Personally, I believe business success or lack thereof is completely irrelevant to being a successfull and/or competent politician. I’m merely objecting to the characterization that the goal of owning a baseball team is to make money. It’s nice not to lose money, but the goal is to win.
Only in the sense of refuting your initial statement.
Cite, please. If nothing else, I feel certain that one of Bush’s supporters here would have linked to it at the time if it exists.
Bias not only skews how the results are presented, it skews how the results are interpreted before the presentation. It is to weep to see it so glaringly obvious in your own posts as it may seem to you from ours.
(If you want to see what “successful businessman” looks like, read about the life of Erle Palmer Halliburton who began with getting fired from a job. And I’m not just talking about the money he made as founder of Halliburton Oil.)
That’s what hairy radical left wing extremists really look like when we step from behind the pages of right wing propaganda articles and websites. Good on you for being so active!
I think I found the article. If so, I was quite a bit off with my date. From the link below, which only allows a preview without paying, it seems to have appeared over two years ago—on 6/22/03—not one. Sorry. I don’t think it changes the veracity of my point. Like I said, I think this is the article; the preview is not very helpful. The only thing I remember is that it had about a half-page chart that appeared on a left-hand page.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50C16FF3C5F0C718EDDAF0894DB404482
Wow, this is a new revelation: you can ‘demean’ someone by giving them a blog.
That’s actually kinda funny.
Harken!? Harken??? Harken!!
Slooooowwly I turned…inch by inch…step by step…
It’s the Attack of the 60-Foot Strawman!
I mean, really. In the wake of a major disaster like this, the need for massive rescue and relief efforts in the first 3-4 days afterwards, when the need was most critical, could have only been met by the Feds. They blew it.
That says nothing, noway, nohow, about how heavy-duty a military presence is necessary today, 20 days after Katrina hit, in what I presume is a city that’s already been essentially emptied of any civilian presence. But you’d think control of the relative handful of entry and exit points, augmented by a fairly modest troop presence in the city itself, would now suffice.)
(If there are still thousands of people in N.O., just waiting for the troops to leave so they can resume looting, feel free to correct me here. But things sure looked pretty empty in the driest part of New Orleans on Thursday night when Bush gave his speech. A cynic might think the military was keeping N.O. safe for Presidential photo ops.)
Actually, the levees/floodwalls broke on August 29, 18 days before both Sheehan’s piece and the O.P. of this thread. That’s a nontrivial difference on the timeline. The need for large numbers of gun-toting Federal troops in N.O. was a lot more pronounced on September 8 than on September 16.
Thank you for having the intellectual integrity to abandon the “self-made” part of the claim.
(Underlining mine.)
Encouraging someone in her delusions is distasteful, at best.
Oooh, that’s a surprise, you’re totally at a loss when it comes to figuring things out. News at 11.
Just a word lumpy, but if you can’t figure out the point, I’m not going to waste the electrons to beat you over the head with a cluebyfour. Consider this a driveby attack on ignorance.
Another mark of an apologist/shill: as soon as challenged on factual grounds, construct a strawman and claim that it is your opponent’s argument.
Yet again, you fail to understand something.
I am shocked. Just shocked.
When smoke starts to pour out of your ears, its time to stop trying to think.
See, if Bush says war is not inevitable, when he’s been making secret plans to go to war, volitionaly, and indeed to create the justification for that war, then it’s a lie that it’s not inevitable.
Another apolgist/political shill tactic, good job. Insinuation and inuendo does not debunk facts, sorry. Just because Bush himself didn’t write the memo, doesn’t
mean that the memo is a fraud. Do you have any factual challenges?
I know you’re confused. You’re a moron.
Bush said the war was not inevitable.
Bush made it clear to our British allies that he had already decided to go to war and fabricate the justifications for it, including forcing Sadaam into a corner. If you can’t understand why both cannot be true at the same time, then you’re an even bigger moron than you’ve shown yourself to be so far.
No, you’re supposed to use critical thinking.
Fuck, what am I saying? You are supposed to avoid drooling all over your keyboard. The rest of us are supposed to use critical thinking.
Miracle of miracles. Wonder of wonders.
