President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

Palomar · 2003-06-03 08:51:32

Clark: How do you reconcile this opinion given

*A simple 4-letter word: Jobs.

Clark: that the administration has supported increases in NASA budgets, as well as a realignment of goals towards more 'enabling technologies' that will allow greater, and longer human missions in space?

*Got some solid facts to back this up? Or is it more administration lip service?

Clark: With the recent tax cuts, my wallet got a little bigger.

*Congratulations. I'm doing rather well financially myself.

Clark: Hmmm. I am so conflicted now...

*You said it, I didn't.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-06-03 09:07:30

Got some solid facts to back this up? Or is it more administration lip service?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbudget … bud33.html

Highlights of 2002 Funding Provides $14.5 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), a two-percent increase over 2001 and a seven-percent increase over 2000.
Provides increased funding for International Space Station development and operations consistent with a strategy of constraining Space Station cost growth. Growth in development and operations is largely offset through budget reductions in Space Station hardware and other Human Space Flight programs and institutional activities. NASA will be undertaking a number of management reforms to bring Space Station costs under control.
Provides a 64-percent increase over 2001 for NASA's Space Launch Initiative. This increase continues NASA's commitment to provide commercial industry the opportunity to meet NASA's future launch needs and to dramatically reduce space transportation costs and improve space transportation safety and reliability.
Funds a more robust Mars Exploration Program.

Funds a science-driven program of prioritized follow-on missions for second-generation Earth Observing System measurements that will provide a greater understanding of how the Earth and its climate are changing, an increase of five percent over 2001.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0, … 15,00.html

Dr. Louis Friedman, executive director of the Planetary Society, seemed to be holding out hope for the Pluto-Kuiper Express and the Solar Probe. "I hope we haven't lost those programs for good," Friedman said.
Even with the loss of these two programs, Weiller still believes that space science will be fine.
"The new administration has been very supportive of space science," Weiller said.

http://www.design.caltech.edu/erik/Misc/NASA_NSI.html

One reason President Bush may support the nuclear-rocket initiative is because there is significant concern that the nation is running short on scientists and engineers, analysts said. The number of students studying science and engineering has been steadily eroding while engineers and scientists who pioneered much of the world's most advanced aerospace technologies have retired, creating a gap in the nation's technological know-how and competitiveness.
Bush "may see this as a way to propel more students to go into science," McCurdy said.

http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/nasa03f.pdf

The last link is to a PDF file detailing the breakdown of funding for NASA supported or pushed by Bush.

Lip service? Please.

Palomar · 2003-06-03 09:20:08

Lip service? Please.

*The things you say to married women, Clarkie. Shame on you!

Okay, thanks for all the info. Hopefully action will follow words.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-06-03 09:48:36

You should hear what I say to married men! :laugh:

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-06-03 13:38:40

Space continues to become a more visible neccessity for our economic future. Business and Government both agree on this issue

I never said it was completely disregarded. They do certainly agree that we should have a space program, or else it wouldn't be there. However, progress and more efficient designs are continually sacrificed to provide a stable source of profits to Boeing, Lockheed and all the rest of the huge conglomerates. That is what is most important. Yes, they want us to have a space program, but they want us to have one which supports the existing corrupt status quo, with inefficiency as an offshoot.

You mean NASA's is also responsible for contributing to the US economic security and future as well as US national security? Heaven forbid

No, I mean they're responsible for propping up large corporations and hence the US economy, along with their much larger brother the DoD. As for US "national security", the best thing the US could do now if it wanted more security is slash most of its military budget.

No, they don't want a new program that they don't know

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, and that is a severe problem. If they don't want any new programs, we're nowhere. The existing ones suck. Of course the existing launch schemes are a big unknown. If that's going to be our excuse we might as well shut down the agency now and have done with it.

What other consparices do you want to peddle?

It isn't a conspiracy to say that corporations want profits.

You say government is screwing this up, yet your answer is to get government MORE involved?

