Poll: Most Americans Say Bush Not Honest

[JoeP]

Bri - Yup & proud of it.

Hey fishing & politics don't mix - don't punish me because of that - I won't hold it against you because you (& Spence) are demmm... - liberrrrrr...

Ahh I can't say those words either.

[spence]

Looking at the NBC/WSJ polling questions, there's not a lot of room for manipulation...

In the case for war, do you think the Administration gave accurate information (35%) or deliberately misled (57%).

Sounds like people are either for or against, there's only 8% who couldn't decide.

And JoeP, believing the Administration misled the country doesn't make you a liberal...it just makes you observant!

-spence

[piemma]

DON'T START! You get Spence going and this board will never be the same. We just had a 30 minute phone discussion on guns

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by spence

And JoeP, believing the Administration misled the country doesn't make you a liberal...it just makes you observant!

-spence

No Spence, generally being either against or for the war far various other reasons from the start does not make you either a liberal or a conservative - I have conservative friends who were against the war from the beginning...

BUT, leveling the specific and unfounded accusation that the Bush Administration intentionally misled our Nation into war is largely a liberal agenda which has been pushed by the liberal media and liberal figures in this country.

BIG distinction. Take some time and read about which other nations' intelligence reports mirrored ours about what Iraq had & did not have.

Don't get me started - I don't have time...

And Paul, what is his problem with guns. We all should be carrying them like they do in Texas.

[piemma]

And Paul, what is his problem with guns. We all should be carrying them like they do in Texas. [/QUOTE]

God bless you, Joe!!!

[spence]

Originally Posted by JoeP

Take some time and read about which other nations' intelligence reports mirrored ours about what Iraq had & did not have.

If you're plan is to justify the war because the French and Hillary Clinton thought Saddam was a bad guy, I'm going to fall off my chair laughing.

What other nations thought about Iraq is really moot. You might notice that while they viewed Saddam as enough of a threat to vote for Res 1441 they didn't think there was enough conclusive evidence to go to war over it. Support was so weak Bush didn't even go for a second resolution to authorize the war as he promised he would.

Sure, we all agreed Saddam was a threat to be dealt with, but justification for urgent and immediate invasion was supported by an emotional gorilla marketing pitch that the facts today are confirming was not an honest depiction of current intelligence.

If the DIA writes a report stating that they don't believe our witness to Saddam alQaida links is telling the truth, and the Administration says it is regardless...that's not being honest.

If CIA reports on Saddam's nuclear program prove inconclusive, yet it's stated as fact that it's real...that's not being honest.

The ultimate decision to portray Iraq's threat in this manner was the lone action of the Bush Administration. Dissenting opinions that didn't support the case for war were blatantly ignored. Hearsay and speculation was passed to the American people and Congress as hard FACT. They asked for the keys doing their best to not slur speech, then sped away drunk ala Cary Grant in North By Northwest.

Congress provided poor oversight in the run up to the war, but there's no reason to impede the Senate Phase 2 investigation and finish the job. If Bush and Company did the American people due diligence and presented an accurate and honest depiction...they have nothing to fear.

Unfortunately one of the War's chief architects has already been indicted 5 times for lying about it

If you don't believe the case against the Bush Administration is real, take some time and read about it

-spence

[The Dad Fisherman]

WAIT A MINUTE!!! I thought the season Premiere of "Shack-Nasty Theatre" wasn't until after Thanksgiving. I haven't even picked up the and yet...

[spence]

Dad, the Fall Run was over 3 freaking weeks ago

-spence

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by spence

If you're plan is to justify the war because the French and Hillary Clinton thought Saddam was a bad guy, I'm going to fall off my chair laughing.

What other nations thought about Iraq is really moot. You might notice that while they viewed Saddam as enough of a threat to vote for Res 1441 they didn't think there was enough conclusive evidence to go to war over it. Support was so weak Bush didn't even go for a second resolution to authorize the war as he promised he would.

Sure, we all agreed Saddam was a threat to be dealt with, but justification for urgent and immediate invasion was supported by an emotional gorilla marketing pitch that the facts today are confirming was not an honest depiction of current intelligence.

If the DIA writes a report stating that they don't believe our witness to Saddam alQaida links is telling the truth, and the Administration says it is regardless...that's not being honest.

If CIA reports on Saddam's nuclear program prove inconclusive, yet it's stated as fact that it's real...that's not being honest.

The ultimate decision to portray Iraq's threat in this manner was the lone action of the Bush Administration. Dissenting opinions that didn't support the case for war were blatantly ignored. Hearsay and speculation was passed to the American people and Congress as hard FACT. They asked for the keys doing their best to not slur speech, then sped away drunk ala Cary Grant in North By Northwest.

Congress provided poor oversight in the run up to the war, but there's no reason to impede the Senate Phase 2 investigation and finish the job. If Bush and Company did the American people due diligence and presented an accurate and honest depiction...they have nothing to fear.

Unfortunately one of the War's chief architects has already been indicted 5 times for lying about it

If you don't believe the case against the Bush Administration is real, take some time and read about it

-spence

Holy crap - you're wearing me out.

The case for war was much much more than him being a bad guy - but isn't that why we attacked Germany years ago?

You said it yourself - there was a perceived and actual threat and we acted on it.

Sorry but my feeling at that time and at the present time, as was & is many others, is that the whole 9/11 terrorist situation caused the development of another dimension in our Nation's thinking about self-preservation and defense. It enhanced the "kill or be killed" theory.

Perhaps had 9/11 and its ensuing global terrorist threat explosion not occurred I and others would have felt different.

Simply put, things changed after 20 terrorists attacked our country on behalf of a network of thousands & thousands of members of a multinational terrorist army without uniforms. What had to change was our weak defense philosophy against this army - a philosphy that came from Clinton and his inept attempts to deal with the terrorist threat in a timely manner.

This change caused us to have to deal with the Iraq threat more severely. We did and I am glad we did.


Now, understand that I really am not pleased with Mr. Bush from a conservative perspective. In my opinion he has failed and pandered on many conservative agenda issues that has really pissed me off. That's another topic.

Actually, one example is his persistent statements about how we have freed and helped the Iraqi people. That WAS NOT the reason for this war. Sorry but I reallly do not care about helping them - I care about defending our people. It is not worth losing even ONE of our boys over there just to free them. Bush's attempt to make that part of the war cause makes me sick. Stick to your guns dammit!


Finally, I won't even comment on France's war stances, I heard they just surrendered to themselves in order to stop their riots.


Spence, NO MORE - Truce, I'm tired now.

And I have to attend my local NRA meeting...

[RImike]

hey France has a plan for those fires from the looters, theyre all gonna wave their white flags and blow them out

[spence]

Originally Posted by JoeP

Holy crap - you're wearing me out.
Simply put, things changed after 20 terrorists attacked our country on behalf of a network of thousands & thousands of members of a multinational terrorist army without uniforms.

Truce? You are weak like the French...I'd wager you drive a little bitty car and eat unpasturized cheese

You're quote above says it all. The most compelling Administration charges were that Saddam was working on a nuke and he had links to al Qaida. Based upon what we know today about what the Administration knew then, there was clearly not a credible case to be made on either count. Put simply, Saddam didn't pose the urgent threat to America as advertised.

In other words, we didn't attack the "network of thousands & thousands of members of a multinational terrorist army without uniforms."

What's worse is that instead of dealing directly with the roots of Islamic Fundamentalisim that attacked US soil on 9/11, we have instead given them new purpose. Al-Zarqawi has been elevated from a 2 bit thug to the new leader of the Islamist movement, and his reach is spreading.

-spence

[piemma]

Jeff In the words of my good and respected friend Clammer

SHUT the F*&&^%$ up!

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by spence

Truce? You are weak like the French...I'd wager you drive a little bitty car and eat unpasturized cheese -spence

Spence, by the way, can't you tell from my politics that my wife and I both drive big gas-guzzling SUV's that pollute the air and that I eat raw meat from cows that were not humanely kept before slaughter...


Actually, I am in support of maintaining & bettering the environment and I eat very healthy foods.

And you spelled "unpasteurized" incorrectly (got that from Brian).