Mmm hmm. It just might. Then again, since I know you’re a cretin who’ll get into a debate without reading a damn thing before you open your yap, I’d wager you’re somewhat ignorant about the ‘sexing up’ of British intel reports? This clearly shows that even if the facts were being ‘organized’ :rolleyes: around the preconceived conclusions, they were still excluding evidence which would have presented a more accurate and honest picture. Contradictory evidence.
And by the way, it’s good to see that you can, without any… improper intentions, post articles which repeat the lie that ‘almost every intelligence service in the western world had no doubt…’ about Sadaam’s WMD.
If there was ‘no doubt’ then why the need for the OSP? Why the need to cherry pick intel which had already been rejected? Why the need to support informants linked to Chalabi and his group even when the CIA knew he wasn’t to be trusted? And, for that matter, how can you even make these claims when you know, or at least should know, that our intel services knew the yellow cake claims were lies at least a year before Bush made them?
C’mon Starving Artist the guy is the fucking president and when asked about sovereign Indian nations, did not only know what sovereign nation meant but kept repeating the word trying to make it appear he knew what he was talking about. I’m sure you’ve seen that hilarious video but I can provide a link to it if you wish. I seriously believe some teenagers could be a more effective president.
I will certainly concede that Bush is not the most effective person in front of a camera. He hasn’t always been that way, though. I’ve said before that I think he suffers from “Warren Beatty syndrome”. Have you ever seen Beatty in an interview or trying to speak in public? He’s awkward and clumsy as hell…yet he’s clearly a very intelligent and accomplished guy. So why is this? He has explained it by saying that he’s all too aware of how anything he says can be taken out of context and/or twisted into something he didn’t mean at all, and it makes him very self-conscious about the words he’s using and things he’s trying to say. I think Bush has this problem in spades, and it’s also made him a very clumsy and self-concious speaker. Of course has nothing to do with how well he functions in the oval office, just as how it has nothing to do with how well Beatty functions on a movie set.
Okay, I couldn’t resist. Here’s a clip, and a few reactions. Jesse Jackson’s response, in particular, is golden.
Magellan0, thanks for the date and the link. I couldn’t make the link work, but I did check the date at the website. The only preview that I could find that might address the issue was one that said:
I take it that is not the article with the chart that you were referring to. Also, I think we have more information about what we actually knew and didn’t know since June 22, 2003.
Much appreciated.
Oh, the old I’m in deep shit so let me attack with a lot of attitude and bravado tactic. I should have expected as much. It’s okay, really, we all have our limitations.
Actually, it was an aside. And if you could see through the foam bubbling up out of your mouth you might have noticed that I then went on to show you your stupidity. But you know the old saying, “you can bring an ass to water…”
Now I think I see. You have a limited vocabulary. You’re confused about the meaning of the word “lie”, which I’ve tried to help you with, and “understand”. I’ll let you look it up, as it might stick a little better. But I’ll give you a hint by using it in a sentence: “Just because someone doesn’t agree with one of your dumb fucking observations, Finn, doesn’t mean they don’t understand the issue.”
Let’s recap: Someone claims Bush lied. I ask for that lie to be defined and proven. You offer statements of his with a quote from the DSM. I tell you I don’t see the lie. You start frothing at the mouth.
I’ll offer this for future reference, instead of frothing you could have attempted to explaiin yourself better. But I guess why go down a dead end when you now know it’s a dead end. Better to talk tough and try ot come off as being smarter than you are. Not a great option really, but when it’s all you got…
Finally, some meat. Thank you.
I’ll go slow.
- President sees that war is a possibility
2-A) President outlines conditions for not going to war
2-B) President prepares for war (makes plans) in case conditions are not met
2-C) President puts together all rationales for going (and not going) to war
Was that helpful? I put the three items under #2 because they happen concurrently.
One more thing, you seem to think that making “secret” plans is somehow nefarious. Would you prefer that war plans be made public? Perhaps we should get them signed-off on by the enemy, as well.
Insinuation. Innuendo. Facts. Three more words for your dictionary assignment. After you complete it, please point out the aforementioned insinuation and innuendo. What I said was rather straight-forward.
And, uh, I never said the memo in question was a fraud. Please reread.