Government is screwing this up in significant part because it is in the back pockets of corporations. I am saying we should cut the corporations out of the picture and bring the main institutions that NASA needs to function under the control of people whose goal it is to do science and explore space, not simply abscond with the maximum amount of cash possible for the minimum of work.

clark · 2003-06-03 13:56:59

However, progress and more efficient designs are continually sacrificed to provide a stable source of profits to Boeing, Lockheed and all the rest of the huge conglomerates.

What 'progress' and 'more effecient' designs have been sacrificed? The Rotan? What? Everything that i have seen has been theories, or works in progress- there was no guareentee that they would produce the promised results, and ultimetly, that's where your argument falls flat on it's face. All the detractors ASSUME that there has to be something better than the Shuttle. Sure, I assume as much as well, I would at least hope so. However, lets put the rhetoric aside and be frank about this, a lot of the concepts touted as replacements for the Shuttle are unworakbale for one reason or another, and it has nothing to do with some corrupt cronisim.

If these other ideas exsist, why isn't ANY OTHER NATION on earth exploring them? Why isn't private business, which is all about the profit, looking into these radical designs in order to secure market share? You tell company X that you have a new product that will make them more money, they do the math, then make the investment.

Building something capable of what the Shuttle can do is remarkably difficult. It IS rocket science. It TAKES rocket scientists lifetiems to figure out how to make some of these things possible. So of course it's so much easier to bury our head in the sand and say "CORRUPTION CORRUPTION! That's why we're not on the Moon!" Instead of saying, "hey, NOBODY has done this before. This is ALL NEW, and we are kinda making it up as we go."

As for US "national security", the best thing the US could do now if it wanted more security is slash most of its military budget.

You defy any form of reason I am aware of. :laugh:

If they don't want any new programs, we're nowhere. The existing ones suck. Of course the existing launch schemes are a big unknown. If that's going to be our excuse we might as well shut down the agency now and have done with it.

They do want new programs- it's called SLI, OSP, and whole other slew of alphabet soup. It's the countless X-whatever projects... and all of it takes times, it takes stop and go progress, it takes success as well as a few dead ends.

Government is screwing this up in significant part because it is in the back pockets of corporations. I am saying we should cut the corporations out of the picture and bring the main institutions that NASA needs to function under the control of people whose goal it is to do science and explore space, not simply abscond with the maximum amount of cash possible for the minimum of work.

Then this is matter of reforming how contracts are awarded, and how budgets are approved. It has more to do with management- not the actual agency. AND, if you pay attention, you will notice a rather large shuffling of top level management within the NASA centers.

Like I said, educate yourself. Zubrin isn't the end all be all ya know.

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-06-03 14:42:45

They do want new programs

You just said they didn't. Mabye what you're trying to say is that they do want (and get) new programs, but they don't accomplish very much. That would be agreeable to me. Of course we differ somewhat on the reasons.

All the detractors ASSUME that there has to be something better than the Shuttle

It would make more sense to just scrap the Shuttle and divert all the money to other programs. Put it into developing launch vehicles that work, or put it into unmanned exploration. It does very little that is useful and can't be done otherwise.

Building something capable of what the Shuttle can do is remarkably difficult.

It's certainly difficult, it isn't as difficult as NASA makes it out to be, however. Look at the all the things they've done when there is a minimum of overhead and the engineering teams are really allowed to flourish. We can take a lot of that out by removing the contractors from the picture and turning more of the power over to people whose goal it is to actually do science. And there is ample evidence of corruption in the administration. Zubrin comments on a lot of it. A lot of other sources do also, including scholarly studies.

You defy any form of reason I am aware of.

You can look almost anywhere that the current administration doesn't control outright (at least besides the far right) and find that the general opinion is that the Iraq invasion increased the likelihood of a terrorist attack on America. It's a sure bet, too, that 9/11 would never have happened if America was not supporting the murderous sanctions over Iraqi civilians, or if it withdrew from Saudi Arabia, and had not been funding Israeli imperialism to the tune of $3 billion per year, among numerous other monstrous policies which, on the people of Middle East, have had a toll far greater than that of 9/11 on America.

