Of all the so called mistakes blamed on Bush: the misread intelligence reposrts pre-911 that were effectively ignored, the lack of verification of even one stated reason for imnvading Iraq - no weapons of mass destruction - Al Qeada was never a force in Iraq - Saddam, remember, was not a religious leader, which is the goal of Al Qeada. No public access to information regarding 911 which shouls bemade is available to the public or even discussed.

No one could be as bumbling an idiot as GWB appears to be, and with all the finest advisors money can buy, the mistakes could have and would have been minimized, if GWB were merely incompetent. The alternative, of course, is that he is a scheming murdering tyrant with the intention of keeping a state of war generated indefinitely by stripping the Constitution of any meaning what the use is there to have a COnstitution. Co0ngress agrees and still more than half of them claim they are "against the war".

The war is not a factual issue as demobnstrated by the rhetorical support or opposition runs very close to party lines. Republicans were not born with the geneticx disposition to supporty the current war, as Democartas were not born with the predisposition to half-heartedly oppose the war.

Again, coukld any group of persons with the education, experience, access to unlimited amounts of money and power to investigate, be so utterly stupid and incompetent?

"Treason doth not propsper. The reason is that if it did prosper, none would dare call it treason."

Geistkiesel:shrug:

I think it is a question of ideology. GWB, Rummy, Dick and the rest sincerly believe that they were (and still are) right, and that they triggerd the war on false information, lies and deciet was a justifiable means to and ends.

They will never admit that they were wrong from the outset, only that mistakes were made.

They see the world through their own lenses fully convinced that they are have the answers, say promote democracy with war with no end strategy. They did not, and will not listen to advice contrary to their world view.

Dick Cheney STILL wont say that they were wrong.

History, I think, will be the judge, and I think the sentence will be that the current administration bungled everything it touched.

I think Bush simply made one BIG BIG MISTAKE. He thought Saddam's Iraq could be beaten again as easily as after the invasion of Kuwait by the devastating superiority of US arms -- the cruise missile in particular. And of course, up to the point of declaring "mission accomplished", he was right.

But from the moment of victory, so to speak, everything has gone terribly wrong. He made the terrible mistake of thinking US forces would be welcome as liberators. He seems to have had no idea that the Iraqis might resent the demolition of power stations, bridges, and other infrastructure during the invasion. He seems to have overlooked the fact that the Iraqis might not like their country being occupied by foreign troops. He had no idea of the incompetence or corruption with which the occupation would be conducted.

The truth is that his BIG BIG MISTAKE was shared by an awful lot of other people. They were thoughtless people, but neither evil or idiots. If you look back at what countless US (and plenty of British) politicians and political commentators were saying at the time of "mission accomplished" it was pretty stupid insightless stuff. But Bush was in good company.

He's both. He's an imcompetent scheming warmonger.

He's both. He's an imcompetent scheming warmonger.
But he did have the majority of the American people behind him, didn't he?

nobody could be as bumbling as bush?
well let's go over your "facts"

Of all the so called mistakes blamed on Bush: the misread intelligence reposrts pre-911 that were effectively ignored,
how was the intelligence reports "misread"?
the lack of verification of even one stated reason for imnvading Iraq
lack of verification?
verification was received from no less than 4 nations besides the US, britain and denmark being 2 of those nations.
- no weapons of mass destruction -
yes, no weapons of mass destruction has ever been reported in the news.
Al Qeada was never a force in Iraq -
correct. this is not to say al qaeda never operated in iraq. because it has, and often. the only reason it was not a force is because saddam would execute them, their families, and anyone suspected of cooperating with them.
No public access to information regarding 911 which shouls bemade is available to the public or even discussed.
wrong on both counts.
the sources for this nations national security isn't open for debate and for point 2 this situation IS being discussed, and often.

