Topic: "No" To The Truth (Read 5118 times)

Xeno Ghost · « **on:** January 30, 2004, 04:44:58 PM »

Quote

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) said Friday "I want to know the facts" about any intelligence failures concerning Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s alleged cache of forbidden weapons but he declined to endorse calls for an independent investigation.

The issue of an independent commission has blossomed into an election-year problem for the president, with Democrats and Republicans alike supporting the idea. Former chief weapons inspector David Kay has concluded that Iraq (news - web sites) did not possess weapons of mass destruction, which Bush had cited as a rationale for going to war against Iraq.

Bush said he wants to be able to compare the administration's prewar intelligence with what will be learned by inspectors who are now searching for weapons in Iraq. There is no deadline for those inspectors, the Iraq Survey Group, to complete their work.

Rest of the story in the link....

This is good for the Democrats.

In any case, nothing says, "I'm hiding something under my bed, don't look, Ma!" like turning down an independent investigation.

JohnnyFive · « **Reply #1 on:** January 30, 2004, 06:05:39 PM »

w00t! Thanks for the link. VERY interesting

"a very legitimate question. ... There's an enormous question about the exaggeration by this administration." Do they mean downright lies? Hrmmmm...

biggyfred · « **Reply #2 on:** January 30, 2004, 06:43:09 PM »

I'd rather get the inquiry done and get detailed, thorough reports on exactly what we need to do to get this fixed than get political ammunition.

But yea, as a Dem, I'm a little irritated at the irony of this. Clinton's cock gets more investigation funding than 9/11, and it looks like the abject failure of our intelligence will get none at all. Priorities.

Assholes.

TerrorDronze · « **Reply #3 on:** January 31, 2004, 12:12:59 AM »

The country's becoming a crap-heap. we have too much money, and the idiot masses have got way too much time and way too little attention. within 10 years we'll all be living under marshal Law.

Xeno Ghost · « **Reply #4 on:** January 31, 2004, 12:19:53 AM »

We do have a lot of money, but not where it should be.

Did you know that if all the companies in the country actually payed all their taxes, no one citizen in this country would have to pay income tax?

Welcome to white collar crime. A course I'm taking in college for my major, criminology.

biggyfred · « **Reply #5 on:** January 31, 2004, 07:04:21 AM »

I'm a capitalist. There's no such thing as too much money in my world.

Taxes are one thing. Everyone can find a loophole, blahblahblah.

It's the subsidies and tax breaks that piss me the hell off. You earmark a coupla hundred million for social programs, you're a socialist. You earmark tens of billions of dollars for subsidies and tax breaks for big business that buys their way into the beltway, and somehow not only is that different, but good government.

I don't get it.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #6 on:** February 02, 2004, 10:06:13 AM »

Screw subsidies. Welfare is welfare.

LOL @ "marshal law".

Demosthenes · « **Reply #7 on:** February 02, 2004, 12:43:29 PM »

Linky

Quote

Claims that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction was the main reason cited by Bush for the war, in which more than 500 U.S. troops have died.

An Iraq Survey Group, headed until recently by Kay, has spent months looking for banned weapons. It has found evidence of some weapons-related programs but no actual weapons.

"What we don't know yet is what we thought, and what the Iraq Survey Group has found, and we want to look at that," Bush said as he met his Cabinet.

He said he was still convinced that toppling Saddam Hussein was justified.

"We do know that Saddam Hussein had the intent and the capabilities to cause great harm. We know he was a danger. and he was not only a danger to people in the free world, he was a danger to his own people. He slaughtered thousands of people, he imprisoned people," Bush said.

In other words, "Uh... okay, so we don't really know what we were looking for, and we didn't really have any idea if he had anything or not, and we haven't found anything yet, even though we've been in control of the country for several months now.... BUT HE WAS STILL A REALLY BAD GUY."

As I've said before, if THAT'S justification for invading a country, then we have quite a list that needs to be addressed.

North Korea
Cuba
Haiti
Most of Africa
Mainland China
Pakistan[/list:u]Just for starters.

And heck... we know that many of those countries have "weapons of mass destruction". Most of them have admitted as much.

WMD and headed by really bad people. According to "The Bush Doctrine" of pre-emption, we should be invading them!

Anonymous · « **Reply #8 on:** February 02, 2004, 01:17:59 PM »

Bush's reign of terror is over. His days are numbered.

Ironic isn't it?

Xeno Ghost · « **Reply #9 on:** February 02, 2004, 03:49:30 PM »

It's in the news that Bush has succumbed to the overwhelming call for an investigating committee.

An anonymous White House somebody told reporters that he will allow a panel to investigate the matter of faulty intelligence reports.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #10 on:** February 02, 2004, 03:55:03 PM »

I must have missed this post somehow, in my haste to respond to biggy and to lol at TD:

Quote from: Xeno Ghost

We do have a lot of money, but not where it should be.

Did you know that if all the companies in the country actually payed all their taxes, no one citizen in this country would have to pay income tax?

Did you know that companies don't really pay taxes even when they DO pay them? To maintain profit margins, they just jack up the prices of their goods and services to make up the difference.

YOU pay their taxes, in the form of higher prices.