Earthfirst · 2003-06-04 11:44:04

I would like to jump into the forum to say a few things about president bush. First George W bush has been a better president than his dad was, keeping his promisses that he made when durning the election. His dad broke his promiss of not raising taxes which cost him his reeletion in 92. George w said in the election that he would give americans a tax cut, he is now on the 2nd or 3rd now. Also besides coming though with him promisses he has also done an outstanding job since 9/11/01 in fighting the war on Terror as it is called. Recently after wining the battle of Irag his polurality is higher than his father ever was and Clintons too.
What does this all mean? I think in the up coming election in 04 bush will win in a landslide, no hanging shads and such to make thing close. When you look at the situation back in 00 it was tollaly different from today's. People were asleep daydreaming about sex sandels, mtv, and games while the terrist were planing are down fall. Bush vs. Gore people thought are these the best people the partys could find? Apathy, durg, sex, mtv, why bother to vote, its not a big surprise the election was close, people ralley din't cared much who was president, just about stupid reallity tv, and friends.
But that all ended on 9/11/01. It awoke all the carzy rednecks with guns and sacred all the liberals into thinking its are fault for inventing airplanes, sky scarpers, Mc Dolands.
In the coming election the liberal Demagods have a lot of lack luster canidates that seem not to be vary different from each and use the same old tired line of Bush is dum, increase social program, increased taxs, and XX XY confused people rights, genes dont lie they should be thrown into a nut house.
The gun loving rednecks will rise up and make their Hero W will be president again, while the liberals apathy will make them stay in on election night to wacth MTV's Punk, Jack Ass, and Fear Factor. And cry a little bite and think that its the Jews fault for having buses, disco, and being alive that they get sucied bomb every week.

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-06-05 14:11:21

A landslide is certainly not out of the question, no. Which could prove extremely dangerous, because Bush's policies of unprovoked aggression, class warfare, and so on--now at levels we have not seen in America for some time--are not things which need to be pushed further. Bush may move to invade other countries, perhaps Iran, perhaps Columbia, perhaps elsewhere. As for his "outstanding job since 9/11/01 in fighting the war on Terror", even conservative think tanks are admitting that the invasion of Iraq has heightened, not decreased, the risk of terrorism. It's not unreasonable to suggest that the cycle of violence could eventually lead to domestic fascism and/or nuclear war.

Josh Cryer · 2003-06-06 03:02:01

The economy has almost always been the deciding factor in elections. I suspect that if Bush doesn't make some major changes economically speaking, the US economy isn't going to return by the time elections come back around. The unemployeed voters alone would then be enough to topple him.

clark · 2003-06-06 09:58:24

Hey Josh, what do you think would be the net effect on the US economy if a President declared an intent to send a manned mission to Mars?

Already the southland in California is gearing up for a new round of swimming pools due to the increased military budgets for missle defense and other space related services.

Imagine a succesful resolution of the Palestinan and Isreali conflict, under the direction of Bush's administration. Suddenly they're Statesmen.

Follow that home run, or even failure, with an international effort to send people to Mars. A "Coalition of the Daring" if you will. I imagine it might go a long way towards 'rebuilding' international ties and our own reputation (hey, they're not all about bombing and oil, they have that 'vision' thing again).

This also plays directly into classic American foreign policy where we use alliances and partnerships as a means to control, or pressure enemies and allies alike. (A more agressive space policy will force many other countries to follow suit, there by diverting resources from other possible military applications)

But perhaps it's just me convincing myself. ???

Palomar · 2003-06-06 10:23:25

*I have a sinking feeling Bush -will- get re-elected. The economy may indeed turn around (perhaps even somewhat dramatically) by election time...which is 17 months from now. A lot can happen in 17 months. Also, the public generally has a notoriously short-term memory, and it seems (based on what I've been both hearing and reading) that he will win the popular vote as well because of the pervading mentality that all Democrats are somehow responsible for Clinton's sexual escapades with bimbo interns and Bush having "brought dignity back to the White House." People can be very petty and fickle...and I don't claim to understand it. Foreign policy and the economy are more important to me than who the Prez is getting it on with, but I just might be in a minority on that count.