No one could be as bumbling an idiot as GWB appears to be, . . .

except maybe people that don't get their "facts" straight.

well one thing anyone who is planning something and ignores the advice of people who have expierence in what your planning when you don't is incomptent and bush did it so there fore he is incomptent

Again, coukld any group of persons with the education, experience, access to unlimited amounts of money and power to investigate, be so utterly stupid and incompetent?
Highly unlikely. Bush will probably become the richest ex-president in history, when he's rewarded for giving away the country.

Bush may well be the last stand of the bluebloods.

In the meantime, this hilarious video came across my tag surfer (http://voenixrising.wordpress.com/2007/08/11/protectin-murika-from-zombies/trackback/). I just had to share it.

But he did have the majority of the American people behind him, didn't he?

Perhaps. but he lied to the public in securing their support.We must not form oiutr moral policy and righteous actions on publiuc polls.
If GWb was proved to have lied to the public, including you, is he still just a mixed up politician, or is he a criminal warmonger? A micked up political policy does not justify lying, nor is it a defense to criminal action.
Geistkiesel:shrug:

Highly unlikely. Bush will probably become the richest ex-president in history, when he's rewarded for giving away the country.

You get no points foe sarcasm. It riles me when people denigrate the US Goverm,emt which is the best government money can buy.

Geistkiesel:shrug:

In the meantime, this hilarious video came across my tag surfer (http://voenixrising.wordpress.com/2007/08/11/protectin-murika-from-zombies/trackback/). I just had to share it.
Great! Love to see more like that.

nobody could be as bumbling as bush?
well let's go over your "facts"


[quote=leopold]how was the intelligence reports "misread"?

I was referring to the intelligence reports withheld from public inpection recently mentioned by Al Gore. The Bush team took a 180 degree approach to asseessment of information regarding the existence or not of weapons of mass destruction. CIA analystst denied such evidence, Bush asserted the existence of such weaqpons, notwithstanding that both government ectities were looking at the dame information..

lack of verification?
verification was received from no less than 4 nations besides the US, britain and denmark being 2 of those nations.
These sources are not tjhe same as CIA analyst sources. The 'verification' submitted by Great Britian was a scam and well rehearsed by both sides. Also, foreign 'sources' are not subjkect to the same scrutiny as US sources. I for one, do not accept the assertion that US war policy should ever be carried out by information submitted by foreign siources, unless the information is verified.

yes, no weapons of mass destruction has ever been reported in the news.
SO no argumentn here. However, Iran is frequently referred to as a possible, or even likely source of arms and munitions to insurrgent groups in Iraq. But Iran has never been proved to be such a supplier. I remember clearly that Iran expressed outrage over the 911 attacks and pledged support to the US to bring the guilty party to juistice. The US rudely refused the offer of help.


correct. this is not to say al qaeda never operated in iraq. because it has, and often. the only reason it was not a force is because saddam would execute them, their families, and anyone suspected of cooperating with them.

Al Qaeda was never in Iraq as I stated -we agree. Even if some clandestined members of AQ were physically locatesd their, unverified, AQ was nevertheless, never in Iraq (for the reasons you stated).
It dawned on me that AQ must necessarily have stared from scratch in building any significant forceoperating presently. This build up has the same problems under the US occcupying force as it had under Saddam. It would have been, and still is, very difficult to assemble an effective cadre of committed foreign personnel in Iraq able to create the damage now attributed to Al Qaeda, as referred to currently -- the new, or recently constructed wing of AQ is "unverified".

Also, the entire AQ story has been largely a fabrication of US Media, using sometimes, of course, information supplied by US Government sources, but AQ has never been specifically identified. Most persons discussing AQ ramble on with a manifest self assurance that they really know what they are talking about. I mean this in the sense that when a bomb is detonated and causes damage often a responsible party is identified by an "anonomous" phone call of some "group" taking responhsibility. This is perfect example of unverified information. The resposnible party using IEDs may very well be "provocateurs" -- if authentic, or bogus, the result is the same, correct? If bogus, however, the story gets much more interesting so let me repeat the ancient saying posted in the original post of thios thread:

"Treason doth never prosper. The reason for this is that if it prospers then none would dare call it treason."

wrong on both counts.
the sources for this nations national security isn't open for debate and for point 2 this situation IS being discussed, and often.