That’s one possibility. Another is that your making no sense—playing too fast and loose with both “facts” and logic. It’s really a problem to do that when your outside the We Hate Bush Clubhouse.
Please show me where Bush “made it clear to allies”. And yes, Bush wanted to force Saddam into a corner. A corner so tight that he would have to agree to the conditions you mentioned. Now you might argue that he shouldn’t have played such hardball and given Saddam the ultimatum. That is what would be known as a valid criticism. And please, by all means, look up the word “valid”, especially as it applies to “conclusion” in logic.
SIGH. So original, and biting. Guess you told me!
Now I think I see; everything you don’t agree with is a lie. Okay.
I do not know why they stuck with Chalabi. Then kicked him, then embraced him again, although to a lesser degree. My guess is that you don’t either. The difference is that while we both may surmise why, I think my theory would just be opinion and not “fact”.
As far as the yellow cake and Niger, the claims came from two different sources at two different times. In fact, Britain still stands behind thier claim.
Look Finn, it’s all fine and well to have these debates, and to be passionate about them. But the truth is that neither of us have all the facts. I don’t seize onto any particular theory of who did what when and why because I’ll probably be wrong because I don’t have all the facts. None of us do.
Now I’m no fan of GWB, but when the angry left keep throwing the same dishonest shit at him, it’s just a little annoying. If he’s THAT bad, shouldn’t you be able to nail him cleanly? For every accusation you throw at him that can be deflected, you dull every other arrow in the quiver. Go after him for appointing “Brownie”. Go after him for kowtowing to big business on immigration. Go after him for not securing the ports. Go after him for his spending and the deficit. Jeeze, there’s so much.
And giving speeches is what Bush does best.
With all due respect, what delusions are we talking about?
As far as I can see, we’ve got two issues that she’s commented on:
- She asks what our ‘noble cause’ in Iraq is (millions of others, including yours truly, would like to know the answer to this one too); and
- she thinks that the armed military presence (not their logistical talents, not the search-and-rescue efforts, but clearly the armed presence) in New Orleans, 18 days after Katrina, was rather excessive. I’ve yet to see it demonstrated that there’s no argument for that position.
So, as of September 16, were marauding gangs in New Orleans still being kept under control only by a massive armed presence, or was this show of force taking place in a practically empty city? I don’t know, and AFAICT, you haven’t said.
But unless you can furnish evidence that Sheehan should have known that that latter alternative wasn’t in fact a possibility, ISTM that talk of ‘delusions’ is waaaay overstated here.
Just wanted to put these three quotes first, as they shows the level of utter intellectual prostitution you engage in while choking down whatever The Leader gives you. Stupid piece of filth.
You are a lying piece of shit, a disgusting virtually braindead apologist. I’ve never said any such thing, nor have I suggested it. You’re a cowardly asshole who has to create strawmen in order to debate against. I have no problem with ‘secret plans’, I do have a problem when those secret plans contradict what the rest of us are being told.
Stop making strawmen, you asshole munching waste of space.
(my apologies to those who do enjoy munching assholes, no comparision with this waste of space is implied.)
Again, you strawman making piece of medical waste: I’m not saying it’s because I don’t agree with it, you honorless liar.
The problem is that the Brits knew there were doubts about the intel, which they covered up when they ‘sexed up’ reports. That you want to pretend I’m saying anything I don’t agree with is a lie… well, it’s slimey, it’s dishonest, and it’s par for the course for an internet-bottom-feeder like you.
Um… yeah. Right. Sure. Bush says war can be avoided while he’s already decided to go to war no matter what… and I’m the one whose position is intellectually bankrupt.
Go Team Apologist!
I’m not foaming at the mouth. Maybe in Apologistland citing quotes is just Kreeeeeeezzy!!! In the normal world, it’s not. You also have only made yourself look really stupid. Here let me do it again
Not inevitable != inevitable.
I know, it makes your head hurt. Keep trying.
No… you fucking waste of genetic material. Saying “This was can be avoided.” When you’ve alread decided “This war cannot be avoided” is a lie. You fucking moron. As for understanding? You’re never going to, you’re a drolling apologist moron.