--Cindy

sethmckiness · 2003-06-06 10:23:58

I will start this out, by saying what I am. I am a moderate to liberal Democrat. I voted for Gore, who won the majority, lost the electoral college(I am not a conspiracy theorist). And I am in the United States Air Force. Which probably boggles the hell out Earth First. I don't particularly aprove of G.W. for my own reasons. These reasons include the following points.

- His abuse and neglect of the UN.
-- While he has not regressed to a Laissez-Fair attitude, we do live in society where we depend on other country for a variety of reasons. Among the more important highlights is the money we recieve for Exports and important imports we recieve to maintain our quality of life.

- His misunderstanding of the terms Oil-Reserve.
-- It's been my opinion that the two Oil Reserves(Alaska and Texas) were for extreme emergency use only, not to keep gas prices down 5 cents a gallon. The is a National Security issue in my eyes. The reason for the reserve is if all imports are cut off and we need to have a buffer so we don't run dry of Black Gold. (I believe his Dad did the same thing)

- Cutting Taxes
-- Ok, I do like more money in my pocket. I am an E-4, which means I don't make that much money. But, one fact that will remain, this tax cut will not be that big of a cut for the people that need it most. These will be the lower class and the lower portion of the middle class. These will be the classes that are hurt when states have to cut services or raise taxes due to the lack of support from the federal government in lieu of the tax cut.

- Federal Policy
-- I personally don't mind the way he does the foreign policy in the simplest of manors, but one word. TACT!

Ok, I am done for the moment. I tried to remain somewhat benign, doubt I did it, oh well. ???

dickbill · 2003-06-06 10:58:46

- Cutting Taxes
-- Ok, I do like more money in my pocket. I am an E-4, which means I don't make that much money. But, one fact that will remain, this tax cut will not be that big of a cut for the people that need it most.

so we gonna all get back 400$ or so, depending on where we are in the tax scale ?
Personnaly, I would say keep the money and do something constructing with it. If the government has 50 billions extra cash, it's perfect for a Mars manned mission.
Versus 400$ in my pocket, that won't change my life. Plus, I don't like the idea of giving back our taxes, it looks like a trick to manipulate the opinion.

regarding Bush, I think he gonna be reelected. His government can use and manipulate all the mediatic circus for his own publicity. That's a big advantage. Also, 4 years it's too short for a government. By default, i would say all american presidents should be reelected, unless they are really very very bad.
Anyway, If Bush doesn't find any devilish dragons in the world in the next 4 years, then he has no choice to copy JFK and launch the Mars mission. What else ? he cannot say:
"Before the end of this decade, a man will walk on the ...moon"
hello ? somebody said that already...

Cobra Commander · 2003-06-06 21:09:46

You know, the upcoming election promises to be entertaining if nothing else. Fools on parade.

Now I'm not a huge fan of the Bush administration, namely due to that damned Patriot Act and his signing of McCain's Campaign finance bill (the Incumbent Protection Act)
That said, I think it's safe to say that we'll have four more years, and it's not an entirely bad thing.

Why, you ask? Look at the Democrats! They've always had some ideas that shared no relation to reality, but since Iraq they've gone completely off the deep end. I don't know what Bizzaro world these people live on, but it ain't anyplace I've ever been.

Case in point, Iraq: Lately there's been a chorus of whining that we haven't found any of the weapons we went in for (which isn't entirely true), sometimes going so far as to imply (or outright claim) that Bush lied. Enter the magical fantasy land of the left.

Let's say that Bush lied and the real reason we invaded was to avenge the assassination attempt on Bush 41 (weak) and to sieze the oil (asinine). If Bush lied, Clinton lied when he was lobbing cruise missiles into Iraq. The UN lied for twelve years. Saddam lied when he admitted he had the stuff. I suppose those Mi-24 gunships were lying when they dropped gas over Kurdish villages too, eh?
Bush is going to win in 2004, and he should. Yes, he has his faults and his policies can be a little scary at times. but look at the alternative: People who plainly say they won't pursue America's enemies without permission from the UN, who bitch and moan about alleged human rights violations at Guantanomo while they stand by as thousands are tortured, raped and murdered in Iraq. They not only did nothing, but they actively worked against efforts to end it, thus prolonging it! Doesn't anyone see this! The thought of these people getting the Presidency back is not only depressing but nauseating.