We must never trust government offerings of secret claimss. It was claimed that the intelligence briefs that were withheld by GWB prior to 911 would not have had any effect on the 911 attacks. By refusing to divulge the nature of that information the entire world, as possible observerss and sources of cooperation was denied, identification of the perpetrators was minimized, both dometically and in foreign countries.

The majors networks do not treat the claims that 911 was even possibly a domestic black bag project. Yet the same media accepts the 'Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist' scenario word for word. Certainly you have googled on 'pentagon 911', as a starting point perhaps? I am nbot suggesting that you accpet the story aalluded to there as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, exclusivley. Buit it is easy to see that the mainstream scenario is accepted as such a truth.

There is sufficient information for a rational assumption of possible, or probable treason that to shrug this worst case scenario off without serious scrutiny would be a dangerous mistake. This is what I was trying to establish by this thread -- the arbitrary refusal to consiuder the possible involvment of domestic assistance is a revealed profile of the GWB cabal that transcend incompetence. An example here is seen in the "Bill Mayer Show" on TV. This is an undisguised "left wing" program that has refused to take seriously the claim that 32% of the public believes in some "black bag" conspiracy, yet also sees this as a distraction from the "real issues".and continues to legitimize the Bush regime with mere assertions of 'incompetence', 'bad judgement and 'mistake prone', which is just another media source that basically distracts the public from exposure to information leading to a suspicion of criminal conspiracy by many highly placed government employees.

We must all remember that our government isn't at fault for engaging in a war policy based on lies and deception, nor is our government treasonous, or evil. However, employees may very well be traitors and intending severe harm to the US and its people.This is why the essence of the War in Iraq (public policy, strategic and tacdtical missions, for example, must be divorced from political rhetoric constructed from politcal party discipline and loyalty. The issue discussed here must not be resolved through character assassination, and name calling, nor with any tone or content that is ontertious. Anyone considering this trhread as an example of "liberal" or even "neocon" biased are missing the point. We can always return to these very interesting political discussions when we can afford the privelges to do so, The danger in letting the government operate free from public influences is obvious there is no exception to what is or what should be availabe for publ;ic consumption.

We must always remember that policitical motivations and fears of elected and highly placed persons in the administration cannot, even under the most ideal of social conditions, ever provide a profile free of huge gobs of political fluff -- the issue being one of "War" means the urge to express an emotional and angry perspective, that includes attacks on those disagreed with, offers little utility to maximizing the effect of similar and vitaslly necessary future discussions.

except maybe people that don't get their "facts" straight.
You and I agreed on the basic issues and assertion of the facts as you have stated in your reply above. We are not of two minds and opinions, nor is this exchange an attempt to dominate the thread's direction with one-sided perspectives. United we stand, remember?

Geistkiesel:shrug:

quote=leopold]

He's an idiot. A fucking boob and nothing more. He's like a child- he believes what he's doing is right and good and fair, and doesn't understand that there are grey areas. He had good intentions, but he's easily manipulated by those close to him.
Calling Bush a calculating warmonger would be an insult to calculating warmongers everywhere.

His advisors, on the other hand, especially Cheney, are despicable, corrupt, and greedy. They're the ones who should really be vilified for the ill-effects of the "Bush Administration".

Incompetent warmonger/tyrant.

He's an idiot. A fucking boob and nothing more. He's like a child- he believes what he's doing is right and good and fair, and doesn't understand that there are grey areas. He had good intentions, but he's easily manipulated by those close to him.
Calling Bush a calculating warmonger would be an insult to calculating warmongers everywhere.

His advisors, on the other hand, especially Cheney, are despicable, corrupt, and greedy. They're the ones who should really be vilified for the ill-effects of the "Bush Administration".

Yep!!:bravo:

Bush is plausible deniability incarnate. He didn't know. He did what he thought was right according to what he knew. Other people controlled what he knew.