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

Jeff Jones wrote:
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

But when you setup the whole scheme with deniability, this will all work. Bush
says he just reported what he was told.

CIA blames NSA. NSA blames the defense intelligence unit. In the end, all
fingers will point at Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Cheney axis of evil who would have
manipulated Bush jr.

By then, Bush Jr is re-elected and Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz will have retired.
Cheney will have had a heart attack and been replaced. So Bush will come out
of it squeeky clean and won't be impeached since the real culprits will have
left the white house.

Remember that folks like Karl Rove had planned for this all along.

Kal Alexander wrote:
james_anatidae wrote:
"Kal Alexander" wrote in message
...
schumy wrote:
JimLane wrote in message
...
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.

If the question had been "is the country better off than it was four years
ago?", I don't believe anybody in his right mind could say "yes", IMHO.

George Z.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:bsgTb.207595$na.340092@attbi_s04...

During the Bush Boom, the economy has managed to lose 3 million jobs.


An economy that doesn't lose jobs is a stagnant economy.

Wrong. It's the economy that doesn't replace lost jobs that's the stagnant
economy. 3 million and still waiting says that that's the current economy.

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
"james_anatidae" wrote:


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

Yes.

You're one of the lucky minority, I guess. How about the rest of the country,
like the out of work guys who not only can't find jobs, but are running out of
unemployment benefits? There are three million of them, and their
families.....are they better off?

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Wrong. It's the economy that doesn't replace lost jobs that's the
stagnant
economy. 3 million and still waiting says that that's the current
economy.


Wrong. An economy that doesn't replace lost jobs is a declining economy.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Wrong. It's the economy that doesn't replace lost jobs that's the stagnant
economy. 3 million and still waiting says that that's the current economy.


Wrong. An economy that doesn't replace lost jobs is a declining economy.

Au contraire, it is you who are wrong. My dictionary says that "stagnant" is
defined as "not flowing or moving". An economy that has failed to replace three
million lost jobs is therefore, by definition, not moving or inert, and
therefore could be called "stagnant".

It still sucks, by whatever name you want to call it in the hopes that we'll get
into a big hoo haa
over its title rather than its smell. Declining or stagnant, it's no feather in
your hero's cap.

So there.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Au contraire, it is you who are wrong. My dictionary says that "stagnant"
is
defined as "not flowing or moving".


So what you're saying is the US has lost 3 million jobs without affecting
the economy.



It still sucks, by whatever name you want to call it in the hopes that
we'll get
into a big hoo haa
over its title rather than its smell. Declining or stagnant, it's no
feather in
your hero's cap.


My hero? Who would that be?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Au contraire, it is you who are wrong. My dictionary says that "stagnant"
is
defined as "not flowing or moving".


So what you're saying is the US has lost 3 million jobs without affecting
the economy.

Nope. Just try reading what I said without translating it into something else.
I'm sure I used simple enough English that would tax anybody's abilities. Go
back and read it again.



It still sucks, by whatever name you want to call it in the hopes that
we'll get
into a big hoo haa
over its title rather than its smell. Declining or stagnant, it's no
feather in
your hero's cap.


My hero? Who would that be?

GWB.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"john" wrote in message
...

Oh yeah, blame Clinton.

Let's also blame Clinton for the missing WMD in Iraq.


Well, Clinton did declare Iraq had WMD. Was he lying?

Not hardly. He was relying on the same faulty intelligence data that was given
to his successor. The only difference between the two of them is that he chose
not to launch a full scale war over what he thought was an accurate assessment
of the situation.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Nope. Just try reading what I said without translating it into something
else.
I'm sure I used simple enough English that would tax anybody's abilities.
Go
back and read it again.


Okie dokie. Let's see, looks like it still says, "My dictionary says that
'stagnant' is
defined as 'not flowing or moving'." Well, "not flowing or moving" means it
isn't going up or down.