Hmm, went into another rant. Maybe I'll run for Congress in 2004 as a Democrat. Couldn't possibly say anything more idiotic or offensive then they've been saying lately.

"Every election we vote for people who promise a better future and deliver... nothing. This year, vote Cobra, and you'll never have to do it again."

Think about that.

Palomar · 2003-06-07 06:56:16

Bush is going to win in 2004, and he should.

*And he should?

That brings to mind an incident from 3 or 4 years ago. I was yapping on about something in a mailing list to an organization I belonged to. I didn't realize how often I had been using the word "should" (regarding this and that), until a guy pointed this out to me. He suggested perhaps I rethink my use of that word, of its implications, and try to suspend using "should." I thought about it...and saw his point.

"Should," in the context you're using it, implies (IMO, at any rate), a sense of entitlement; a sense of deserving; an air of assumption..."oh, well, s/he SHOULD!..."

Sorry, I quite disagree! No one "should" be in the White House, regardless.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-06-07 11:43:30

Well, though Cobra may not realize it, I do agree with him about quite a few things, and this is one of them. The Democrats are simply not a big force anymore. The only real Democrats left are those at the Congressional level, the Senatorial Democrats are no different from Republicans. Granted, one may not be able to blame them because they're the ones responsible for state budgets and so on, so they can't make political risks, but still.

Cindy, I totally agree with you there. This is why I use ?ought? often in place of ?should.? It conveys the same meaning, only lesser so.

Cobra Commander · 2003-06-07 19:39:35

"Should," in the context you're using it, implies (IMO, at any rate), a sense of entitlement; a sense of deserving; an air of assumption..."oh, well, s/he SHOULD!..."

Point taken. Scratch "should" and replace it with "is the most desireable given the available choices and the present situation" or something to that effect.

Random thought, that reminds of something at the Mars Society Conference a few years back. Midway through day one I started counting every time someone used "harsh" to describe the Martian enviroment. I think "harsh" may have been used more than "Mars", it got to be rather amusing. A Mars Society drinking game comes to mind.

Well, though Cobra may not realize it, I do agree with him about quite a few things, and this is one of them.

Of course you do! We're both reasonable, intelligent people. We've simply got different idealogic roots. That's what makes this forum so damned interesting. But when we both agree that the Democrats are a sorry bunch, that speaks very badly for them.

dickbill · 2003-06-08 09:14:01

But when we both agree that the Democrats are a sorry bunch, that speaks very badly for them.

Do not exagerate, I guess some of the democrats are capable. Gephardt or Kerry or other, when given a chance, might reveals to be good presidents, not worst than Clinton or Bush. It's not just a man, it's a team who governs.
One reproach I have against Bush is the way he choose his team and councilors. He choose an administration with one single bell tone. I'ts like a single man, no diversity, no questioning. A good president should also choose advisers with opposed opinion and listen carefully to them, he should choose radical and moderate advisers and treat them equally. Those who express doubts make no mistakes, those who claim to possess the ultimate truth make mistakes.
I want to quote the New York Times, today, on the Columbia disaster:
"One NASA engineer who has worked with the external tanks said safety warnings had been minimized within the culture of the space agency...he said that when an engineer pointed to possible flaws "you get a lot of other people coming back and saying, 'it's fine', because if you change it, it means it's wrong. And nothing can be wrong, because we're safe to fly."

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-06-08 19:54:25

Case in point, Iraq: Lately there's been a chorus of whining that we haven't found any of the weapons we went in for (which isn't entirely true), sometimes going so far as to imply (or outright claim) that Bush lied. Enter the magical fantasy land of the left.
Let's say that Bush lied and the real reason we invaded was to avenge the assassination attempt on Bush 41 (weak) and to sieze the oil (asinine). If Bush lied, Clinton lied when he was lobbing cruise missiles into Iraq. The UN lied for twelve years. Saddam lied when he admitted he had the stuff. I suppose those Mi-24 gunships were lying when they dropped gas over Kurdish villages too, eh?

