Thread: GW Bush exonerated !

Here is another tidbit you will not see on the evening news.


BUSH EXONERATED: ISIS UNCOVERS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ

Proving that the past was not predictable at the time of the US Operation Iraqi Freedom invasion, the events of the past few months have definitively raised the level of unpredictability for the future. Jihadists now control nuclear, chemical, and biological WMD, creating a global crisis of the highest order.
It is now believed that ISIS is now able to threaten the US Homeland with a mushroom cloud of destruction in as little as 10 hours. ISIS has called for a summit with participating axis of evil nations to discuss strategy.

Some slight exaggeration in that report.
Chemical weapons yes (according to the original report), but not nuclear ¹ or biological.
And thus no "mushroom cloud of destruction".
As for ISIS and the chemical weapons: "It is doubtful that Isis have the knowledge to use a totally functioning chemical munition" & "quite hard for ISIS to make functioning weapons out of the chemical weapons stockpiles with no harming themselves in the method, in no way mind really using them in a terrorist attack on America". (From 2nd link).


1 "the material involved is low-grade and would not present a substantial safety, security or nuclear proliferation danger" & "You can not make a nuclear explosive from this quantity".

I used to think that the tribal people of Afghanistan could not create an ied that could damage an armored Bradley. I was wrong. Never underestimate the resourcefulness of your enemies.

That was almost like reading the front page of The Onion, but not nearly as funny.
So Bush was so incompetent that he was unable to find a single solid WMD in Iraq but suddenly a bunch of raggedy-ass muslim militiamen are finding them wherever they look?
Really?

Maybe if you consider that some of these "raggady ass militiamen " may have been involved with hiding the wmd's it isn't to far fetched.

Originally Posted by pineapple007

I used to think that the tribal people of Afghanistan could not create an ied that could damage an armored Bradley. I was wrong.

The fact that you were ignorant doesn't make the point you're trying to make.
There's orders of magnitude difference in difficulty.
Constructing an IED is frighteningly simple, making CW isn't.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Some slight exaggeration in that report.
Chemical weapons yes (according to the original report), but not nuclear ¹ or biological.
And thus no "mushroom cloud of destruction".
As for ISIS and the chemical weapons: "It is doubtful that Isis have the knowledge to use a totally functioning chemical munition" & "quite hard for ISIS to make functioning weapons out of the chemical weapons stockpiles with no harming themselves in the method, in no way mind really using them in a terrorist attack on America". (From 2nd link).


1 "the material involved is low-grade and would not present a substantial safety, security or nuclear proliferation danger" & "You can not make a nuclear explosive from this quantity".

The Telegraph report seems to contain only a reference to ISIS gaining access to Saddam Husseins's chemical weapons facility, not to any actual weapons, breathless headline notwithstanding.

The other reports seem to come from a variety of hysterical and probably badly informed right-wing US websites, still trying to keep alive the fantasy that the invasion was either justified or a good idea. What they fear most of all, and hence want to distract people's attention from, is the obvious accusation that the appearance of ISIS and the collapse of Iraq are a consequence of that stupid operation and its botched aftermath.

I remain to be convinced that there are any WMD, of any sort, in Iraq. I'll change my mind as and when someone can cite a real and authoritative report to that effect.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by pineapple007

I used to think that the tribal people of Afghanistan could not create an ied that could damage an armored Bradley. I was wrong.

The fact that you were ignorant doesn't make the point you're trying to make.
There's orders of magnitude difference in difficulty.
Constructing an IED is frighteningly simple, making CW isn't.

Are you implying that these weapons were not the WMD that GW was looking for ? Are you also saying that these old weapons could not be improvised in some way to become lethal ? I believe that ISIS has many highly skilled bomb makers and could use the gas agents in an ied. ISIS also captured about 88 pounds of uranium compounds and I believe they can craft dirty bombs with this material. Since this is a terrorist group using terror tactics I find it easy to believe that these materials can be used to kill people horrifically as that is how terror is used in combat.

As far as chemical weapons are concerned, ISIS has already started using these.

YPG: ISIS used chemical weapons against Kurds in Syrian Kurdistan

Kobanê canton has been exposed to the cruel attacks of the terrorist ISIS militants for some time. In these attacks, ISIS gangs are using all kinds of weapons, including the thermal missiles of USA. Nonetheless, after the first researches and medical control which was done by health team of Kobanê cantonwww.Ekurd.net and experts on the wounded and martyred fighters, it has been proved that the ISIS gangs have used chemical weapons. Doctors found burns and white dots on the bodies of the martyrs.”

Originally Posted by pineapple007

Are you implying that these weapons were not the WMD that GW was looking for ?

Uh, what?
I fail to see how you managed to get that from what I wrote.

Are you also saying that these old weapons could not be improvised in some way to become lethal ?

Perhaps you should read (again) the quote I gave: "quite hard for ISIS to make functioning weapons out of the chemical weapons stockpiles with no harming themselves in the method".

I believe that ISIS has many highly skilled bomb makers and could use the gas agents in an ied.

And putting together an explosive device is quite different from handling highly dangerous gases.

ISIS also captured about 88 pounds of uranium compounds and I believe they can craft dirty bombs with this material.

Which hasn't been disputed.

As far as chemical weapons are concerned, ISIS has already started using these.
YPG: ISIS used chemical weapons against Kurds in Syrian Kurdistan

Yeah.
While the YPG claims that Isis used chemical agents in its recent attacks on Kobane - allegedly seized at the Muthanna chemical weapons facility near Baghdad - legitimacy of the photographic and medical evidence provided by Kurdish forces has yet to be confirmed by international players.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by pineapple007

Are you implying that these weapons were not the WMD that GW was looking for ?

Uh, what?
I fail to see how you managed to get that from what I wrote.

Are you also saying that these old weapons could not be improvised in some way to become lethal ?

Perhaps you should read (again) the quote I gave: "quite hard for ISIS to make functioning weapons out of the chemical weapons stockpiles with no harming themselves in the method".

I believe that ISIS has many highly skilled bomb makers and could use the gas agents in an ied.

And putting together an explosive device is quite different from handling highly dangerous gases.

ISIS also captured about 88 pounds of uranium compounds and I believe they can craft dirty bombs with this material.

Which hasn't been disputed.

As far as chemical weapons are concerned, ISIS has already started using these.
YPG: ISIS used chemical weapons against Kurds in Syrian Kurdistan

Yeah.
While the YPG claims that Isis used chemical agents in its recent attacks on Kobane - allegedly seized at the Muthanna chemical weapons facility near Baghdad - legitimacy of the photographic and medical evidence provided by Kurdish forces has yet to be confirmed by international players.

Thanks for this. I had missed it due to being out of the country at the time. But a month has gone by since this report and we've heard no more about it. If there were any WMD knocking about, we'd have heard by now, I'd have thought.