Apologist tactic: When presented with facts, claim your opponent is ‘frothing’, this will enable you to avoid any factual debate. :rolleyes:
You don’t see the lie, again, because you’re painfully stupid. Again monkeyboy, inevitable != not inevitable.
I know, rocket science!
First off, I already told you that you’re too fucking stupid for me to take the time. I simply pointed out what would be blazingly obvious to anybody not busy licking up puddles of lead paint.
Second, you’re mentally deficient, remember? How on earth can anybody explain “inevitable != not inevitable” to you? Do you need Sesame Street to run a skit on it or something?
Talk tough? Fool. I provided cites where Bush was saying war could be avoided and cites where he’d already commited to war, with no possible way to avoid it, before he made that speech. Again, if you’re too dense to understand the difference between “We are definitely going to war.” and “We might not be going to war.” then you’re a moron.
Jeez. You’re still being stupid. Do you need help to tie your shoes in the morning, or has your mommy just saved time and given you velcro?
First off, your 2-C is an outright lie. Demanding that WMD which didn’t exist be destroyed is impossible to comply with. Furthermore, you dried cumstain, the slurry of shit and hot air that slushes around your skull? It seems not to be working. If Bush says war is a possibility while he’s already decided that was is inevitable and he will in fact push Sadaam into a corner in order to manufacture a justification. Well, then it’s clear that his claims of ‘possibility’ were lies, as it was already goign to happen.
Moron? Hello, moron? Are you reading your own text? You suggested that since it was recorded by a Brit and not Bush himself that it was somehow suspect, or at the very least not proof. You did not offer any factual challenges, just those suggestions. That, moron, is insinuation and innuendo. But again, you’re a fucking moron. I assume that basic vocabulary is far beyond your abilities.
You lying sack of shit, your level of idiocy is off the charts while your level of dishonesty is on the level of the lowest class of poster on the internet. Do you read the cites you provide, or are you just trying to start fights, you ignorant asshole? Your newsmax article was all about how the memo might be forged to varying degrees, that it might be fraudulent.
You are a lying piece of shit.
Nope, it’s the only possibility. And, by the way, for a mentally retarded person to post on a message board like this is good, and you should feel somewhat proud. But you really should learn to keep your fucking fingers off the keyboard, and read more than you spew. See, you’re too fucking stupid to understand the difference between “Maybe not going to happen.” and “Definitely going to happen even if we need to arrange events so that it does.”
Tool.
What do you think the Downing Street Memo is, you lying piece of apologist filth?
Lying shill. The DSM clearly stated that Bush was trying to push Sadaam into a corner so that they could concoct a justification for war. You fucking lying piece of shit, have a shred of honor of get the fuck off this message board.
Another strawman, or just more poor reading skills? Why Chalabi was retained is not at issue, the fact that he and his information were distrusted is. And, just a hint, as for why Chalabi was embraced? Look up “office of special plans” you ignorant gumflapping bottom feeder.
Ooooh. So brave of Britain, they can refuse to admit error! Everybody who has seen the documents in question knew they were forgeries within a very short time, which indicates either terribly lax due dilligence on our behalf or… something else.
In addition, our government, not Britain, our government knew that the claims were false a year before Bush made them. And all the apologist strawmen and handwaving in the world won’t change that.
Mother of Irony… you have the balls to call other people dishonest? You haven’t disproven one single fact. Not one. Although you have used insinuation and innuendo to suggest that the facts were somehow innacurate. Then you lied about doing so, and evidently posted some articles that you didn’t even read.
Yeah… like by showing that he’d decided to go to war and back Sadaam into a corner as a justification for war even when he was claiming that war was not inevitable. That’d sure nail him cleanly. Well, at least for anybody with two neurons to rub together.
Any accusation can be ‘deflected’, anything can be denied, any moron can rely on strawmen, innuendo, insinuation and idiocy in order to gainsay obvious facts. Besides, I’ve seen your conduct in these types of debates. You’ll get into them without having read a goddamn thing about the world around you. Without doing any due dilligence, without finding out the least about the issues you’re about to shit all over, you open your yap and have a fit of verbal diarrhea.
You’re just a shill.
On the contrary, his personal fitness program is admirable.
Which pales before his brush-clearing skills.