitude to provide for
    > the safety and security of
    the
    > Iraqi people." Even after July, it's going to be a long goodbye.
    >
    > Of course the Bush administration didn't want to acknowledge the likely costs before it started
    > shooting. That kind of intelligence-just straightforward information, really-might have scared off
    > the public.
    Polls
    > last February showed that most Americans supported a war to oust Saddam,
    if
    > necessary, but they weren't in any rush. They wanted to see United
    Nations
    > weapons inspectors have a chance to do their jobs. They wanted to see more allies get on board
    > with us, to share the costs in blood and treasure, if war really was required. But that didn't
    > satisfy the suits at the
    Pentagon,
    > or Bush-or Tony Blair for that matter.
    >
    > It's easy to imagine how angry, and even desperate, intelligence analysts become in a situation
    > like this. John le Carre, the great master of espionage fiction (and a former spy who's presumably
    > in touch with his old colleagues) gets the ferocious tone about right in his latest novel,
    > "Absolute Friends": "The Iraq war was a criminal and immoral conspiracy.
    It
    > was an old Colonial war dressed up as a crusade for Western life and liberty, and it was launched
    > by a clique of war-hungry Judaeo-Christian geopolitical fantasists who hijacked the media and
    > exploited America's post-Nine Eleven psychopathy."
    >
    > As it happens, I finished reading Le Carre's novel this week, just about the same time as the
    > release in Britain of the "Report of the Inquiry
    into
    > the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Dr. David Kelly C.M.G." by Lord Hutton, and I couldn't
    > help wondering what the spooks are thinking about that case. Arguably, Kelly was one of their
    > own. He was one of Britain's most respected biological-weapons experts and a former U.N.
    > inspector in Iraq.
    >
    > In the old days, Kelly was a colleague of the American inspector David
    Kay,
    > who went on to head up Washington's own postwar search for Saddam's WMD.
    It
    > is Kay's high-profile resignation and his conclusion that WMDs probably don't exist-along with his
    > finger-pointing at the intelligence agencies
    for
    > getting the facts all wrong-that has created such a stir on Capitol Hill.
    >
    > Kelly, though, was a quiet man. He worked on the fringes of the secret
    world
    > at the Ministry of Defense, was decorated by the crown and even considered for a knighthood. Like
    > most good scientists and intelligence analysts, he was strongly committed to objective truths. But
    > last summer, after trying
    to
    > explain the facts to a BBC reporter, Kelly was named by government
    officials
    > as "the source" for a report that claimed Prime Minister Blair's aides
    had

    > they knew might be false to create a greater sense of urgency. As the BBC and the Blairites traded
    > accusations, Kelly took an afternoon stroll deep into the Oxfordshire countryside and opened the
    > vein of his left wrist
    with
    > a knife he'd owned since boyhood.
    >
    > Hutton's report finds no fault with the government in this case. Blair and his boys acted in good
    > faith when they issued their WMD report, Hutton concludes. They couldn't know that all the
    > pressure on Kelly last June and July might lead to his suicide, and he shouldn't have had
    > unauthorized contacts with the press anyway. The BBC, for its part, is nailed for exaggerating and
    > distorting Kelly's remarks, then defending indefensible reporting. Within hours after the Hutton
    > findings were published, the chairman of the state-financed broadcast network resigned. Blair
    > appeared
    in
    > Parliament to crow that he and his aides were cleared.
    >
    > But of what? Blair, acting as a shill for Bush, insisted even more vehemently than the Americans
    > that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ready to use. That information, we now know,
    > was totally
    bogus.
    > Therefore the judgments based on it were false. Therefore uncounted thousands of lives in Iraq
    > have been, and continue to be, lost. Hutton,
    the
    > punctilious jurist, says he might have tried to find out just how so much "intelligence" could be
    > so wildly wrong, but he conveniently declares in paragraph nine, page two, of his 328-page report
    > that this question is outside the scope of his inquiry.
    >
    > And in the end, we still don't know why David Kelly took his own life. Maybe he was depressed
    > about events we've never heard about. Maybe he
    feared
    > official retribution for talking to the press. Maybe he just couldn't bear the distortion of the
    > truth as he saw it. Or maybe he thought he was protecting somebody, or his ideals or his country,
    > like one of the quiet, conscientious spies in a Le Carre novel.
    >
    > "Time, when you're stringing together the net that has snared you, doesn't count for much," says a
    > once-heroic agent who knows his life is about to
    end
    > in "Absolute Friends." "Thinking is far more important. Comfortable ignorance ... is no longer the
    > acceptable solution, however hard it is to face reality." No wonder people of conscience feel
    > abandoned and overwhelmed.
    >
    > By Christopher Dickey Newsweek Updated: 3:59 p.m. ET Jan. 30, 2004Jan. 30 - © 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
    >
     
  3. John Gaquin

    John Gaquin Guest

    Christ, another anonymous poster. If I want to read Newsweek, I'll go sit in the recliner.