I can't wait for 2016. Bush and Clinton . . . again. This time it's Jeb and Hillary -- dumb and dumb. What a choice.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

I believe that ISIS has many highly skilled bomb makers and could use the gas agents in an ied.

And putting together an explosive device is quite different from handling highly dangerous gases.

ISIS also captured about 88 pounds of uranium compounds and I believe they can craft dirty bombs with this material.

Which hasn't been disputed.

I, too, have been out of the loop with this news, not owning a TV anymore, so interesting news. That ISIS has come in possession of the Uranium 238, but that is not a real component of much a dirty nuke. 238 isotope is depleted Uranium, used in the Phalanx weapon system with mere heavy bullets as recalled, and even in the face plates of WWII armor. Now if the ISIS has the capacity to get a slow neutron into the picture, well, we will cross that bridge when we come to it. Not a chance the medieval ISIS will harvest a bumper crop of brilliant Arab Oppenheimer and Lawrence equivalents willing to work out in the desert to impregnate 238 with slow neutrons. Without 235 isotope, they have a slightly radioactive paperweight of no real military value to their cause. People misunderstand the huge difference of the two Uranium varieties.


This news is nothing compared to the 235 kept in flimsy padlocked boxes in Russian areas fenced off with guards willing to turn off alarms for 5 minutes after provided a 1$ 'tip' (circa 1996, in Russia).

I can't wait for 2016. Bush and Clinton . . . again. This time it's Jeb and Hillary -- dumb and dumb. What a choice.

Not as dumb as some liberals yammering about Chelsea Clinton running in 2032 or so (heard by one person I personally knew 15 years ago as his suggestion). But this is hardly possible reality, more a hyperbolic statement than your very real suggestion. The second W. Bush should not have been elected. Heck, I heard Elder Bush speak in person, 1987, and he sounded weak in public (about his pick up from a sub after being forced down over the Pacific on a bombing run, with surviving members of the naval crew). We do not get much of a choice, do we? 2004 laid out two final candidates, one a Yale grad Skull and Bones member and the other just the same! (Bush and Kerry). Every so often a real conservative comes around all sorts of false and wild stories come up, as if it is a demon the powers that be must prevent. My guess is that an untamed liberal not willing to deal would be treated the same, though I am not sympathetic to the aims. Jimmy Carter was sort of disavowed by the establishment, in a lighter treatment towards the end of his term, so apparently the system is not totally liberal and more keep-the-reigns-of-power-in-hand.

Is Jeb special? Not really. Is he bad? AFAIK he has much less baggage than his presidential brother. Interesting how he met his wife as an exchange student in Mexico and became smitten. (His mother worried of the racism, but was advised to just hang a sign saying BUSH on her son to make all ok.) In short, people in the power loop want a known quality and known levers, similar to you or I may/may not wanting to go to McDonalds or Burger Death for a known product standard. This is on the whole an unhealthy trend for a democracy.

Personally, relatives rarely seem at all able in politics. Was it Robert Lincoln who became a serious proposal for President/VP? Same goes for lots of generals. Pershing could have easily made it in the White House in 1920 if he could speak, but he hated public talk. Henry Ford came real close to running and quite possibly winning. It has always been sort of weird in the US, dynasties and attempts to draft generals or, less often, other famed individuals who hit a note of the public. Harrison and Adams are others that actually made it to some success in a dynasty of sorts. We have never had a brother elected in tandem, though Robert Kennedy came closest IIRC.

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

I can't wait for 2016. Bush and Clinton . . . again. This time it's Jeb and Hillary -- dumb and dumb. What a choice.

I find you harsh. From what I read, Jeb is nothing like his gormless brother. J Bush seems, unlike most of his party these days, to understand that the constituency of angry rural white men is not enough to win and is getting smaller with each passing year. Anyone who can modernise the appeal of the GOP is worth a look, I think. And with Clinton you get two for the price of one - though she is a bit of a cynical political trimmer.

I'd rather one of those than some ideological maniac like Rand Paul or someone. But I'm off topic…………...

But don't you think Hillary will be a bit too old?

Originally Posted by dan hunter

But don't you think Hillary will be a bit too old?

I'm more worried about her severe brain damage.

On a serious note, my reservations about Clinton's and Bush's is that we seem to be getting into some kind of weird democratic Monarchy.

Originally Posted by exchemist

I find you harsh.

I've been called worse . . . by friends!

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by dan hunter

But don't you think Hillary will be a bit too old?

I'm more worried about her severe brain damage.

On a serious note, my reservations about Clinton's and Bush's is that we seem to be getting into some kind of weird democratic Monarchy.

Agree. Dynastic democracy is what you get when certain interests get too powerful. I think a husband and wife team can just about be excused as a one-off, but a father and two sons would suggest something unmeritocratic about the appointment processes somewhere.

I doubt that Hillary Clinton will run in 2016. There is too much garbage following her to the point that even her supporters would have a hard time defending her.

I also doubt that Jeb Bush will run either although I think he could be the real deal. Jeb almost governed Florida like a Libertarian and many of the issue he has addressed makes him seem like Libertarian. I could support this.

I wonder what media coverage and support given if it had been the US military under Obama that had found these wmd's . My bet is it would be a democratic talking point for 2016.

There could be a dozen twenty mega-ton nuclear warheads buried under Bagdhad, but that wouldn't change that the invasion was based on fabricated data. If the administration had made up reports of nukes, then found them by luck, that wouldn't change how corrupt it was.

Originally Posted by pineapple007

I doubt that Hillary Clinton will run in 2016. There is too much garbage following her to the point that even her supporters would have a hard time defending her.

I also doubt that Jeb Bush will run either although I think he could be the real deal. Jeb almost governed Florida like a Libertarian and many of the issue he has addressed makes him seem like Libertarian. I could support this.

I wonder what media coverage and support given if it had been the US military under Obama that had found these wmd's . My bet is it would be a democratic talking point for 2016.

But you are still, for some reason, assuming there are WMDs. I am fairly certain there are not and these hysterical reports are false or exaggerated.

It's been a month since the first such report and still we have had nothing on mainstream media about it. Since I do not believe in some vast "liberal" media conspiracy - by competing news organisation all over the globe - to suppress the "truth", I think this means it was all ballocks by overexcited journos.

If your waiting for a detailed report from the associated press or other western main stream media you will be waiting for a long time, imo. This event has been reported thoroughly by Al Jeziera and RT news. Even News France has reported on the wmd's found by ISIS.

You will not see reports of the ISIS killings in Iraq or the extermination of Syrian Christians yesterday. Maybe a small blip. What is prevalent now is the Williams suicide and the death of Brown. The media hasn't even reported on the spread of the Ferguson protests to other major cities in the US.

