Bad intelligence

[Legend]

Did any of you hear the speech where bush said he went into war on bad intelligence and that he takes responsible for going into war wtf does this moron thinks he can go into places and demand democracy by force?

And can you believe since this moron has said that his polls have gone up slightly WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?

[Johnny Cocksville]

We need to create a special political forum for posts such as these. Not that this post is really an attempt at intelligent discussion.

[Legend]

We need to create a special political forum for posts such as these. Not that this post is really an attempt at intelligent discussion.

Why do you support bush,nevermind just delete this thread.

[hillbilly]

um do you mean intelligence? jeepers.

[Legend]

um do you mean intelligence? jeepers.

yup.

[Johnny Cocksville]

We need to create a special political forum for posts such as these. Not that this post is really an attempt at intelligent discussion.

Why do you support bush, nevermind just delete this thread.

When did I say I supported Bush? I simply stated that there was no attempt in this post to foster an intelligent discussion based on your resorting to calling him a "moron".

[LG]

Well, Mr Bush finally admitted there is something wrong with his intelligence (and there is, in more ways than one).

I must concur with Johnny Cocksville though. It is not right to call GW Bush a moron. Under the old fashioned and now defunct "nomenclature of mental retardation" put forward by old fashioned and now thankfully also defunct psychologists, a moron was defined as a person with an IQ between 51 and 70. People with IQs between 26 and 50 were ranked as imbeciles and anyone lower than that was classified as an idiot.

Therefore, not knowing what Mr Bush's IQ is, it is almost impossible to accurately say whether he is an idiot, an imbecile or a moron.

How's that for an intelligent discussion?

[December]

It's a nice attempt. What does that make the people who failed to get him voted out? (He was clearly clever enough to win...)

Raising the tone, however:

It's not hard to see how admitting a mistake might improve one's ratings-politicians almost never admit their blunders. for reference, look at the different stories between Westmoreland, McNamara, and other members of the top-brass that brought us the ten-years-in-the-jungle-failure of Vietnam? all of them blame someone else for it, taken collectively, if you believed every self-serving memoir and speech, their intelligence was perfect, the strategy was flawless, the policy absolutely ingenious.

It failed.

With the Iraq war being compared to Vietnam almost from the first day after Iraq invaded Kuwait, looking at the most monumental blunder of all might be enlightening-that blunder in the previous war being that nobody was responsible for what didn't happen.

Bush goes up, and 'breaks the game' by admitting that he committed blood and treasure on bad info. (Information that was being taken as gospel when Clinton was spouting it... the president, not the senator)

Considering the underperformance of U.S. intel operations in the last forty years, maybe something will be done to fix it now?


(I know, unlikely-too many people owe too many favours...on both sides of the aisle.)

[Felicia Katt]

Legend, I think you raised some good points. and calling the President a moron, when he and members of his administration and his party have called others cowards and traitors and crazy seems perfectly fair to me.

FK

[Legend]

Legend, I think you raised some good points. and calling the President a moron, when he and members of his administration and his party have called others cowards and traitors and crazy seems perfectly fair to me.

FK

Thanks its just i cant believe how stupid bush is on another interview "i think it was msnbc he wasn't suppose to make a comment about Delay case because its an on going investigation but guess what he was ask does he think delay is innocent and he replied "yes i do" LOL what a fucking joke can't even follow law. then the white house has come out and say that its his presidential prerogative" bush is unbelieveable.

[yourdaddy]

He answered a question asked of him on a one-to-one basis by Brit Hume. See, what you people don't recognize, is honesty. GWB is as far from the typical dem politician as it gets. Can you imagine john kerry answering ANT question honestly? It was a one word answer. Yes.

[Legend]

Now bush is spying on u.s citizens it never ends.

[Legend]

Guys check out the year-end-round-up at jib jab funny stuff.

http://www.jibjab.com/Home.aspx

[BlackAdder]

"See, what you people don't recognize, is honesty"


We certainly can recognize stupidity, oh yes, that were much familiar with.

Everyone has access to his school records...not exactly the brightest bulb in the bunch, but hey fuck when your rich and well connected huh?? Skull and Bones forever baby!

[Felicia Katt]

He answered a question asked of him on a one-to-one basis by Brit Hume. See, what you people don't recognize, is honesty. GWB is as far from the typical dem politician as it gets. Can you imagine john kerry answering ANT question honestly? It was a one word answer. Yes.
from the LA Times
President Bush said Wednesday that he believed indicted Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was innocent of money-laundering charges and expressed hope that his fellow Texan would regain his post as House majority leader.
"I hope that he will [return] because I like him," Bush said in an interview with Fox News. "And plus, when he's over there, we got our votes through the House."

From the White house web site:
Juy 11, 2005. Scott Mclellan , the press secretary
Q Does the President stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked relating to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I've previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren't going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

Q Excuse me, but I wasn't actually talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just want to know, is that still his position?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that's why I said that our policy continues to be that we're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium. And so that's why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation, or questions related to it.

Q Scott, if I could -- if I could point out, contradictory to that statement, on September 29th, 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one who said, if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation is when the President made his comment that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you've suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, "We're not going to comment on an ongoing investigation"?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. That's something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow. And that's why we're continuing to follow that approach and that policy.

Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.

Q So could I just ask, when did you change your mind to say that it was okay to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it's not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry's question at the beginning. There came a point when the investigation got underway when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be their -- or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing. I think that's the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.

Q Scott, can I ask you this; did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than we're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.

Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --

Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --

Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

Q Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

Go ahead, Terry.

Q Well, you're in a bad spot here, Scott, because after the investigation began, after the criminal investigation was underway, you said -- October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby, as I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this." From that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization Terry, and I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well, and it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation. And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this, because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point, I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

You are right, Bush is nothing like a Democratic politician. He'd be impeached if he were.

FK

[BlackAdder]

Lol.....His nickname should be the Earl of Stonewall

[chefmike]

Here's a little bump for our hilarious gang of right-wing hypocrites that hang out here, yet cast their vote with the bible-bangers...

[yourdaddy]

You stupid people don't even look far enough into your NY Times stories, to ascertain that he can't authorize this without the permission of Congress. You are so hopeless. That's why you're basically null and void, politically. It ain't gonna get no better, neither.

[chefmike]

You stupid people don't even look far enough into your NY Times stories, to ascertain that he can't authorize this without the permission of Congress. You are so hopeless. That's why you're basically null and void, politically. It ain't gonna get no better, neither.


:arrow: