Is Bush neuro-impaired?

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Thursday, December 16, 2004 02:09
VIEWED: 8191
PAGE 6 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Monday, October 25, 2004 11:03 PM

I skimmed the report. A large majority of Bush supporters think that Duelfer found WMD. A large majority of Bush suporters is unaware that most of the people in the world oppose US action in Iraq. A large majority of Bush suporters believe Bush supports the Kyoto Protocol and the World Criminal Court. In other words, a large majority of Bush suporters are totally clueless about the realities surrounding them

Frightening, isn't it???

GEEZER

Monday, October 25, 2004 11:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Shhh... I ALMOST hear the sound of Geezer's neurons working!

The "program" smuggling charge is- like everything else in this article- unsupported. A "program" is the a combination of components, know-how, and intention. (means, motive, opportunity).

Since UNMOVIC had control of all those components while they were in Iraq, Saddam didn't "have" WMD, he couldn't' make WMD, and he didn't have a "program" to make WMD because his conventional and dual-use items were tagged and monitored. Saddam's WMD threat to the US was zilch. Zero. Nada.

HOWEVER, once those items move out of UNMOVIC control, they might be used to activate a program elsewhere. That occurred before, during AND AFTER the US invasion, including during times when Saddam was in prison. The articles make it sound like Saddam is orchestrating a massive WMD transfer to Syria, when that is very far from the truth.

And please don't hide behind others' opinions when they're really yours.

Fine. So if the article was "far from the truth" why did Rue cite it in support of her position that it's all Bush's fault? Is she really a closet Bushie trying to slip one in on us, or did she just not read it completely before she cited it? I suspect the latter. I just wanted her to check it out and see if she really wanted to include it as a reference. I even put the little winky guy on there (the universal symbol of "not being serious").

What concerns me even more than politics right now is that fact that so many people can't take a F'ing joke. If you look back on the history of presidential elections, most every GD one has been "the end of the world as we know it" if the other side wins. The latest Smithsonian has an interesting article about the 1800 race between Jefferson and Burr. Both sides swore that if the other side won, the US was over. Didn't turn out that way. A Bush, or Kerry, victory in November(or December, or whenever the lawyers get through with it) will change a few things for a short period of time, but the nation will continue to muddle through. Things will slowly, with fits and starts, continue to get better. The religious right will get so extreme that they'll marginalize themselves. Business will get so egregiously stupid that the government will be forced to crack down on them (The evil IRS is already bopping companies for phony losses, and it'll only get worse). Utopia will never get here, but it'll get better. My boss is a black woman, her boss is a white man, his boss is a way-out-of-the-closet lesbian. Could that have happened fifty years ago? Thirty? Sorry, but I've seen enough positive change in my 55+ years that I can't be all doom-and-gloom. I think that it's the great mass of people, the ones you like to look down on as foolish and uneducated, who will, at their own pace, slowly but surely, move us towards the place you'd like to be. I don't think that you can rush it too much. It moves slowly, glacially, but is as irresistable as a glacier. I have no faith in god, but I believe this.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 12:26 AM

Yeah, Al Frankin , 'scientific poll', right. Dollars to donuts it was just some ridiculous, lame and unfunny comedy bit that Al tried to pull over on his unsuspecting few listeners. ( I've heard the show, don't lecture me about his nonsense )

What is ridiculous is that the information IS out there. It's not like the U.N. was bored and had nothing what so ever to do, and just decided on a whim to impose sanctions on Iraq for no gorram reason what so ever, for 12 YEARS, and repeatedly sent Inspectors in there...." just because" .

The denial of the Left on this is much like I've noticed w/ those who deny the Holocaust, or try to promote 'Creation Science' as a real scientific alternative to Evolution. Never mind the mountains of evidence, they continue to believe what they want to believe. Only in THIS case, we're not dealing w/ interpreting fossils from 100 - 200 million yrs ago, no. What we're dealing with HERE is the most recent history, as recent as 10, 5, 2, heck... as recent as TODAY.

Once folks begin place politics ahead of reason, to sqwabble over the most basic and undeniable facts, the whole point of discussion breaks down.

I know of what I speak. I've held a fossilized tooth of a T.Rex in my hand,and then had to sit through some whacko Creationist tell me that it was nothing but a 'dog bone' or better yet, a funny shaped rock. The come up with all manner of excuses, what ever it takes for them to keep from admitting that, yes....it is what it appears to be. And that singular truth, that over powering bit of reality to them is just too much for them to handle.

Oh well.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 12:28 AM

Yeah, Al Frankin , 'scientific poll', right. Dollars to donuts it was just some ridiculous, lame and unfunny comedy bit that Al tried to pull over on his unsuspecting few listeners. ( I've heard the show, don't lecture me about his nonsense )

What is ridiculous is that the information IS out there. It's not like the U.N. was bored and had nothing what so ever to do, and just decided on a whim to impose sanctions on Iraq for no gorram reason what so ever, for 12 YEARS, and repeatedly sent Inspectors in there...." just because" .