If you want to "tax those evil corporations", in effect all you are really doing is just taxing John Q. Public that much more by making him pay more for the things he needs and wants.

Like housing. And clothing. And food. And a reliable vehicle so that he can go to work for one of those "evil corporations". So that he can be taxed on his income and spend it on products and have his income taxed A SECOND TIME.

All that BS you hear from Democrats wanting to "give the middle class and working families a break" is just that: BS.

Because to make up the difference in the budget, they just raise taxes on the wealthy, and on big business... who in turn just raise prices to cover cost.

So they keep making the same amount of money, you and I get a tax break, but then we turn around and spend that much more on our day to day living because everything becomes more expensive.

But that's politics for you: pander to the public to make it look like you give a shit, when in the end, all you're really doing is just screwing them.

In the two party system, the only difference is that one party is a bit more honest about who is getting screwed.

Heh... and even THAT you can't count on.

Law · « **Reply #11 on:** February 02, 2004, 07:08:13 PM »

Quote from: Xeno Ghost

It's in the news that Bush has succumbed to the overwhelming call for an investigating committee.

An anonymous White House somebody told reporters that he will allow a panel to investigate the matter of faulty intelligence reports.

Yes, and Bush is picking the members of the committee himself. I expect a thorough and forthright investigation.

Xeno Ghost · « **Reply #12 on:** February 02, 2004, 07:23:10 PM »

Is he? The article I read didn't specify, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I don't think that will satisfy the people calling for the investigation. But we shall see.

biggyfred · « **Reply #13 on:** February 04, 2004, 09:12:52 PM »

I agree in principle with you Demo, but disagree in practice. If we were to remove taxes from commercial activity, I don't think you'd see a price change at all. They would just absorb the revenue. It may work on small scale business, but I don't think we'd see a change from the big boys. Any market that is difficult to penetrate would be impervious.

If there was competition across the board, then commerce tax would be quite feasible.

For example, when I opened my business, I was immediately engaged in a turf war with 1 other shop, and within 6 months was knee deep in it with about every shop within a 15 mile radius. My profits were razor thin, I mean holy-shit-thin. If another tax would have come down the pipe, we would have had to absorb it. Now that I think about it, it would have been wonderful. With our cash reserves, we would have just absorbed it and let everyone else get hurt that much more.

Problem is the businesses in which competition is stifled. They would immediately pass the tax on with no fear of survivability.

Quote

All that BS you hear from Democrats wanting to "give the middle class and working families a break" is just that: BS.

If you've got an idea, a way to do this, I'm open to suggestions. At this point, the tiered system seems best to me. I do know that supply side just doesn't work. Even Reagan acknowledged that when he had to raise taxes. Great on paper, shit in practice.

And I don't think it's fair to say Dems would do anything like this. This budget, this war, this tax cut, this 28% rise in discretionary spending, this is NOT what Dems ever had in mind. There's some porkers in our party of course, but no Dem would touch this with a ten foot pole for fear of (correctly) being labeled a psycho socialist bent on crashing the US economy. The Republican party has consolidated their legislative and executive powers and gone absolutely batshit insane. Nothing that has come down the pipe in the last two years had anything to do with the Dems. We did control the whole shebang not long ago, and we didn't do this.

Hate on the two party system, hate on big politics, but don't hate on the Dems for the last two years. We never would have dreamed of getting this crazy with the cheese whiz.

JohnnyFive · « **Reply #14 on:** February 05, 2004, 04:55:29 AM »

Quote from: Xeno Ghost

he will allow a panel to investigate

I read that as "penile investigation" at first... And thought he had pulled a Clinton. Wishful reading, I suppose....

Xeno Ghost · « **Reply #15 on:** February 05, 2004, 09:27:38 AM »

Quote from: JohnnyFive

Quote from: Xeno Ghost

he will allow a panel to investigate

I read that as "penile investigation" at first... And thought he had pulled a Clinton. Wishful reading, I suppose....

Well, we know where your mind is at.

Left behind, back in the Clinton administration, that is.

xolik · « **Reply #16 on:** February 05, 2004, 06:31:09 PM »

Watch, right before the election we'll suddenly find all of Saddam's WMDs. Never mind that they will likely be of US manufacture. Either that or we'll wind up miraculously finding Osama. I guess I'm just a bit cynical.

Then again, if Bush is high enough in the polls before the election none of these two events will happen. I doubt anything serious is going to come from this investigation.

JohnnyFive · « **Reply #17 on:** February 06, 2004, 12:57:55 AM »

Quote from: Xeno Ghost

Quote from: JohnnyFive
Quote from: Xeno Ghost

he will allow a panel to investigate

I read that as "penile investigation" at first... And thought he had pulled a Clinton. Wishful reading, I suppose....

Well, we know where your mind is at.

Left behind, back in the Clinton administration, that is.

LOL well, i'd consider the Clinton Administration better than this one.. if not, by much.

And how are you Xeno you cute thing... Wanna come over for some.. tea? I've been thinking.....

Xeno Ghost · « **Reply #18 on:** February 06, 2004, 10:16:25 AM »

Uhhehh, no thanks....

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: "No" To The Truth (Read 5118 times)

Anonymous