Originally Posted by pineapple007

If your waiting for a detailed report from the associated press or other western main stream media you will be waiting for a long time, imo. This event has been reported thoroughly by Al Jeziera and RT news. Even News France has reported on the wmd's found by ISIS.

You will not see reports of the ISIS killings in Iraq or the extermination of Syrian Christians yesterday. Maybe a small blip. What is prevalent now is the Williams suicide and the death of Brown. The media hasn't even reported on the spread of the Ferguson protests to other major cities in the US.

Why will I be waiting for a long time if the report is true? It would be a major overturning of perceptions of the Iraq invasion. Very newsworthy indeed. I feel sure the BBC would run it if it were confirmed.

I've never heard of RT News - had to look the m up. Seems v.obscure. Al Jazeera is another story, though. Can you forward a reference to their reportage of this?

P.S. A web search on this subject reveals the attached, which seems to have the ring of truth to me: http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/...l-no-wmd-iraq/

Originally Posted by pineapple007

BUSH EXONERATED: ISIS UNCOVERS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ

I'm sure they've been sitting there for 15 years now too.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

That was almost like reading the front page of The Onion, but not nearly as funny.
So Bush was so incompetent that he was unable to find a single solid WMD in Iraq but suddenly a bunch of raggedy-ass muslim militiamen are finding them wherever they look?
Really?

Completely

Originally Posted by pineapple007

Maybe if you consider that some of these "raggady ass militiamen " may have been involved with hiding the wmd's it isn't to far fetched.

No.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by pineapple007

Maybe if you consider that some of these "raggady ass militiamen " may have been involved with hiding the wmd's it isn't to far fetched.

No.

"No" to what?

Originally Posted by dan hunter

But don't you think Hillary will be a bit too old?

Seriously? Have you seen what the GOP constantly runs? I'm shocked Mitt Romney got the nod he's got to be 30 40 years younger than what's traditionally ran. how old was Reagan? Bush I? Dole? McCain? There's nothing wrong with Hillary's age

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by pineapple007

Maybe if you consider that some of these "raggady ass militiamen " may have been involved with hiding the wmd's it isn't to far fetched.

No.

"No" to what?

"No" it is far fetched

Originally Posted by SowZ37

There could be a dozen twenty mega-ton nuclear warheads buried under Bagdhad, but that wouldn't change that the invasion was based on fabricated data. If the administration had made up reports of nukes, then found them by luck, that wouldn't change how corrupt it was.

Completely

GW Bush was a stupid puppet president, animated by Dick Cheney's arm up his a$$. The only cabinet member of his I used to respect was Colin Powell . . . now I'm not sure that the con job that was Powell's UN speech was done knowingly or duped by GW and company. That whole WMD scam was deplorable -- another shame on the US. Despicable business, the entire Iraq War. A crime, really.

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

GW Bush was a stupid puppet president, animated by Dick Cheney's arm up his a$$. The only cabinet member of his I used to respect was Colin Powell . . . now I'm not sure that the con job that was Powell's UN speech was done knowingly or duped by GW and company. That whole WMD scam was deplorable -- another shame on the US. Despicable business, the entire Iraq War. A crime, really.

….Aided by our own silly PM at the time. And now the world is stuck with the entirely predictable consequences.

The only good thing that may possibly come out of it all is for Iran and the US to realise they both have a common interest in calming it all down. The Saudis bear a lot of blame for using their petrodollars to export their ghastly Wahabi fundamentalist brand of Islam around the world. It's about time we put some serious pressure on them to stop this.

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

GW Bush was a stupid puppet president, animated by Dick Cheney's arm up his a$$. The only cabinet member of his I used to respect was Colin Powell . . . now I'm not sure that the con job that was Powell's UN speech was done knowingly or duped by GW and company. That whole WMD scam was deplorable -- another shame on the US. Despicable business, the entire Iraq War. A crime, really.

Like

Gee wiz grmpy, your thoughts on this subject are somewhat nebuious.

It could be said that the news of the wmd's found by ISIS that actually exonerates GW doesn't really mater. The same could be said about the republicans and democrats regarding the middle east. Who ever is running the USA since Nixon has always had the same petrodollar agenda. When an opec country sells oil for other than the USD they end up sanctioned or liberated.

Originally Posted by pineapple007

Gee wiz grmpy, your thoughts on this subject are somewhat nebuious.

It could be said that the news of the wmd's found by ISIS that actually exonerates GW doesn't really mater. The same could be said about the republicans and democrats regarding the middle east. Who ever is running the USA since Nixon has always had the same petrodollar agenda. When an opec country sells oil for other than the USD they end up sanctioned or liberated.

GW had an Israeli agenda, though he was probably too dim to realise it. The whole thing was cooked up by a bunch of pro-Israel neocons, hoping to get rid of an Arab strongman in a neighbouring country to Israel. Of course it has backfired spectacularly, as so many always said it would. Cretinous.

Would that agenda possibly the right to exist ?

Originally Posted by exchemist

GW had an Israeli agenda, though he was probably too dim to realise it. The whole thing was cooked up by a bunch of pro-Israel neocons, hoping to get rid of an Arab strongman in a neighbouring country to Israel. Of course it has backfired spectacularly, as so many always said it would. Cretinous.

A bit more complicated than that, though it was grimly funny when GWB championed the Crusades during the Iraqi invasion prelude:

https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=ge...UTF-8&fr=moz35

"This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while." It was politely pointed out by associates that all Muslims, moderate or otherwise, do not like the word crusades. They suffered greatly and on that one the Jews of Acre/Jerusalem/other were along side Islam in opposition (there was much more to fear from Christians then than from Muslims).

There was more to the war than met the eye and it is hard to say what the Middle East would look like with out the intervention. That being said, it almost had to end about like you say with the people running it.

Jeb is nothing like his gormless brother

Come on, W had a gorm here and there. He even liked to read, though not as much as his librarian wife (and at least one author has it only likes to read biographies, so to find out how others became great and powerful). I was considerably more impressed by him speaking (2009) than the elder Bush (1987; 2008). Why did I go? He was in town and so was I. Perry was there too. The newspapers trashed him on that talk, and easily halved the crowd numbers, from counting the square feet and multiplying by the packed group. Snipers where in the rooftops, monitoring everyone.

I was prepared not to enjoy the speech, but came away rather more than a little bit favorable. Wonder who wrote it for him, as almost all modern presidents rarely write a complete speech nowadays.

Originally Posted by jjmckane

Wonder who wrote it for him, as almost all modern presidents rarely write a complete speech nowadays.

He had a team of speechwriters. I think in 2009 his chief of the speechwriter team was William McGurn, but it might have been Marc Thiessen by then.

Originally Posted by jjmckane

W... even liked to read...