Yes, it is entirely true. So far, they have found nothing. If they find anything in the future, it makes no difference, though, because Iraq was invaded illegally, and still chose not to use the weapons. If they have that kind of restraint, then it makes no difference whether they had them or not. Of course, it is true that Hussien would use them if he thought he could get away with it, but that is not the case here.

And, yes, of course Bush lied. Wolfowitz admitted in a recent interview that the reasons we went to war were "swimming in oil", or something along those lines. Anyone who does not believe that oil is a major factor in US foreign policy should read the internal record. It is very naive to trust what power says to the public (though the media does it to a massive degree, it being made up of huge corporations). And yes, Clinton lied. Where the UN lied I am not sure, mabye they did. The UN is to a large extent a tool of the powerful nations, anyway, and the US is certainly the most powerful. As I recall, the Hussien regime admitted it had weapons, but said they were all destroyed after Gulf War I. Nobody has ever found any evidence to dispute this claim, despite years of inspections and, now, an invasion.

And, finally, the gassing of the Kurds, indeed an atrocity, was done while the West was supporting Iraq with military aid, including the US, which gave it WMD as well (anthrax, biological agents, and so on). The war between Iraq and Iran was useful to our "strategic interests", meaning the expanding of US power, so we supported it, despite the thousands of people who died. The example cited obviously exemplifies our grave concern about weapons of mass destruction, perhaps only outdone by our upkeep of at least 6000 nuclear weapons.

dickbill · 2003-06-08 22:18:38

And, yes, of course Bush lied. Wolfowitz admitted in a recent interview that the reasons we went to war were "swimming in oil", or something along those lines.

I would say, most likely, they fool themself. Maybe they've used autoreferencial intelligences, maybe even relied on bristish intelligences, which themself backup their intelligences sources on american intelligence sources, and so on.
It's a very common scientific drawback to find dozens of serious research papers quoting each other. When you tried to go back to the oldest reference, basically, you find relativelly little, one or two experiments which made sense at that time because they fitted within a "story". Sometimes it looks true, it makes sense, it is what can be expected, but it's ultimately not true. Usually that happens in a team when there is no discussion or exchange, too much pressure, but mostly, and I am sure everybody can confirm that, when the boss is not receptive to its subaltern opinions or ideas.
Very often, the boss doesn't "understand" the graduate student idea for a new experiment. The boss says it doesn't make sense, there is no rational for such idea, it's not necessary, it's a waste of time and money. The truth is that the boss doesn't really listen to his or her subaltern ideas. Later on, it's not rare that the boss rediscover the student idea and trully think this is his own idea. It's true in science, true for NASA with the shuttle story, true everywhere, true in politic.
Based on very little fact you can make a big story and fool yourself. Now, the US intelligence didn't invent the WMD in Iraq, that was the UN who launched the story. So it cannot be completely vaporware. Those WMD have to be somewhere. My opinion is that they have been moved long before the war to other country like Iran Libya or Syria and that, what the US observed, was just faked trucks made in order to get the CIA attention, while Kadhaffi, or other, had free hands on the anthrax.
Of course, that doesn't change anything: the war was illegal for many reasons already discussed enough. But I am just curious to know where are these WMD. It's also good to see now in the US media a little bit of questioning, a little bit of humility in the politician language. No more evil axis, devilish indians, no more truth revealed by God. You see the doubt in their faces. Obviously, they start to think "and what if we were wrong?". It's a bit late, but better late than never.

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-06-08 23:42:10

We know Iraq had WMD more than a decade ago (we supplied some of it), but they claimed they destroyed it after Gulf War I and there is no evidence anybody has ever found which refutes this claim. Anyway numerous sources have stated that even if they didn't destroy it, the vast majority of it would have degraded by now.