    "Oelewapper" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > When it came to acting on intelligence about Iraq,
     
  4. Jimlane

    Jimlane Guest

    Oelewapper wrote:

    > When it came to acting on intelligence about Iraq, there were none so blind as those who
    > would not see
    >
    > So the spooks are supposed to fall on their swords. In Washington and

    snip

    Oh my, another mental midget without the ability to think for himself, so all he can do is cut and
    paste words from his betters. Not an original thought capable person, all he can do is vomit.

    jim
     
  5. John

    John Guest

    On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:28:41 -0500, "John Gaquin"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Christ, another anonymous poster. If I want to read Newsweek, I'll go sit in the recliner.
    >
    >"Oelewapper" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> When it came to acting on intelligence about Iraq,
    >
    >

    Well, as Jack Nicholson said:

    "you CAN'T handle the truth!
     
  6. Schumy

    Schumy Guest

    JimLane <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Oelewapper wrote:
    >
    > > When it came to acting on intelligence about Iraq, there were none so blind as those who would
    > > not see
    > >
    > > So the spooks are supposed to fall on their swords. In Washington and
    >
    > snip
    >
    > Oh my, another mental midget without the ability to think for himself, so all he can do is cut and
    > paste words from his betters. Not an original thought capable person, all he can do is vomit.
    >
    >
    > jim

    Typical insightful comebacks from asswipe Right Wingers who simply cannot defend his behavior since
    he's taken office.

    Yeah, vote for him again... or why not just hang yourselves.
     
  7. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    schumy wrote:
    > JimLane <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    >> Oelewapper wrote:
    >>
    >>> When it came to acting on intelligence about Iraq, there were none so blind as those who would
    >>> not see
    >>>
    >>> So the spooks are supposed to fall on their swords. In Washington and
    >>
    >> snip
    >>
    >> Oh my, another mental midget without the ability to think for himself, so all he can do is cut
    >> and paste words from his betters. Not an original thought capable person, all he can do is vomit.
    >>
    >>
    >> jim
    >
    > Typical insightful comebacks from asswipe Right Wingers who simply cannot defend his behavior
    > since he's taken office.
    >
    > Yeah, vote for him again... or why not just hang yourselves.

    Yeah, not like your insightful and well thought out response.

    --
    Later Kal

    --

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    / / / / / This space for rent / / / / /
    ---------------------------------------------------------
     
  8. news:[email protected]...
    > schumy wrote:
    > > JimLane <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > >> Oelewapper wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> When it came to acting on intelligence about Iraq, there were none so blind as those who would
    > >>> not see
    > >>>
    > >>> So the spooks are supposed to fall on their swords. In Washington and
    > >>
    > >> snip
    > >>
    > >> Oh my, another mental midget without the ability to think for himself, so all he can do is cut
    > >> and paste words from his betters. Not an original thought capable person, all he can do is
    > >> vomit.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> jim
    > >
    > > Typical insightful comebacks from asswipe Right Wingers who simply cannot defend his behavior
    > > since he's taken office.
    > >
    > > Yeah, vote for him again... or why not just hang yourselves.
    >
    > Yeah, not like your insightful and well thought out response.
    >
    All right, simple question. Can you really say you're better off than you were four years ago?

    --
    "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men
    virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." -Bertrand Russell
     
  9. None

    None Guest

    "james_anatidae" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > news:[email protected]...
    > > schumy wrote:
    > > > JimLane <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]
    > > > 1.nethere.net>...
    > > >> Oelewapper wrote:
    > > >>
    > > >>> When it came to acting on intelligence about Iraq, there were none so blind as those who
    > > >>> would not see
    > > >>>
    > > >>> So the spooks are supposed to fall on their swords. In Washington and
    > > >>
    > > >> snip
    > > >>
    > > >> Oh my, another mental midget without the ability to think for himself, so all he can do is
    > > >> cut and paste words from his betters. Not an original thought capable person, all he can do
    > > >> is vomit.
    > > >>
    > > >>
    > > >> jim
    > > >
    > > > Typical insightful comebacks from asswipe Right Wingers who simply cannot defend his behavior
    > > > since he's taken office.
    > > >
    > > > Yeah, vote for him again... or why not just hang yourselves.
    > >
    > > Yeah, not like your insightful and well thought out response.
    > >
    > All right, simple question. Can you really say you're better off than you were four years ago?

    Nope, I'm certainly not. It seems like everyone else in the country got their 300.00 payment for
    their vote . . . and I got the friggin bill!
     
  10. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    james_anatidae wrote:

    > news:[email protected]...
    >> schumy wrote:
    >>> JimLane <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    >>>> Oelewapper wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> When it came to acting on intelligence about Iraq, there were none so blind as those who would
    >>>>> not see
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So the spooks are supposed to fall on their swords. In Washington and
    >>>>
    >>>> snip
    >>>>
    >>>> Oh my, another mental midget without the ability to think for himself, so all he can do is cut
    >>>> and paste words from his betters. Not an original thought capable person, all he can do is
    >>>> vomit.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> jim
    >>>
    >>> Typical insightful comebacks from asswipe Right Wingers who simply cannot defend his behavior
    >>> since he's taken office.
    >>>
    >>> Yeah, vote for him again... or why not just hang yourselves.
    >>
    >> Yeah, not like your insightful and well thought out response.
    >>
    > All right, simple question. Can you really say you're better off than you were four years ago?

    Me personally? Yes, I am.

    And this proves absolutely nothing, btw.

    --
    Later Kal
    ----------
    So dawn goes down to day. Nothing gold can stay.

    -R. Frost
     
  11. "james_anatidae" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > All right, simple question. Can you really say you're better off than you were four years ago?
    >

    Let's see, four years ago the economy was slowing, today the economy is growing. Yup, looks like we
    can really say we're better off today than we were four years ago.
     
  12. Jarg

    Jarg Guest

    "james_anatidae" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]ve.net...

    > news:[email protected]...

    > >
    > All right, simple question. Can you really say you're better off than you were four years ago?

    Yes, I absolutely am better off than I was four years ago. Perhaps you should consider taking
    responsibility for your own failures instead of trying to blame them on President Bush. Of course
    the left never is big on self responsibility.

    Jarg
     
  13. Steve Hix

    Steve Hix Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "james_anatidae" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > >
    > All right, simple question. Can you really say you're better off than you were four years ago?

    Yes.
     
  14. All right, simple question. Can you really say you're better off than you were four years ago?

    Yes I am
     
  15. Jeff Jones

    Jeff Jones Guest

    "Jarg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:eek:[email protected]...
    >
    > "james_anatidae" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...

    > > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > >
    > > All right, simple question. Can you really say you're better off than
    you
    > > were four years ago?
    >
    > Yes, I absolutely am better off than I was four years ago. Perhaps you should consider taking
    > responsibility for your own failures instead of trying to blame them on President Bush. Of course
    > the left never is big
    on
    > self responsibility.
    >
    > Jarg

    This is hilarious coming from a supporter of a president who should have a placard reading "The Buck
    Stops Anywhere But Here" sitting on his desk.

    "It's the Cia's fault! It's the CIA's fault! It's the CIA's fault! ad.naseum

    Jeff Jones Austin, Texas aa #2044
     
  16. Mike Dargan

    Mike Dargan Guest

    Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
    > "james_anatidae" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    >
    >>All right, simple question. Can you really say you're better off than you were four years ago?
    >>
    >
    >
    > Let's see, four years ago the economy was slowing, today the economy is growing. Yup, looks like
    > we can really say we're better off today than we were four years ago.
    >
    >
    During the Bush Boom, the economy has managed to lose 3 million jobs.
     
  17. Glenn

    Glenn Guest

    Of course there are those that will benefit from Corruption. Good for you. Not so good for the
    hundreds that are dieing for what is an illegal occupation. Bush by his own actions has become a
    War Criminal but being as there is no nation that will do to him as he has donee to others, he will
    get away with it. Pity the poor fools that were ordered to give him the false information in the
    first place.

    And why is credible sources still being listed as such ?

    "Jarg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:eek:[email protected]...
    >
    > "james_anatidae" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...

    > > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > >
    > > All right, simple question. Can you really say you're better off than
    you
    > > were four years ago?
    >
    > Yes, I absolutely am better off than I was four years ago. Perhaps you should consider taking
    > responsibility for your own failures instead of trying to blame them on President Bush. Of course
    > the left never is big
    on
    > self responsibility.
    >
    > Jarg
     
  18. news:y%[email protected]...
    > james_anatidae wrote:

    > > news:[email protected]...
    > >> schumy wrote:
    > >>> JimLane <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]
    > >>> 1.nethere.net>...
    > >>>> Oelewapper wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>> When it came to acting on intelligence about Iraq, there were none so blind as those who
    > >>>>> would not see
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> So the spooks are supposed to fall on their swords. In Washington and
    > >>>>
    > >>>> snip
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Oh my, another mental midget without the ability to think for himself, so all he can do is
    > >>>> cut and paste words from his betters. Not an original thought capable person, all he can do
    > >>>> is vomit.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> jim
    > >>>
    > >>> Typical insightful comebacks from asswipe Right Wingers who simply cannot defend his behavior
    > >>> since he's taken office.
    > >>>
    > >>> Yeah, vote for him again... or why not just hang yourselves.
    > >>
    > >> Yeah, not like your insightful and well thought out response.
    > >>
    > > All right, simple question. Can you really say you're better off than you were four years ago?
    >
    > Me personally? Yes, I am.
    >
    > And this proves absolutely nothing, btw.
    >
    Hey, it worked for Reagan in '80 and Clinton in '96.
     
  19. Jarg

    Jarg Guest

    "Glenn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Of course there are those that will benefit from Corruption. Good for you.
    >

    You must also be in denial about your failures. Blaming President Bush or "corruption" or other
    outside sources is truly pathetic. Why don't you try accepting your own role in your failures and
    give credit when it is due to those who succeed.

    Jarg
     
Loading...