W can't read. Which is why he never used a teleprompter and why his wife's campaign was on literacy... and why Rove and he made such pretentious stink in the news about "who can read more books in a month"
The man is a spoiled child from start to finish. he is ILLITERATE! but worse than that he's a fucking moron!

Originally Posted by jjmckane

Originally Posted by exchemist

GW had an Israeli agenda, though he was probably too dim to realise it. The whole thing was cooked up by a bunch of pro-Israel neocons, hoping to get rid of an Arab strongman in a neighbouring country to Israel. Of course it has backfired spectacularly, as so many always said it would. Cretinous.

A bit more complicated than that, though it was grimly funny when GWB championed the Crusades during the Iraqi invasion prelude:

https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=ge...UTF-8&fr=moz35

"This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while." It was politely pointed out by associates that all Muslims, moderate or otherwise, do not like the word crusades. They suffered greatly and on that one the Jews of Acre/Jerusalem/other were along side Islam in opposition (there was much more to fear from Christians then than from Muslims).

There was more to the war than met the eye and it is hard to say what the Middle East would look like with out the intervention. That being said, it almost had to end about like you say with the people running it.

Jeb is nothing like his gormless brother

Come on, W had a gorm here and there. He even liked to read, though not as much as his librarian wife (and at least one author has it only likes to read biographies, so to find out how others became great and powerful). I was considerably more impressed by him speaking (2009) than the elder Bush (1987; 2008). Why did I go? He was in town and so was I. Perry was there too. The newspapers trashed him on that talk, and easily halved the crowd numbers, from counting the square feet and multiplying by the packed group. Snipers where in the rooftops, monitoring everyone.

I was prepared not to enjoy the speech, but came away rather more than a little bit favorable. Wonder who wrote it for him, as almost all modern presidents rarely write a complete speech nowadays.

Well I assume he couldn't have got to uni without a few brain cells and I'm sure he has personal charm. But several commentators spoke of Dubbya's lack of intellectual curiosity. Neither he nor Tony Blair seemed to bother to learn anything about the history of the area. (Blair did not even know that the reason the Iranians distrust the Brits is due to our role in bringing down the democratic government of Mossadeq and installing that Pahlavi Shah, in the 50s!)

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by pineapple007

BUSH EXONERATED: ISIS UNCOVERS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ

I'm sure they've been sitting there for 15 years now too.

Just discovered that RT News, who Pineapple was quoting, is Russia Today News. As a puppet of Putin's machine, RT will side with Assad in Syria, so one can expect they will big up any story that makes ISIS look more fearsome.

he is ILLITERATE! but worse than that he's a fucking moron!

Against my better judgement to say so, F---ing Moron bit, well, Bush is a public figure so completely fair game, but the poster has a habit of it. Did a quick word search and at this site he says moron in 11 different threads over the last year or two. Taking three of these, plus the above one and another several weeks ago against me, he does call other posters a moron about half the time with little or no cause (opposed to calling an outside person or at least once calling himself a moron about the subject of Astronomy). It seems an interesting explosive character issue, just an oh btw to put into perspective. Time to lay off the "f---ing moron" part though. There are probably ladies and another sensitive folk about who become upset and are driven away by the double offensive. Besides, it is really only a reflection of yourself:





http://www.thescienceforum.com/politics/43482-marxism-way-back.html#post572998

Others, like Biden or Pelosi have had much worse, though not as nearly numerically as many. W seems to garble extensively, whereas these democrats seem clearly unsuitable for democracy in unguarded moments -- Obama is usually more careful to not say much of substance to be used against himself. Compare the first three and decide yourself:

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/12/27/top-10-most-outrageous-quotes-from-nancy-pelosi/

Bidenisms - Joe Biden Gaffes and Biden Quotes

Bushisms - Funny George Bush Quotes Updated Frequently

Originally Posted by exchemist

Well I assume he couldn't have got to uni without a few brain cells and I'm sure he has personal charm. But several commentators spoke of Dubbya's lack of intellectual curiosity.

I accept that. Truth is usually found sort of midpoint inside two views, not that hardly any are champions of G.W. Bush here. My observations were only in a snapshot with _once_ seeing him talk -- and sing -- for about 20 minutes at only 60 feet away January 2009 the day he left office. Really well done corny corn, even for Texas. Most presidents would be sad at the day, but got a feeling he tried _his_ best and not at all unhappy of the new gold watch retirement. I think he did a lot better than my record would be in such a position, kind of a meaningless comparison except to show it is a difficult job.

I never misunderesetimated GW. He was a clever and astute politician who used the humble bumble act to great effect ever since he discovered being a slick university grad didn't work with the voters he was going for.
He graduated from Yale in 1968 and from Harvard Business School in 1975. They are both highly respected institutions.

It is at least interesting to notice how the people who should have been criticizing his policies focussed on his supposed verbal gaffs instead of on his actions.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

I never misunderesetimated GW. He was a clever and astute politician who used the humble bumble act to great effect ever since he discovered being a slick university grad didn't work with the voters he was going for.
He graduated from Yale in 1968 and from Harvard Business School in 1975. They are both highly respected institutions.

It is at least interesting to notice how the people who should have been criticizing his policies focussed on his supposed verbal gaffs instead of on his actions.

graduating has nothing to do with being literate. He's comes from ridiculous family wealth, the type of wealth that buys whatever you want... yeah, even Yale and Harvard. He's part of elite clubs in college that could easily cheat for him. Also, I'm not going off his "verbal gaffs," I'm going on his actions. (or lack there of) the situations in which he should be reading something... the teleprompter doesn't have pictures so it's of no use to him. His wife is saddened he can't read so she pushes the importance of literacy. He can't read, so rove and he push this phony reading competition... Nobody plays "the humble bumble act" that well. He's not acting. He's a fucking moron moron moron moron moron moron moron moron moron moron...

...does that make 152, JJ? seeing as how you like to count.
nice ad hominem btw, can't counter my opinion so you come at me personally, good job, retard! very covert!(<- changed it up for you, oh no!, now you'll have to start the count all over again!!) you should be ashamed of yourself, you partisan hack.

Bonus points for anyone who can find me a video of George W Bush reading ANYTHING out loud!! (not just pretending by quietly staring at some pages in a book)
go to it JJ, you're his #1 super fan. Find it.

Well Grump, I will give you credit for clearly stating your position, even if I can't quite agree with it.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Yale in 1968 and from Harvard Business School in 1975. They are both highly respected institutions.

graduating has nothing to do with being literate. He's comes from ridiculous family wealth, the type of wealth that buys whatever you want...
...does that make 152, JJ? seeing as how you like to count.
nice ad hominem btw, can't counter my opinion so you come at me personally, good job, retard! very covert!(<- changed it up for you, oh no!, now you'll have to start the count all over again!!) you should be ashamed of yourself, you partisan hack.

Heh, heh, so I am a partisan hack, huh? From what other very prominent people have said, none of the male Bushes are geniuses. Nixon was caught on his infamous tapes saying to the effect 'nice guy, but nothing upstairs ... Now Barbara, there is the brains of the operation.' When I heard W speak, it was his wife that really got me. She was one of the most glowing, totally supportive and beaming creatures ever seen. Really, W seems to have got very lucky. Both father and son messed around with lots of other women apparently, though quite possibly not W. after marriage. You might like the fact the distaff side were and still pretty much are Democrats, albeit Southern Blue Dog types. As W. once said, growing up Republican in West Texas was sort of thought of as weird in the 1950's. G.W. Bush as a leader of the tiny local party actually had to deal with some hecklers when Nixon came to town then.

Yes, W was likely very much a legacy student Legacy preferences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia but his grades were apparently not as bad as the media reported, mid B average. Obama's have never been released, btw, and Clinton never apparently

Bonus points for anyone who can find me a video of George W Bush reading ANYTHING out loud!! (not just pretending by quietly staring at some pages in a book)
go to it JJ, you're his #1 super fan. Find it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCBP6Rus93o seems like reading to me. From George W. Bush the painter, a holiday ornament for sale | Dallas Morning News

The former president told The Dallas Morning News in April that with his new hobby [painting professionally], he takes “great delight in busting stereotypes.” “People are surprised,” he said. “Of course, some people are surprised I can even read.”

He can read well or he memorize entire speeches, an impressive feat. Try it some day. Which is it going to be, or do you have another explanation like an implant in the ear receiving radio messages that the media apparently never caught on with?? James Randi caught Reverend Popoff doing that, to news fame in the 1980's. I was in speech and debate in high school, and it is difficult for all but a very few special people. Don't you believe yourself to be over the top and very biased? It looks very plain as a particularly glaring day on a cloudless Somali equatorial noon. By the way, I am rather neutral of Bush. According to polls, he sank as low as they go towards the end, though at least Iraq/Afghanistan/Economy were not total busts. Very much a Texan, unlike his father (lots of adopted immigrants to Texas, but you simply do not say 'I summer in Maine' as a real Texan, they say) for good and ill. He was not much a respecter of our liberties nor our pocket book. As one Australian said to me in the outback 2004, W did somethings necessary but is too agro (aggressive). Another Texan, LBJ, stumbled into Vietnam in fairly similar but worse ways, misunderstanding the bureaucratic nature of the military and pushing the nation beyond limits, for examples. As Victor Hanson Davis said, one area he was really bad at was stating that democracy was going to come to Iraqis. What should have been said was the situation would greatly improve, but not to expect anywhere near western standards. The disconnect is one thing that snapped people's patience, a typical Texan heavy handedness and frank weakness.

About the Bushes being rich, some truth to that. They are not poor, but George H. Bush wanted and did it by himself, starting as a handyman. His starter house in Odessa was without trees, very small and part of it was rented by the landlord to two women engaged as prostitutes to the oilfield -- while the Bushes had the other part. MMM. I have seen another of the tiny houses in Odessa, refurbished and nice -- until some goofball torched the museum in the middle of the night in Odessa!!, just like some one did to Pat Nixon's childhood home (mother died at 13, father at 17, she took over the family duties for the rest of the family). I have never heard of a liberal politician's museum get torched. Times like this I get exasperated to say it as such:



Anyway, I have also been to the Bush family house in Midland, along with just about every other museum in either town during my weeks long stay. Comfy, but not large. No one cared if W cut across lawns from baseball practice. Simple kitchen. This was before GW got inheritance, and would not stoop to ask for money. Sure, Yale education was paid for, but their family was Midwestern rich moved to the East Coast. One relative remembered that a rich uncle was supremely tight with giving out money and psychologically it was not worth it. And GW's mother greatly disliked Barbara.

The oilfield liked the novelty of having a Yale grad on the staff and started him out with menial chores, a la Frank Abagnale did faking a Harvard degree and a New Orleans Southern type used him as pack mule. At first for GW that is, and later upgraded to landman, which allowed him to form his own company and connecting a field. This made his own million because it turned out to be correct, though he may or may not have had some help financing that deal. Believe me, Texans would have enjoyed taking down GW several pegs if he did not do his job well.

Look, there is strength in the family. My personal thoughts is we could have done better, but certainly could have done worse. The situation just is as happened. No where was the playing grounds tilted anywhere like for the Kennedy situation, especially Teddy getting caught having a friend take a Spanish test for him, found out by a Harvard professor no less Teddy bumped into during the test, iirc. Friendly sources kept it out of the local newspapers for several weeks, by then old news. Or massive cocaine parties according to his long time aide, when running for president in 1980. Media never bats an eyelash for Democratic misdeeds like this, except Gary Hart.

Sometimes I bump into your posts and they actually make sense to me. One a while ago mentioned how liberals think people need help and conservatives believe this only makes people dependent, and the truth is likely somewhere inbetween. (Yes, if you actually do discover the psychology of whom you are dealing with.) I will leave it at that.

Originally Posted by jjmckane

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Yale in 1968 and from Harvard Business School in 1975. They are both highly respected institutions.

graduating has nothing to do with being literate. He's comes from ridiculous family wealth, the type of wealth that buys whatever you want...
...does that make 152, JJ? seeing as how you like to count.
nice ad hominem btw, can't counter my opinion so you come at me personally, good job, retard! very covert!(<- changed it up for you, oh no!, now you'll have to start the count all over again!!) you should be ashamed of yourself, you partisan hack.

Heh, heh, so I am a partisan hack, huh? From what other very prominent people have said, none of the male Bushes are geniuses. Nixon was caught on his infamous tapes saying to the effect 'nice guy, but nothing upstairs ... Now Barbara, there is the brains of the operation.' When I heard W speak, it was his wife that really got me. She was one of the most glowing, totally supportive and beaming creatures ever seen. Really, W seems to have got very lucky. Both father and son messed around with lots of other women apparently, though quite possibly not W. after marriage. You might like the fact the distaff side were and still pretty much are Democrats, albeit Southern Blue Dog types. As W. once said, growing up Republican in West Texas was sort of thought of as weird in the 1950's. G.W. Bush as a leader of the tiny local party actually had to deal with some hecklers when Nixon came to town then.

Yes, W was likely very much a legacy student Legacy preferences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia but his grades were apparently not as bad as the media reported, mid B average. Obama's have never been released, btw, and Clinton never apparently

None of this actually speaks to any of the concerns I have raised concerning W.

Originally Posted by jjmckane

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Bonus points for anyone who can find me a video of George W Bush reading ANYTHING out loud!! (not just pretending by quietly staring at some pages in a book)
go to it JJ, you're his #1 super fan. Find it.

.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCBP6Rus93o seems like reading to me.

Nice try but anybody can memorize Lincoln's famous letter to Ms. Bixby. Hell, just watch that section of Saving private Ryan a couple of times and you can even get the nuances of language down as well.

Originally Posted by jjmckane

]From George W. Bush the painter, a holiday ornament for sale | Dallas Morning News

The former president told The Dallas Morning News in April that with his new hobby [painting professionally], he takes “great delight in busting stereotypes.” “People are surprised,” he said. “Of course, some people are surprised I can even read.”

More fuel for the "see? See? See? I can read!" angle.

Originally Posted by jjmckane

He can read well or he memorize entire speeches, an impressive feat.

He read nothing, he memorized nothing. He got up there and winged it every time! Remember "He doesn't use a teleprompter. that's what makes him so great." What's he using then? No notes. So he's either winging it or he has his speech memorized. I'm going with winging it. It's not like he committed a gaff every now and again. It was constant!

Originally Posted by jjmckane

Which is it going to be, or do you have another explanation like an implant in the ear receiving radio messages that the media apparently never caught on with??

Pretty sure the media doesn't catch on to anything. pretty sure it was a blogger that pointed the pucker in W's suit in the kerry debates out and our oh so liberal media shot it down in a hurry. Odd, you wouldn't expect that from such a liberal slant... oh that's right cause it's not.

Originally Posted by jjmckane

James Randi caught Reverend Popoff doing that, to news fame in the 1980's. I was in speech and debate in high school, and it is difficult for all but a very few special people. Don't you believe yourself to be over the top and very biased? It looks very plain as a particularly glaring day on a cloudless Somali equatorial noon. By the way, I am rather neutral of Bush. According to polls, he sank as low as they go towards the end, though at least Iraq/Afghanistan/Economy were not total busts. Very much a Texan, unlike his father (lots of adopted immigrants to Texas, but you simply do not say 'I summer in Maine' as a real Texan, they say) for good and ill. He was not much a respecter of our liberties nor our pocket book. As one Australian said to me in the outback 2004, W did somethings necessary but is too agro (aggressive). Another Texan, LBJ, stumbled into Vietnam in fairly similar but worse ways, misunderstanding the bureaucratic nature of the military and pushing the nation beyond limits, for examples. As Victor Hanson Davis said, one area he was really bad at was stating that democracy was going to come to Iraqis. What should have been said was the situation would greatly improve, but not to expect anywhere near western standards. The disconnect is one thing that snapped people's patience, a typical Texan heavy handedness and frank weakness.

So?

Originally Posted by jjmckane

About the Bushes being rich, some truth to that.

THey made the bulk of their money laundering money for the Nazis. There's more than "some truth to that," concerning their wealth. Prescott bush made them their fortune and was quite well to do before that. Bush I came from a very well to do family.

Originally Posted by jjmckane

They are not poor, but George H. Bush wanted and did it by himself, starting as a handyman. His starter house in Odessa was without trees, very small and part of it was rented by the landlord to two women engaged as prostitutes to the oilfield -- while the Bushes had the other part. MMM. I have seen another of the tiny houses in Odessa, refurbished and nice -- until some goofball torched the museum in the middle of the night in Odessa!!, just like some one did to Pat Nixon's childhood home (mother died at 13, father at 17, she took over the family duties for the rest of the family). I have never heard of a liberal politician's museum get torched. Times like this I get exasperated to say it as such:

Off topic! and to suggest a "liberal" torched his house/museum is speculative at best. With how many people the bushes have screwed over to get thei fortune, how do you know it wasn't some jilted business partner. how do you know it wasn't some kid sick playing a prank, or just getting his kicks off?

Originally Posted by jjmckane

If you beleive this meme you're even more delusional than I first thought. I don't care if you agree with me or not. also, ever try to call in to an AM radio show with a dissenting opinion? how about Rush Limbaugh? how about anybody on Fox news? Yea right, you get shouted down every time. such tolerant conservatives.

Originally Posted by jjmckane

Anyway, I have also been to the Bush family house in Midland, along with just about every other museum in either town during my weeks long stay. Comfy, but not large. No one cared if W cut across lawns from baseball practice. Simple kitchen. This was before GW got inheritance, and would not stoop to ask for money. Sure, Yale education was paid for, but their family was Midwestern rich moved to the East Coast. One relative remembered that a rich uncle was supremely tight with giving out money and psychologically it was not worth it. And GW's mother greatly disliked Barbara.

The oilfield liked the novelty of having a Yale grad on the staff and started him out with menial chores, a la Frank Abagnale did faking a Harvard degree and a New Orleans Southern type used him as pack mule. At first for GW that is, and later upgraded to landman, which allowed him to form his own company and connecting a field. This made his own million because it turned out to be correct, though he may or may not have had some help financing that deal. Believe me, Texans would have enjoyed taking down GW several pegs if he did not do his job well.

Look, there is strength in the family. My personal thoughts is we could have done better, but certainly could have done worse. The situation just is as happened. No where was the playing grounds tilted anywhere like for the Kennedy situation, especially Teddy getting caught having a friend take a Spanish test for him, found out by a Harvard professor no less Teddy bumped into during the test, iirc. Friendly sources kept it out of the local newspapers for several weeks, by then old news. Or massive cocaine parties according to his long time aide, when running for president in 1980. Media never bats an eyelash for Democratic misdeeds like this, except Gary Hart.

Sometimes I bump into your posts and they actually make sense to me. One a while ago mentioned how liberals think people need help and conservatives believe this only makes people dependent, and the truth is likely somewhere inbetween. (Yes, if you actually do discover the psychology of whom you are dealing with.) I will leave it at that.

All, way off topic

[QUOTE=grmpysmrf;587363]

graduating has nothing to do with being literate. He's comes from ridiculous family wealth, the type of wealth that buys whatever you want...
...does that make 152, JJ? seeing as how you like to count.

None of this actually speaks to any of the concerns I have raised concerning W.



He read nothing, he memorized nothing. He got up there and winged it every time! Remember "He doesn't use a teleprompter. that's what makes him so great." What's he using then? No notes. So he's either winging it or he has his speech memorized. I'm going with winging it. It's not like he committed a gaff every now and again. It was constant!

THey made the bulk of their money laundering money for the Nazis. There's more than "some truth to that," concerning their wealth. Prescott bush made them their fortune and was quite well to do before that. Bush I came from a very well to do family... to suggest a "liberal" torched his house/museum is speculative at best. With how many people the bushes have screwed over to get their fortune, how do you know it wasn't some jilted business partner. how do you know it wasn't some kid sick playing a prank, or just getting his kicks off?

Uh huh. I really do not have enough time to do the subject justice, but will to a 'wing it' (as you claim Bush does on his speeches) job.

A -Arson) This is common with left wing times of surprisingly accepted and integrated 'progressives' rather close to the top, and been accepted for a long tim. Same goes with trashing a place and vandalism, especially with paint. President Ford, as a college (high school?) actually led 3 jocks to track down in the middle of one lesser socialist activist culprit circa 1932 who was painting up the campus in midnight sprees! Or, let's see, when I went to Sydney Harbor in 2004, the local liberals there were mounting a campaign to 'save the sign', a midnight huge letter paint job scrawled and still regularly repainted of GET OUT OF VIETNAM. Saw it myself, in fact. Speaking of Vietnam war, there were several thousands documented arson incidents activists liberals, like one of the most serious outrages, the burning down of the Center for Behavioral Studies at Stanford, which destroyed much unique research material -- of personal interest to you GrumpySmurf --, including the lifetime's work of the celebrated Indian anthropologist, Professor M.N. Srinivas. Then, like Mark Rudd and Obama buddy Bill Ayers melt back into society as liberal progressives after midnight molatov cocktail type backgrounds (like the 2.21.70, 4:30 a.m arson/graffiti attack of Supreme Court Justice Murtagh and family ).


Of course, you are right, it could have been anyone, although the timing (2008, the height of the low polls) and place (rather conservative Odessa, on the boundary of huge University of Texas campus) suggests otherwise. Either father/son Bush does not locally have reputation of messing over people in business, unlike quite a few people in that oil business. There is more, like my growing up with better sorts of activists, really famous ones at that, but you get the point.

I actually worked closely for weeks two people who knew GW Bush, one being a locally well know architect. Both were highly impressed, occasionally had dinner together, etc. (Midland and the other in Eastern Texas, for the Mexican American immigrant). The architect (we were talking almost always when outside of Texas, Utah I think) grew up with the same people Bush did, and the man was straight as they come. He was even more impressed by Laura, though, and I asked about the intellectual part. His reply was extensive, but mostly it was that W was athletic and take charge sort though he would and could plow through an academic issue required or useful.

My sources listed in these posts were often not academic, but instead tiny articles in the local press when temporarily residing there, often the type that are free and have classifieds in them. The bit of prostitutes residing in shared housing with the whole Bush clan circa 1950 came from that, when just starting out with very little money and lots of hard work, no trees on entire blocks on the boom town. It all paints a picture very different than the one of yours.

People were still proud that two American presidents grew up in the towns, and you do not lie or exaggerate as your readership often knew the people as kids and know the story pretty well completely. It was also fascinating to go to a free U.T. lecture and a lady speaks for an hour of working for Bush Sr in places like under hostile fire in Lebanon as presidential press secretary, & there is even a well run Presidential Library, the only one for all presidents, a literal stone's throw from the Bush house that got torched in the middle of the night, in fact!

B - Nazi Bush Wealth) I have no idea of it but would not be surprised. President Truman, investigated it as a senator during WWII, and lots of well connected people were implicated. We can discuss this in a separate thread if you wish, but briefly the Duponts and other bluebloods were ingratiated and also at times had kinship (Henry Ford) with point men. The gist was shocking, for example iirc Dupont agreed to not research Buna, the artificial rubber, if the Nazis would give the plans to make gasoline from coal (a teaser until 12.7.41, when the issue became moot. We got it in .45).

Looking up wealth of presidents on the net, preliminary, it become interesting:
"George Washington was worth over half a billion in today’s dollars." " The rise of inherited wealth in the early 20th Century contributed to the fortunes of many presidents, including Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and both of the Bushes." "Clinton -- 55 million" "Bush Sr. 23 million ""Bush Jr. 35 million" "Obama 7 million" "Ronald Reagan 13 million" "Lyndon Johnson 68 million" "FDR 60 million" "Herbert Hoover 75 million" " Teddy Roosevelt 125 million" "Grover Cleveland 25 million" "Thomas Jefferson (peaked at) 212 million " "James Madison 101 million" "James Monroe 27 million"

If these figures are correct, it is safe to say that Bushes had less a need to resort to the type of unethical wealth accumulation and have not made all that much beyond their trust funds. At most likely it would likely be one of the Bush/Prescott/Walker clan getting too close to some ingratiating agents, as was normally the case elsewhere in the 1930's. Most modern presidents make money hands over fist by speaking fees, post office. An article mentions Bush Family has 68 million, which might be lowball. Forbes magazine, which I subscribe, states the Kennedy Family has 1 billion, and barely makes it into the top 400 groups of family wealth in the USA.

>> off topic

I will let the other readers be the judge of that. As an amateur, unfortunately some unusual examples have to be brought into play to adequately express my views. Admittedly, many will not want to spend the time to read nor digest the same.

Originally Posted by jjmckane

....
>> off topic
...

None of which has anything to do with WMD or whether Bush knew he was telling a lie when he said they existed.

bulldozers that bull dozed marsh arabs was mass destruction

Originally Posted by SHolmes

bulldozers that bull dozed marsh arabs was mass destruction

Well then someone better call the National Guard, because I just saw some weapons of mass destruction digging up a sewer line on a street down the road!

Originally Posted by dan hunter

WMD or whether Bush knew he was telling a lie when he said they existed.

As I recall, the key thing was not allowing verification, part of pride and the other due to the sense of power defying the US (as is so common in the Middle East and other third world).

For example, this woman, a mistress of some clout mentioned (in the news, not in this specific interview) about WMD and Saddam Hussien, who is said to be smile and state that they will never find any WMD because there are none to be found, insofar as he enjoyed the cat an mouse game as a matter of pride.

IRAQ: Saddam Hussein's alleged mistress tells all in new book | Babylon & Beyond | Los Angeles Times

If so, then it is very possible to have over active intelligence groups provide convincing evidence. Talking to French or Germans expats around 2002, the idea is they saw through it, although the economic deals both countries are said to have made previously may involve some selective media sources. In the US press it was rather knee jerk, though I personally was out of the country then.

Certainly it was not a class job, nor does it absolve Bush. It is very possible Bush did push the envelope in places, make it happen with a convincing story of exaggerated details. If there is a smoking gun, let's hear of it on this thread. There is not a Gulf of Tonkin level type of incident AFIAK.

Originally Posted by jjmckane

....
If so, then it is very possible to have over active intelligence groups provide convincing evidence. Talking to French or Germans expats around 2002, the idea is they saw through it, although the economic deals both countries are said to have made previously may involve some selective media sources. In the US press it was rather knee jerk, though I personally was out of the country then.

Certainly it was not a class job, nor does it absolve Bush. It is very possible Bush did push the envelope in places, make it happen with a convincing story of exaggerated details. If there is a smoking gun, let's hear of it on this thread. There is not a Gulf of Tonkin level type of incident AFIAK.

Conspiracy theories are way too tempting when confronted with the sheer volume of misinformation produced by our governments.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Originally Posted by jjmckane

....
If so, then it is very possible to have over active intelligence groups provide convincing evidence. Talking to French or Germans expats around 2002, the idea is they saw through it, although the economic deals both countries are said to have made previously may involve some selective media sources. In the US press it was rather knee jerk, though I personally was out of the country then.

Certainly it was not a class job, nor does it absolve Bush. It is very possible Bush did push the envelope in places, make it happen with a convincing story of exaggerated details. If there is a smoking gun, let's hear of it on this thread. There is not a Gulf of Tonkin level type of incident AFIAK.

Conspiracy theories are way too tempting when confronted with the sheer volume of misinformation produced by our governments.

There's plenty of conspiracy theories that I'm in the, "Don't believe it, not enough compelling evidence," category, yet I wouldn't be surprised if they were true, regardless.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Conspiracy theories are way too tempting when confronted with the sheer volume of misinformation produced by our governments.

Let's get this straight. The sheer volume of misinformation by governments, isn't that considered a conspiracy theory in itself presented as a fact? Not that my view disagrees, just saying.

Out of the sake of curiosity, what specifically in my few paragraphs deserves to be shrouded wit insinuation as conspiracy theories? Claim was only of possible prima facie contracts with the Iraqi government between French and German companies, apparently heavily driven by those countries governments. It goes beyond these two European governments. Even Britain had a Minister of State (of Defense Procurement) named Jonathan Aitken, a well connected Conservative PM and Treasury Minister, sent to prison for 18 months/serving 7 regarding overstepping the line (specifically for perjury for claiming to not break the rules, involving a Saudi with weapons contracts circa 1994). Sort of describing the degree, he previously found the time to father a child with the then wife of Billionaire Saudi arms merchant Khashoggi on the side. I find arms and nuclear business issues notoriously messy in Europe; does anyone here disagree? Reputation has it several countries in Europe are extremely dynamic in selling weapons. On this note:

Wiki Iraq/France business: France

"France remained more favourably-inclined towards Baghdad than other Western countries. Economically, relations with Iraq were a costly disaster, as they were left with $4 billion in unpaid bills."


German situation is seemingly more complex. Though I have not read it, admittedly their official position might be found in a book like this:

Germany Says No: The Iraq War and the Future of German Foreign and Security Policy | Wilson Center

However, my thoughts are not to completely discount German complicity as well. Volcker's official investigation into UN activities of Kofi Annan's son did state some questionable practices involving the Iraqi food for oil program accusation scandal. Should we be surprised? I am suggesting possible relationships -- firmly based upon the unfolding of news during that time -- as possible answers, but not insisting they exist. This amounts to a big difference. I happen to dislike the common practice of merely claiming conspiracy theories as a way to end a topic, unless there is adequate proof and description of the alleged offense. As previously stated, my reason for being here is to learn, and failing that, in exasperation to teach. I further dislike merely stating my opinion or hearing others mention theirs without accompanying support during or after. It may all sound too snippy, but perhaps you misunderstand my meaning.

Your turn.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by SHolmes

bulldozers that bull dozed marsh arabs was mass destruction

Well then someone better call the National Guard, because I just saw some weapons of mass destruction digging up a sewer line on a street down the road!

very funny -but he bombed and destroyed the oldest civilization on earth-the marsh arabs

i guess arabs arent cared for in usa -but theyll send billions to israel to bomb gaza

Originally Posted by jjmckane

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Conspiracy theories are way too tempting when confronted with the sheer volume of misinformation produced by our governments.

Let's get this straight. The sheer volume of misinformation by governments, isn't that considered a conspiracy theory in itself presented as a fact? Not that my view disagrees, just saying. .... ...... Your turn.

No, misinformation is a product and like all products it can be measured. Misinformation can be deliberate or it can be accidental, but that is unimportant for what I said.
It has nothing to do with any conspiracy theory.

On the other hand the assumption that all misinformation is the product of some secret shadow government bent upon world conquest would, in my opinion, be indulging in conspiracy theories.

Edit:
I said misinformation instead of disinformation which is the term used for deliberate misinformation.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

No, misinformation is a product and like all products it can be measured. Misinformation can be deliberate or it can be accidental, but that is unimportant for what I said.
It has nothing to do with any conspiracy theory.

On the other hand the assumption that all misinformation is the product of some secret shadow government bent upon world conquest would, in my opinion, be indulging in conspiracy theories.

Edit:
I said misinformation instead of disinformation which is the term used for deliberate misinformation.

Fair enough Mr. Hunter, fair enough.

The key to a conspiracy theory is a harmful or illegal effect by secrecy. If so, the US in particular is not that secret and only in some ways harmful to the general world or the US republic. By accident I got on loan the last six weeks this summer _Men Who Stare At Goats_. I had at a glance thought it was on the US military research of invisibility (it works, but only for the peripheral vision so far) during my normal 15 audio cd library blitz. Turned out to be about the US military delving into the paranormal and strange psychological methods in Gitmo, etc. and fairly well done for a liberal and sloppy perspective. Mentioned people like Igor Smirnov (scientist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and an American scientist whose name escapes me. Went on the trail by seeing what patents disappeared (the US military has by law first dibs on all patents in America), a logical approach.

Turned out it is not that secret, and rather open. One guy said, we only use this stuff on the bad guys, and so far generally I believe it. But there clearly have been some nutty and stupid things done.

Also of note, a decade ago a fellow followed the AI patents. Almost all dried up, it was written, despite the explosion of development in the area and steady rise in patents of other types of software.

Zbigniew Brzezinski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia stated a policy of massive disinformation to overload and confuse the Soviets, and the subsequent Reagan administration greatly expanded the effort. Nothing surprising about that. Another method was to leak damaged information that had a small number of fatal or critical flaws. The time and expense to find the flaws was about the same as developing the method from scratch. Under the Soviet method, short cuts made the 5 year plan but swept the fatal flaws under the rug till too late. The space shuttle was said once such plan, and the Buran was claimed the result. 60 minutes did a similar take insofar as a weak willed US engineer with a gambling problem iirc who sold all the plans of the space shuttle circa 1985. Buran flew once or twice was it?

More of a conspiracy fact than a conspiracy theory, if it was harmful to the free world on the whole. I doubt it overall was harmful or illegal.

This plays into Bush since, like LBJ, he trusted the military too much IMO. Better a FDR who understood that 'wars are hard to win' and with the gathering of WWII storm clouds prepared for about 6 years by going around a hidebound military. Bush believed these psychological wonks and seems to have given them near carte blanche, which makes me blanch at the apparent result in Abu Ghraib.