As for Bush, they may "fool themselves", in the same way that Hitler "fooled himself" when he invaded Poland, but given that the "fooling" was done with a total lack of evidence (in Bush's case, evidence that Iraq had WMD and was about to attack the US, in Hitler's, that Poland was about to attack Germany) and with very clear external motives...

dickbill · 2003-06-09 06:59:03

We know Iraq had WMD more than a decade ago (we supplied some of it), but they claimed they destroyed it after Gulf War I and there is no evidence anybody has ever found which refutes this claim. Anyway numerous sources have stated that even if they didn't destroy it, the vast majority of it would have degraded by now.
As for Bush, they may "fool themselves", in the same way that Hitler "fooled himself" when he invaded Poland, but given that the "fooling" was done with a total lack of evidence (in Bush's case, evidence that Iraq had WMD and was about to attack the US, in Hitler's, that Poland was about to attack Germany) and with very clear external motives...

I completely agree and yes, I think that nerve agents or complex organic molecules are not stable for tenths of years if they are not kept in cold temperature. But bacterial spores can stay efficient for so long. You said the WMD were destroy before the war, but then how the UN inspectors never reported this elimination ? that leaves traces and the UN should have been able to find evidences of burned spores, oxydized nerve agent etc.
It continue to believe that they are somewhere but not in Iraq.
It's important to find them, otherwise we gonna switch from yellow to orange to red "tape your windows alerts" every month and it's gonna give Bush additional reasons to claim that terrorism is at our door, that more restrictions to freedom are needded, that more money for the army is needed, that the US army has to invade such or such country. Not finding the WMD could secure Bush reelection in this way ? Anyway, according to polls, I've read that the majority of american people still support Bush, no matter the WMD. So, Bush is still popular in the USA.
It's injust for Clinton, if you think about it, with all respect due to feminine readers in this forum, what the impact of a blowjob in an office ? did it kill anybody ? but still, a blowjob can make the president of United State more impopular in his country than an unjustified illegal war based on unfair (at least) intelligence with thousands of killed people as a result.

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-06-09 14:16:08

The media reported on the Clinton thing because it wasn't important. Stuff which is important, meaning crimes which actually have some bearing, are not reported because they are perpetrated on the weak, and in the eyes of the media, judging by coverage, the weak are not people.

As for the WMD, the UN inspectors may not have reported anything for numerous reasons, including that it may well all have been destroyed by the time they went in, as Hussien had claimed.

Josh Cryer · 2003-06-09 17:48:25

You said the WMD were destroy before the war, but then how the UN inspectors never reported this elimination?

Well, as they say, shit happens. A highly ironic case in point was all that biological stuff that was found in Maryland... which went unreported.

Here's a link.

I think the Mossad report was the most damning piece of evidence suggesting that Iraq had destroyed their WMDs. This was discussed by me in length before the war, with absolutely no refutal.

I'm beginning to believe that Iraq was being truthful with their claims of destroying WMDs. I don't even now think that the destruction of supposed WMDs occured before the war, because we'd have some bits of evidence of that. It's more than likely that it's been destroyed for quite awhile.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-06-03 08:51:32

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#27 2003-06-03 09:07:30

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#28 2003-06-03 09:20:08

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#29 2003-06-03 09:48:36

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#30 2003-06-03 13:38:40

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#31 2003-06-03 13:56:59

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#32 2003-06-03 14:42:45

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#33 2003-06-04 11:44:04

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#34 2003-06-05 14:11:21

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#35 2003-06-06 03:02:01

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#36 2003-06-06 09:58:24

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#37 2003-06-06 10:23:25

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#38 2003-06-06 10:23:58

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#39 2003-06-06 10:58:46

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#40 2003-06-06 21:09:46

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#41 2003-06-07 06:56:16

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#42 2003-06-07 11:43:30

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#43 2003-06-07 19:39:35

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#44 2003-06-08 09:14:01

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#45 2003-06-08 19:54:25

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#46 2003-06-08 22:18:38

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#47 2003-06-08 23:42:10

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#48 2003-06-09 06:59:03

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#49 2003-06-09 14:16:08

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#50 2003-06-09 17:48:25

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

Board footer