The denial of the Left on this is much like I've noticed w/ those who deny the Holocaust, or try to promote 'Creation Science' as a real scientific alternative to Evolution. Never mind the mountains of evidence, they continue to believe what they want to believe. Only in THIS case, we're not dealing w/ interpreting fossils from 100 - 200 million yrs ago, no. What we're dealing with HERE is the most recent history, as recent as 10, 5, 2, heck... as recent as TODAY.

Once folks begin place politics ahead of reason, to sqwabble over the most basic and undeniable facts, the whole point of discussion breaks down.

I know of what I speak. I've held a fossilized tooth of a T.Rex in my hand,and then had to sit through some whacko Creationist tell me that it was nothing but a 'dog bone' or better yet, a funny shaped rock. The come up with all manner of excuses, what ever it takes for them to keep from admitting that, yes....it is what it appears to be. And that singular truth, that over powering bit of reality to them is just too much for them to handle.

Oh well.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NEUTRINOLAD

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 2:38 AM

Quote:
What I 'make' of that is perhaps a thinly veiled slap at Bush...

Oh, well, huh.
That's what I get for making an open-ended comment.

Sorry for being off topic. Please go back to citing your favorite wacky news sources

SIGNYM

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 3:10 AM

Auraptor- Well, at least we agree on evolution!

When you cite "mountains of evidence" please be more specific what the evidence points to.

DID Saddam have WMD? Of course he did. We sent him a lot of the material to make them!

Did he use them? OF COURSE he did. We even covered up for him!

Was he a nasty guy? Sure thing! I could tell you a couple of stories that sound like something even old Joe Stalin wouldn't have thought of... terrifying, horrific, evil ways to get a stranglehold on an entire nation.

Did he want WMD? Yeah, most likely. Although "intent" is a little hard to judge.

Did he weasel out of "proving" that he had no WMD? Well, he tried, although UNMOVIC had it pretty well figured out anyway. Did he try to evade US sanctions? Of course!

But did he HAVE WMD or an active program to produce them?? NO, HE DID NOT. You can point to "mountains" of evidence but NONE of it points to Saddam "having" WMD.

And that WAS the whole point of the invasion, was it not? That Saddam warranted a "pre-emptive invasion" because he represented an "imminent" threat.

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 6:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323

UN Confirms: WMDs Smuggled Out of Iraq
--------------------------------------------
© June 18, 2004, Rod D. Martin

This is a while ago. Why would this information be relevant now that the facts have been proven?

Quote:
Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC)

Why should anyone take this UNMOVIC seriously?

And, gotta say, it's HI-larious you anti-UN guys pull this out as a defence to the WMD+Saddam arguement. An arguement that is already won.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 7:01 PM

Quote:
But did he HAVE WMD or an active program to produce them?? NO, HE DID NOT. You can point to "mountains" of evidence but NONE of it points to Saddam "having" WMD.

How do you go from admitting that Saddam had, used and WISHED to use WMD, but because he sucrried them out of Iraq on the eve of being invaded, he was 'safe'. I'll grant you that he might not HAVE them 'now', but the point was that we KNEW he had them, we knew some of what he had, and when we asked him to show proof of their destruction or of their existance and to hand what he DID have over to the U.N., Saddam balked. We dared him, double dared him..hell, we triple dog dared him to come clean, and he STILL didn't!

Sorry, but in my book , that's GAME OVER.

In evolution, you're either the bug or the windshield. Be the windshield.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

GEEZER

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 7:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323

UN Confirms: WMDs Smuggled Out of Iraq
--------------------------------------------
© June 18, 2004, Rod D. Martin

This is a while ago. Why would this information be relevant now that the facts have been proven?

Quote:
Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC)

Why should anyone take this UNMOVIC seriously?

And, gotta say, it's HI-larious you anti-UN guys pull this out as a defence to the WMD+Saddam arguement. An arguement that is already won.

Actually, it was Rue who originally used this as a cite. I was just wondering why, and then SignyM went off on me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 7:28 PM

^^^ That's funny, his post is this one (I snipped off the end) ...

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Well, AURaptor, as usual, you only got part of the story. What I like when people provide links is matching up what they said was in the link with what was really there.
So, a google search on: "demetrius perricos" un "security council" provided me with many, many news items. (Edited to add: Demetrius Perricos took over from Hans Blix.)
The first listing, oddly enough, addressed the second issue you failed to respond to at all, the issue of whether or not force was necessary, since UN inspectors were in Iraq verifying compliance.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/UN%20Security%20Council%20Re
solution%201441
It gives a good timeline of the events leading to the atack on Iraq. In part it says that because France had already stated they would veto ANY resolution which authorized immediate advance to war absent a second resolution, the US had to pull their request for an authorization. Instead, the US did this: SNIP!!!

Not this...

Quote:
Quote:

Quote: ALLEGEDLY posted by rue:
So, a google search on: "demetrius perricos" un "security council" provided me with many, many news items...
http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323

Originally posted by Geezer:
Rue, you might want to remove the Vanguard link from your list of cites, since it disagrees with just about everything you said. Or were you just checking to see if we're still awake?

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE