You think we've found the WMD? Please, please stop.
Don't put words in my mouth. I said I'm willing to consider the possibility. I don't consider it a very likely scenario.
Quote:
I'm pretty familiar with the topic of educational inequity. What I'm generally hearing is not that schools are so entrenched that they refuse to measure students' progress-- but that NCLB leaves the state and the local school district with essentially an unfunded mandate to do so. Again, the cost burden seems to be the main criticism.
The only people I hear complaining about an unfunded mandate are anti-Bush partisans and teacher's unions. The criticism that I as an educator have heard is that the accountablity targets (% of students that must pass the state's test) will become unreachable (100% by 2014) because there are no exceptions, even for special education students (regardless of the severity of the disability). Secondly, all the state tests vary, which is why some very mediocre districts in states like AL are doing fine, while some superb districts in suburban Phila. are in Phase I Correction right now. It boils down to the PA test being much more difficult. Finally, a lot of the criticisms I hear relate to what trumptman said, that being that many districts don't WANT to be held accountable.
y positions aren't on trial here -- it is fairly certain as well that since I have stated my positions and they ARE based upon policies by this administration, my positions have cause. And of note is that you or anybody else on these forums haven't had there positions on trial, so why start with mine?
Umm...they are on trial. You've made some statements that harshly criticize the President, but you haven't really explained them specifically. Don't get upset because I called you out on it.
Quote:
My point with money for war or money for education is simple, if the government were to invest money that is being wasted on this war for education, we may be able to rebuild a few thousand inner city schools, pay teachers a whole lot more and invest in studies that track what changes can be done to improve education rather than a lot of hot air dialogue being passed between purported experts.
What makes you think we would EVER spend that money on education? You act as if the money was all ready and set to be spent, but then...whoops! Bush the War Monger stole it and sent it to Iraq instead. I just don't see how the two equate. Besides, is Kerry saying we should increase education spending by that amount? Did Clinton increase it that much? No, and....no. So what's the advantage for Kerry on education? Why would it make you more likely to vote for him, and less likely to vote for Bush? Oh, and really: Saying that we're "wasting" the money on the war....you can't expect me to let you get away with that. That's another opinion statement that you haven't explained.
As for your theories that follow on education, well, you're simply spouting off a conspiracy theory (re: help the schools likely to succeed, screw the rest). what is the problem? Money? No, it's not. LA Unified School District spends $10,000+ per year per student, and the district is in shambles. Washington D.C spends nearly the same amount. It's not a money problem. Is it simply a standards problem?
Who was a good president? Well Kennedy, Carter ( in his way ), Hell even Nixon ( only Nixon could go to China ) in his way even though in the end he turned out to be a crook, Clinton ( although he made some mistakes he was neither incompetent or a liar about life and death ).
There have been many good presidents. All of them human and they made some mistakes. Bush however doesn't care what happens to us that's clear. He has another agenda and we're just cannon fodder.
I asked you not to pass the blame and there you go again true to form. None of the other presidents on my short list tried to blame other's for their short commings ( that's something else I don't like about Bush ). If the Pentagon or the CIA or whoever showed Bush evidence he chose to ignore the many other people who were telling him this just wasn't so ( this includes the inspectors in Iraq ).
Nope, I'm sorry but your arguments just don't deflect the blame or reflect reality.
" The weapons, honestly, could still be found. I'm even willing to consider that we HAVE found the weapons and haven't released the info to the public. "
"Clinton ( although he made some mistakes he was neither incompetent or a liar about life and death ).
Oh boy! Here we go! See everybody, it was JUST SEX! It doesn't matter if people lie about that! And what's this? CARTER was good President? Wow.
"Bush doesn't care what happens to us". This statement has no basis in fact.
As for weapons, well, perhaps you're right. Perhaps he erred. Though, I'd rather have a President that errs on the aggressive side of things. Until the public sees exaclty what Bush saw, there is no way to tell what conclusions would have been reasonable. Based on what we knew as FACT prior to the war, there was every reason to suspect Saddam had WMD.
No Kerry won't solve all of these problems in either one or two terms. No one could. It's that bad!
What he will do is not create or make these problems worse.
And quite possibly improve the situations. Bush really has fvked things up for whoever comes next.
We're stuck with many examples of Bush's legacy. Iraq being one of them. We just can't pull out right now. We made the mess and now we have a responsability to fix it.
Also I really don't give a rip what Kerry looks like or how much money he has. You're getting desperate with that one.
1. "WHAT" is bad exactly?
2. What did Bush do to cause this "badness" you speak of?
3. So, let me see, you're voting for Kerry because "he won't make problems any worse"? HAHA. That's rich, jimmac. This guy Kerry....there's SO MUCH enthusiasm for him!
4. Let me get this straight too....Iraq is a disaster? It's been a year...and you're willing to make that judgement? All of a sudden it's Vietnam to you. It's a legacy of shame! I say again: WOW.
"Clinton ( although he made some mistakes he was neither incompetent or a liar about life and death ).
Oh boy! Here we go! See everybody, it was JUST SEX! It doesn't matter if people lie about that! And what's this? CARTER was good President? Wow.
"Bush doesn't care what happens to us". This statement has no basis in fact.
As for weapons, well, perhaps you're right. Perhaps he erred. Though, I'd rather have a President that errs on the aggressive side of things. Until the public sees exaclty what Bush saw, there is no way to tell what conclusions would have been reasonable. Based on what we knew as FACT prior to the war, there was every reason to suspect Saddam had WMD.
This one is just dumb!
I'm sure if Bush has something to hide we'll never see what he saw.
Based on what was known by the inspectors ( already there ) there is no reason to suspect Saddam had WOMD. Also there is that nasty deployment thing again making it not the big threat Bush tried to paint him as.
But of course we've been all over this ground. You just have selective memory loss.
I'm sorry if you're such a puritan about sex but in my book life and death is a much more serious situation.
2. What did Bush do to cause this "badness" you speak of?
3. So, let me see, you're voting for Kerry because "he won't make problems any worse"? HAHA. That's rich, jimmac. This guy Kerry....there's SO MUCH enthusiasm for him!
4. Let me get this straight too....Iraq is a disaster? It's been a year...and you're willing to make that judgement? All of a sudden it's Vietnam to you. It's a legacy of shame! I say again: WOW.
Anyone want to take this one on?
What is bad?
I'm getting tired of repeating myself to this guy.
As for weapons, well, perhaps you're right. Perhaps he erred.
Perhaps he erred? He and his administration said "we know for a certainty" that Saddam had WoMD. At the least he erred (or "screwed up royally"), at the worst he used WoMD & 9-11/WoT paranoia (along with more bad info suggesting ties between OBL and Iraq) to justify a war he had wanted since Day 1.
And this little boo-boo of his has cost us the lives of over 750 American Soldiers, upwards of $80 BILLION with no end in sight, and oh yeah, not that they were important, but 10,000 Iraqi citizens are dead, too.
But he's a much better president than the one who lied about a blowjob....
Oh yes, SDW, you can consider the above as one of many examples (probably the single biggest one though) for items 1 & 2 of your Magic List of Questions.
Umm...they are on trial. You've made some statements that harshly criticize the President, but you haven't really explained them specifically. Don't get upset because I called you out on it.
What makes you think we would EVER spend that money on education? You act as if the money was all ready and set to be spent, but then...whoops! Bush the War Monger stole it and sent it to Iraq instead. I just don't see how the two equate. Besides, is Kerry saying we should increase education spending by that amount? Did Clinton increase it that much? No, and....no. So what's the advantage for Kerry on education? Why would it make you more likely to vote for him, and less likely to vote for Bush? Oh, and really: Saying that we're "wasting" the money on the war....you can't expect me to let you get away with that. That's another opinion statement that you haven't explained.
As for your theories that follow on education, well, you're simply spouting off a conspiracy theory (re: help the schools likely to succeed, screw the rest). what is the problem? Money? No, it's not. LA Unified School District spends $10,000+ per year per student, and the district is in shambles. Washington D.C spends nearly the same amount. It's not a money problem. Is it simply a standards problem?
No my views are not on trial. I defended my statements with reasons (perhaps not annotated but I assure you there are many many pieces of evidence that support my claims otherwise I wouldn't have them -- you will have to trust me on that). I would have like the president directed the money being used to rebuild a country we destroyed for the good of the american people directly via educational funds to not only provide a better infrastructure for our school but also, and this is where economics stops and real policy begins providing a large initiative to well educated and capable teachers which often translates to better pay but also can be done through actual programs meant to attract these sorts to education. No money isn't everything. But it certainly helps to provide the foundation upon which good can be done. There needs to be a culture shift in this country. The people who are famous are often uneducated, or if they are educated they often don't remember the experience (like our dear president -- and this is an unsupported claim, but one in which i hope everyone will find humor) and this is indicative of the general nature of respect both education and teachers receive...
You have made some claims supporting this administration, none of which have turned out to be true, care to defend your statements?
And no, I don't expect you will, and I really don't believe I will be visiting this thread again so don't bother to respond...
Edit: I lied. If you want me to fit into a simple one issue candidate mind set, my one issue that I will not ever back down from is stem cell research. Georgy Porgy has mandated a fixed number of stem cell lines and that will irrevocably impair the ability for american scientist to contribute to that field and all others related to it. On this note his reduction in the growth of the NIH budget is a horrendously stupid idea.
Edit II: I just read that Kerry has made a pledge of 30B dollars to boost teacher pay. bwah... now i really will go away...
I'm sure if Bush has something to hide we'll never see what he saw.
Based on what was known by the inspectors ( already there ) there is no reason to suspect Saddam had WOMD. Also there is that nasty deployment thing again making it not the big threat Bush tried to paint him as.
But of course we've been all over this ground. You just have selective memory loss.
I'm sorry if you're such a puritan about sex but in my book life and death is a much more serious situation.
Based on Saddam's actions, unaccounted for material and past use of weapons, there was no reason to think they weren't there.
I am not a puritan about sex. But, I fail to understand why Bush is so terrible in your book, even though you only SUSPECT he lied. Clinton admitted it, and was caught in a direct lie, one in which he looked at the camera dead on, wagged his finger, and lied. But yeah....you're right, jimmac!
No my views are not on trial. I defended my statements with reasons (perhaps not annotated but I assure you there are many many pieces of evidence that support my claims otherwise I wouldn't have them -- you will have to trust me on that). I would have like the president directed the money being used to rebuild a country we destroyed for the good of the american people directly via educational funds to not only provide a better infrastructure for our school but also, and this is where economics stops and real policy begins providing a large initiative to well educated and capable teachers which often translates to better pay but also can be done through actual programs meant to attract these sorts to education. No money isn't everything. But it certainly helps to provide the foundation upon which good can be done. There needs to be a culture shift in this country. The people who are famous are often uneducated, or if they are educated they often don't remember the experience (like our dear president -- and this is an unsupported claim, but one in which i hope everyone will find humor) and this is indicative of the general nature of respect both education and teachers receive...
You have made some claims supporting this administration, none of which have turned out to be true, care to defend your statements?
And no, I don't expect you will, and I really don't believe I will be visiting this thread again so don't bother to respond...
Edit: I lied. If you want me to fit into a simple one issue candidate mind set, my one issue that I will not ever back down from is stem cell research. Georgy Porgy has mandated a fixed number of stem cell lines and that will irrevocably impair the ability for american scientist to contribute to that field and all others related to it. On this note his reduction in the growth of the NIH budget is a horrendously stupid idea.
Edit II: I just read that Kerry has made a pledge of 30B dollars to boost teacher pay. bwah... now i really will go away...
Trust you? Oh, OK. That's not how it works, bucko. Links? Specifics?
As far as education, I see many of the same problems you do. But a culture shift? You don't really think the federal government is going to be able, or even SHOULD cause one, do you? BTW, without strong and stable national security, money for education is going to become a moot point in about two seconds. No one is going to care about the NCLBA when a dirty bomb goes off in Manhattan.
Quote:
You have made some claims supporting this administration, none of which have turned out to be true, care to defend your statements?
As for my positions, I'll be happy to elaborate if you inquire about a specific one. Right now it's sleepy time for SDW. I'll answer anything you like, though, and yes...I'll be happy to explain my support of Bush and his administration.
No reason to think that they weren't there? How about no evidence that they were? How about Saddam claiming at the risk of war that they weren't there. How about repeated failures to find them (and certain unnamed idiots repeatedly blamed the UN inspectors for that because they just couldn't fathom the possibility that they weren't there.)
There was plenty of evidence that they weren't there.
Past use of weapons? Fyck, let's bomb the Germans again. They used plenty of weapons in WWII. We don't attack countries for "past use".
There wasn't any evidence in your opinion because you refused to see it. It was right in front of your eyes. Instead of believing the UN, you believed the lies.
Why would I believe the toothless, corrupt and anti-American UN? Can you give me one reason?
There was every reason in the world to think the weapons were there. Saddam risk war? Gee...he'd never done THAT before! Iraqis not fully cooperating? The shock! Finding gas masks during the war? Hmmmm. Thousands of tons of unaccounted for materials? A incomplete final declaration presented by the Iraqis in Decmember 2002?
There's obviously one hell of a case that they aren't there NOW. But before the war? Please.
Answer my question. As far as liking us, that's not going to happen, no matter what we do.
Bad is going to an unnecessary war in a time of economic strife. Bad is to continue spending like a drunken sailor ( groverat's term ) when we can't afford it. There by prolonging a recession and raising the deficit to new record heights when not long ago it was a surplus ( and please this war didn't help the economy ). Bad is trying to put the blame on someone else when the truth of the matter is revealed.
And that's just some of it. We could talk about " manufacturing " a better hamburger or how Dubbya's on god's mission here on planet earth.
Myself and other's are really tired of the rhetoric that comes out of this administration. " Freedom Fry " anyone?
This guy is just a crazy slime.
Admit it! Your arguments stopped holding water a long time ago when they didn't find the WOMD. And SDW, there's not going to be any magical save on this one.
Bad is going to an unnecessary war in a time of economic strife. Bad is to continue spending like a drunken sailor ( groverat's term ) when we can't afford it. There by prolonging a recession and raising the deficit to new record heights when not long ago it was a surplus ( and please this war didn't help the economy ). Bad is trying to put the blame on someone else when the truth of the matter is revealed.
And that's just some of it. We could talk about " manufacturing " a better hamburger or how Dubbya's on god's mission here on planet earth.
Myself and other's are really tired of the rhetoric that comes out of this administration. " Freedom Fry " anyone?
This guy is just a crazy slime.
Admit it! Your arguments stopped holding water a long time ago when they didn't find the WOMD. And SDW, there's not going to be any magical save on this one.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
1. "Unnecessary war". Unnecessary in your opinion.
2. Spending is out of control, I agree. But, it's not all due to the war. Either way, this has been a main criticism of mine.
3. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind to suggest that ANY Bush policy "prolonged" the recession. The recession was very short and fairly shallow. It did not even compare the 1992 recession or the recession in 1979-1983. Unemployment never broke 7%. To the contrary, Bush got two major tax cuts passed (which by the way lowered my taxes dramatically, both in terms of marginal rates, and law changes that allowed greater deductions). After which, the economy began to rebound. With today's jobs numbers, are you honestly going to try and argue that Bush hurt the economy?
4. I'm sure the classification of fast food jobs as manufacturing jobs was Bush's personal decision. It couldn't have anything to do with a massive federal bureaucracy, could it? Hmmm..
5. "My arguments"? Now, hold on. What you're saying is that because we haven't found WMD, ALL of my arguments are false and disproven. Well, that's quite reasonable of you, jimmac. Speaking of "slime" (which is what I believe you just called the President of the United States), how about you throw in another slimey debate tactic, like the one you just used. Trying to disqualify someone's entire slate of positions because of one event....honestly I thought you could do better.
1. "Unnecessary war". Unnecessary in your opinion.
2. Spending is out of control, I agree. But, it's not all due to the war. Either way, this has been a main criticism of mine.
3. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind to suggest that ANY Bush policy "prolonged" the recession. The recession was very short and fairly shallow. It did not even compare the 1992 recession or the recession in 1979-1983. Unemployment never broke 7%. To the contrary, Bush got two major tax cuts passed (which by the way lowered my taxes dramatically, both in terms of marginal rates, and law changes that allowed greater deductions). After which, the economy began to rebound. With today's jobs numbers, are you honestly going to try and argue that Bush hurt the economy?
4. I'm sure the classification of fast food jobs as manufacturing jobs was Bush's personal decision. It couldn't have anything to do with a massive federal bureaucracy, could it? Hmmm..
5. "My arguments"? Now, hold on. What you're saying is that because we haven't found WMD, ALL of my arguments are false and disproven. Well, that's quite reasonable of you, jimmac. Speaking of "slime" (which is what I believe you just called the President of the United States), how about you throw in another slimey debate tactic, like the one you just used. Trying to disqualify someone's entire slate of positions because of one event....honestly I thought you could do better.
The unecessary war isn't just my opinion.
The spending on the war just isn't something you shouldn't be doing if you're trying to get out of a recession. Also read my lips ( your tactic ) As per CNN and many other news organizations " The Worst Unemployment Since WWII ".
In my own state of Oregon it was the worst since 1986 just earlier this year. Wake up!
That classification of fast food as I heard it portrayed came from Bush. As did the mission from God bit.
Your arguments concerning the WOMD are invalidated. They aren't going to find them. Face it!
And yes for these and other reasons Bush is a slime ( if the shoe fits ) and shouldn't remain in office.
The spending on the war just isn't something you shouldn't be doing if you're trying to get out of a recession. Also read my lips ( your tactic ) As per CNN and many other news organizations " The Worst Unemployment Since WWII ".
In my own state of Oregon it was the worst since 1986 just earlier this year. Wake up!
That classification of fast food as I heard it portrayed came from Bush. As did the mission from God bit.
Your arguments concerning the WOMD are invalidated. They aren't going to find them. Face it!
And yes for these and other reasons Bush is a slime ( if the shoe fits ) and shouldn't remain in office.
OUT THE DOOR 2004!
I cannot believe how you have gotten away with your ridiculous false claims. Unemployment is NOT worse than anytime since WWII. It's not even close. It's NEVER even been close. in 1991, it was over 7%. Now, it's 5.6%. 5% is considered full employment. Unemployment isn't even a PROBLEM, much less a "serious" problem.
Secondly, the recession was OVER when the war started. The economy was starting to rebound by March of 2003. And really,, jimmac: Where is the backing for the statement that war spending doesn't help the economy? You can't demonstrate this, because nearly all evidence points to the contrary.
"As I heard it portrayed", you say? Wow. That's a classic jimmacism. As I heard it portrayed. Once again, you can't show Bush was even involved in this decision remotely. Is it a stupid classification? Of course. No one is arguing that.
Will they find WMD? My guess is no. It's apparent that they either weren't there, or were moved. I do think there is a possibility that a stockpile could be found, or an eve more remote possibility that we have already found them and are not releasing the info, for whatever reason. It's not prudent to discount all these possibilities. Not finding WMD does not mean Bush lied or is incompetent. Only a blindly partisan fool would come to those conclusions.
Bush a slime? OK...go ahead, I'm listening for "the other" reasons.
The UN is only toothless because you call it so. Here is exactly what the UN said with its actions:
1. Saddam must destroy WMD or face consequences.
2. We don't have full evidence Saddam destroyed all the WMD
(SDW interjects her - NUKE EM!)
3. But there's not enough evidence to prove that Saddam is hiding anything, so we will continue to push for compliance.
(SDW and GWB ignore the UN's recommendations, call the UN "toothless" and start an unsubstantiated war)
4. The UN was right all along.
So in retrospect, toothless or not, the UN was much smarter than GWB in this example.
1. Agreed. Except it read "serious consequences". Given that we tried sanctions, threats, limited military strikes, resolutions of condemnation, etc...what else could that have meant?
2. True. Oh, but we also have evidence that the Iraqi regime was lying and hiding materials.
3. "We know Saddam is hiding something, but we, being the irrelevant, unelected and spineless bureaucracy we are, won't do anything about it"
4. The UN wasn't "right" about anything.
What you fail to point out is that this was never about the UN or United States "finding weapons". That wasn't the standard. This was about SADDAM HUSSEIN fully cooperating and disclosing his programs. Are you honestly arguing that he did that? We should have gone to war as soon as he submitted the bullshit delcaration on December 7th. Blix itself said it didn't really contain anything new. Where were Iraq's statements of willingness to fully cooperate? Why did we have NSA intercepts of Iraqi operatives talking about "hiding" things? Why did we find UNDECLARED chemical shells in "excellent" condition (which was the UN's term). I say again..these were UNDECLARED items, which was in itself a serious material breach. That's a "game over" event right there.
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
Translation: Iraq's behavior had ALREADY warranted calling off the ceasefire. My interpretation is based on this from the same document:
Quote:
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
_________ 1.______ Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq?s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
Now, let's address problems with the declaration:
Quote:
4.______ Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq?s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
(emphasis added)
Oh but wait, there's still more:
Quote:
Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials....(continued)
and
Quote:
8.______ Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;
Aside: Iraq continued to fire on and target US air patrols.
and finally:
Quote:
3.____ Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
(emphasis added)
Saddam didn't cooperate. End of story. The war was not illegal by any stretch of the imagination. Saddam violated this final resolution, and the UN refused to endorse enforcing it's own document. That, in a word, is toothless.
... remote possibility that we have already found them and are not releasing the info, for whatever reason. It's not prudent to discount all these possibilities.
You frighten me.
Can you please share just one plausible reason for the discovery of WMD to kept secret, or is this based purely on the fact that certain people *lied* before the invasion about knowing a) that there were WMD ready to be deployed and b) where they were?
Can you please share just one plausible reason for the discovery of WMD to kept secret, or is this based purely on the fact that certain people *lied* before the invasion about knowing a) that there where WMD ready to be deployed and b) were they were?
OK. That's a fair question. It is possible that the administration wants to show all its cards on one fell swoop, so that information is not leaked out day by day. Yes, this could involve politics of course. Choosing to release the information would of course have a major positive political impact for Bush. Beyond politics, it's possible that releasing such information could have effects on other operations in the WOT and national security in general. Some of these issues we, as civilians, may not even be aware of. Now don't get me wrong: I don't consider it at all "likely" that all of a sudden, "weapons will be found". I just said that I consider it a possibility.
As far as people lying: I'm sorry, but we haven't seen evidence of that. We've seen seen statements that have so far proved inaccurate. That's not the same thing. A lie is a delibrate false statement. We already know there have been serious intelligence failures. Is it not possible that the intelligence that Bush, Rumsfeld, and other top level officers in the executive branch was seriously flawed? Decision makers require information on which they base their decisions. What if the information was simply wrong? Who's at fault then?
Finally, I have to ask: Do you honestly believe that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and Bush (perhaps more importantly...Karl Rove) are so politically ignorant and inexperienced that they would knowingly make false statements about WMD? I mean...really. They HAD to know the fallout from not finding WMD would be huge. There is no way they would have said "we're sure" if they WEREN'T sure. My point is that it doesn't make sense that they would have lied. It's not even a smart lie. Whatever you think of these people, one thing you can't say is that they're stupid.
Comments
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
You think we've found the WMD? Please, please stop.
Don't put words in my mouth. I said I'm willing to consider the possibility. I don't consider it a very likely scenario.
I'm pretty familiar with the topic of educational inequity. What I'm generally hearing is not that schools are so entrenched that they refuse to measure students' progress-- but that NCLB leaves the state and the local school district with essentially an unfunded mandate to do so. Again, the cost burden seems to be the main criticism.
The only people I hear complaining about an unfunded mandate are anti-Bush partisans and teacher's unions. The criticism that I as an educator have heard is that the accountablity targets (% of students that must pass the state's test) will become unreachable (100% by 2014) because there are no exceptions, even for special education students (regardless of the severity of the disability). Secondly, all the state tests vary, which is why some very mediocre districts in states like AL are doing fine, while some superb districts in suburban Phila. are in Phase I Correction right now. It boils down to the PA test being much more difficult. Finally, a lot of the criticisms I hear relate to what trumptman said, that being that many districts don't WANT to be held accountable.
y positions aren't on trial here -- it is fairly certain as well that since I have stated my positions and they ARE based upon policies by this administration, my positions have cause. And of note is that you or anybody else on these forums haven't had there positions on trial, so why start with mine?
Umm...they are on trial. You've made some statements that harshly criticize the President, but you haven't really explained them specifically. Don't get upset because I called you out on it.
My point with money for war or money for education is simple, if the government were to invest money that is being wasted on this war for education, we may be able to rebuild a few thousand inner city schools, pay teachers a whole lot more and invest in studies that track what changes can be done to improve education rather than a lot of hot air dialogue being passed between purported experts.
What makes you think we would EVER spend that money on education? You act as if the money was all ready and set to be spent, but then...whoops! Bush the War Monger stole it and sent it to Iraq instead. I just don't see how the two equate. Besides, is Kerry saying we should increase education spending by that amount? Did Clinton increase it that much? No, and....no. So what's the advantage for Kerry on education? Why would it make you more likely to vote for him, and less likely to vote for Bush? Oh, and really: Saying that we're "wasting" the money on the war....you can't expect me to let you get away with that. That's another opinion statement that you haven't explained.
As for your theories that follow on education, well, you're simply spouting off a conspiracy theory (re: help the schools likely to succeed, screw the rest). what is the problem? Money? No, it's not. LA Unified School District spends $10,000+ per year per student, and the district is in shambles. Washington D.C spends nearly the same amount. It's not a money problem. Is it simply a standards problem?
Originally posted by jimmac
Who was a good president? Well Kennedy, Carter ( in his way ), Hell even Nixon ( only Nixon could go to China ) in his way even though in the end he turned out to be a crook, Clinton ( although he made some mistakes he was neither incompetent or a liar about life and death ).
There have been many good presidents. All of them human and they made some mistakes. Bush however doesn't care what happens to us that's clear. He has another agenda and we're just cannon fodder.
I asked you not to pass the blame and there you go again true to form. None of the other presidents on my short list tried to blame other's for their short commings ( that's something else I don't like about Bush ). If the Pentagon or the CIA or whoever showed Bush evidence he chose to ignore the many other people who were telling him this just wasn't so ( this includes the inspectors in Iraq ).
Nope, I'm sorry but your arguments just don't deflect the blame or reflect reality.
-----------------------------------------------------------
" The weapons, honestly, could still be found. I'm even willing to consider that we HAVE found the weapons and haven't released the info to the public. "
-----------------------------------------------------------
Please! You mean just in time for the election?
"Clinton ( although he made some mistakes he was neither incompetent or a liar about life and death ).
Oh boy! Here we go! See everybody, it was JUST SEX! It doesn't matter if people lie about that! And what's this? CARTER was good President? Wow.
"Bush doesn't care what happens to us". This statement has no basis in fact.
As for weapons, well, perhaps you're right. Perhaps he erred. Though, I'd rather have a President that errs on the aggressive side of things. Until the public sees exaclty what Bush saw, there is no way to tell what conclusions would have been reasonable. Based on what we knew as FACT prior to the war, there was every reason to suspect Saddam had WMD.
Originally posted by jimmac
No Kerry won't solve all of these problems in either one or two terms. No one could. It's that bad!
What he will do is not create or make these problems worse.
And quite possibly improve the situations. Bush really has fvked things up for whoever comes next.
We're stuck with many examples of Bush's legacy. Iraq being one of them. We just can't pull out right now. We made the mess and now we have a responsability to fix it.
Also I really don't give a rip what Kerry looks like or how much money he has. You're getting desperate with that one.
1. "WHAT" is bad exactly?
2. What did Bush do to cause this "badness" you speak of?
3. So, let me see, you're voting for Kerry because "he won't make problems any worse"? HAHA. That's rich, jimmac. This guy Kerry....there's SO MUCH enthusiasm for him!
4. Let me get this straight too....Iraq is a disaster? It's been a year...and you're willing to make that judgement? All of a sudden it's Vietnam to you. It's a legacy of shame! I say again: WOW.
Originally posted by SDW2001
"Clinton ( although he made some mistakes he was neither incompetent or a liar about life and death ).
Oh boy! Here we go! See everybody, it was JUST SEX! It doesn't matter if people lie about that! And what's this? CARTER was good President? Wow.
"Bush doesn't care what happens to us". This statement has no basis in fact.
As for weapons, well, perhaps you're right. Perhaps he erred. Though, I'd rather have a President that errs on the aggressive side of things. Until the public sees exaclty what Bush saw, there is no way to tell what conclusions would have been reasonable. Based on what we knew as FACT prior to the war, there was every reason to suspect Saddam had WMD.
This one is just dumb!
I'm sure if Bush has something to hide we'll never see what he saw.
Based on what was known by the inspectors ( already there ) there is no reason to suspect Saddam had WOMD. Also there is that nasty deployment thing again making it not the big threat Bush tried to paint him as.
But of course we've been all over this ground. You just have selective memory loss.
I'm sorry if you're such a puritan about sex but in my book life and death is a much more serious situation.
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. "WHAT" is bad exactly?
2. What did Bush do to cause this "badness" you speak of?
3. So, let me see, you're voting for Kerry because "he won't make problems any worse"? HAHA. That's rich, jimmac. This guy Kerry....there's SO MUCH enthusiasm for him!
4. Let me get this straight too....Iraq is a disaster? It's been a year...and you're willing to make that judgement? All of a sudden it's Vietnam to you. It's a legacy of shame! I say again: WOW.
Anyone want to take this one on?
What is bad?
I'm getting tired of repeating myself to this guy.
By the way they love us over there.....http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...age/index.html
Originally posted by SDW2001
As for weapons, well, perhaps you're right. Perhaps he erred.
Perhaps he erred? He and his administration said "we know for a certainty" that Saddam had WoMD. At the least he erred (or "screwed up royally"), at the worst he used WoMD & 9-11/WoT paranoia (along with more bad info suggesting ties between OBL and Iraq) to justify a war he had wanted since Day 1.
And this little boo-boo of his has cost us the lives of over 750 American Soldiers, upwards of $80 BILLION with no end in sight, and oh yeah, not that they were important, but 10,000 Iraqi citizens are dead, too.
But he's a much better president than the one who lied about a blowjob....
Oh yes, SDW, you can consider the above as one of many examples (probably the single biggest one though) for items 1 & 2 of your Magic List of Questions.
Originally posted by SDW2001
billybobsky:
Umm...they are on trial. You've made some statements that harshly criticize the President, but you haven't really explained them specifically. Don't get upset because I called you out on it.
What makes you think we would EVER spend that money on education? You act as if the money was all ready and set to be spent, but then...whoops! Bush the War Monger stole it and sent it to Iraq instead. I just don't see how the two equate. Besides, is Kerry saying we should increase education spending by that amount? Did Clinton increase it that much? No, and....no. So what's the advantage for Kerry on education? Why would it make you more likely to vote for him, and less likely to vote for Bush? Oh, and really: Saying that we're "wasting" the money on the war....you can't expect me to let you get away with that. That's another opinion statement that you haven't explained.
As for your theories that follow on education, well, you're simply spouting off a conspiracy theory (re: help the schools likely to succeed, screw the rest). what is the problem? Money? No, it's not. LA Unified School District spends $10,000+ per year per student, and the district is in shambles. Washington D.C spends nearly the same amount. It's not a money problem. Is it simply a standards problem?
No my views are not on trial. I defended my statements with reasons (perhaps not annotated but I assure you there are many many pieces of evidence that support my claims otherwise I wouldn't have them -- you will have to trust me on that). I would have like the president directed the money being used to rebuild a country we destroyed for the good of the american people directly via educational funds to not only provide a better infrastructure for our school but also, and this is where economics stops and real policy begins providing a large initiative to well educated and capable teachers which often translates to better pay but also can be done through actual programs meant to attract these sorts to education. No money isn't everything. But it certainly helps to provide the foundation upon which good can be done. There needs to be a culture shift in this country. The people who are famous are often uneducated, or if they are educated they often don't remember the experience (like our dear president -- and this is an unsupported claim, but one in which i hope everyone will find humor) and this is indicative of the general nature of respect both education and teachers receive...
You have made some claims supporting this administration, none of which have turned out to be true, care to defend your statements?
And no, I don't expect you will, and I really don't believe I will be visiting this thread again so don't bother to respond...
Edit: I lied. If you want me to fit into a simple one issue candidate mind set, my one issue that I will not ever back down from is stem cell research. Georgy Porgy has mandated a fixed number of stem cell lines and that will irrevocably impair the ability for american scientist to contribute to that field and all others related to it. On this note his reduction in the growth of the NIH budget is a horrendously stupid idea.
Edit II: I just read that Kerry has made a pledge of 30B dollars to boost teacher pay. bwah... now i really will go away...
Originally posted by jimmac
This one is just dumb!
I'm sure if Bush has something to hide we'll never see what he saw.
Based on what was known by the inspectors ( already there ) there is no reason to suspect Saddam had WOMD. Also there is that nasty deployment thing again making it not the big threat Bush tried to paint him as.
But of course we've been all over this ground. You just have selective memory loss.
I'm sorry if you're such a puritan about sex but in my book life and death is a much more serious situation.
Based on Saddam's actions, unaccounted for material and past use of weapons, there was no reason to think they weren't there.
I am not a puritan about sex. But, I fail to understand why Bush is so terrible in your book, even though you only SUSPECT he lied. Clinton admitted it, and was caught in a direct lie, one in which he looked at the camera dead on, wagged his finger, and lied. But yeah....you're right, jimmac!
Originally posted by jimmac
Anyone want to take this one on?
What is bad?
I'm getting tired of repeating myself to this guy.
By the way they love us over there.....http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...age/index.html
Answer my question. As far as liking us, that's not going to happen, no matter what we do.
Originally posted by billybobsky
No my views are not on trial. I defended my statements with reasons (perhaps not annotated but I assure you there are many many pieces of evidence that support my claims otherwise I wouldn't have them -- you will have to trust me on that). I would have like the president directed the money being used to rebuild a country we destroyed for the good of the american people directly via educational funds to not only provide a better infrastructure for our school but also, and this is where economics stops and real policy begins providing a large initiative to well educated and capable teachers which often translates to better pay but also can be done through actual programs meant to attract these sorts to education. No money isn't everything. But it certainly helps to provide the foundation upon which good can be done. There needs to be a culture shift in this country. The people who are famous are often uneducated, or if they are educated they often don't remember the experience (like our dear president -- and this is an unsupported claim, but one in which i hope everyone will find humor) and this is indicative of the general nature of respect both education and teachers receive...
You have made some claims supporting this administration, none of which have turned out to be true, care to defend your statements?
And no, I don't expect you will, and I really don't believe I will be visiting this thread again so don't bother to respond...
Edit: I lied. If you want me to fit into a simple one issue candidate mind set, my one issue that I will not ever back down from is stem cell research. Georgy Porgy has mandated a fixed number of stem cell lines and that will irrevocably impair the ability for american scientist to contribute to that field and all others related to it. On this note his reduction in the growth of the NIH budget is a horrendously stupid idea.
Edit II: I just read that Kerry has made a pledge of 30B dollars to boost teacher pay. bwah... now i really will go away...
Trust you? Oh, OK. That's not how it works, bucko. Links? Specifics?
As far as education, I see many of the same problems you do. But a culture shift? You don't really think the federal government is going to be able, or even SHOULD cause one, do you? BTW, without strong and stable national security, money for education is going to become a moot point in about two seconds. No one is going to care about the NCLBA when a dirty bomb goes off in Manhattan.
You have made some claims supporting this administration, none of which have turned out to be true, care to defend your statements?
As for my positions, I'll be happy to elaborate if you inquire about a specific one. Right now it's sleepy time for SDW. I'll answer anything you like, though, and yes...I'll be happy to explain my support of Bush and his administration.
Originally posted by tonton
No reason to think that they weren't there? How about no evidence that they were? How about Saddam claiming at the risk of war that they weren't there. How about repeated failures to find them (and certain unnamed idiots repeatedly blamed the UN inspectors for that because they just couldn't fathom the possibility that they weren't there.)
There was plenty of evidence that they weren't there.
Past use of weapons? Fyck, let's bomb the Germans again. They used plenty of weapons in WWII. We don't attack countries for "past use".
There wasn't any evidence in your opinion because you refused to see it. It was right in front of your eyes. Instead of believing the UN, you believed the lies.
Why would I believe the toothless, corrupt and anti-American UN? Can you give me one reason?
There was every reason in the world to think the weapons were there. Saddam risk war? Gee...he'd never done THAT before! Iraqis not fully cooperating? The shock! Finding gas masks during the war? Hmmmm. Thousands of tons of unaccounted for materials? A incomplete final declaration presented by the Iraqis in Decmember 2002?
There's obviously one hell of a case that they aren't there NOW. But before the war? Please.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Answer my question. As far as liking us, that's not going to happen, no matter what we do.
Bad is going to an unnecessary war in a time of economic strife. Bad is to continue spending like a drunken sailor ( groverat's term ) when we can't afford it. There by prolonging a recession and raising the deficit to new record heights when not long ago it was a surplus ( and please this war didn't help the economy ). Bad is trying to put the blame on someone else when the truth of the matter is revealed.
And that's just some of it. We could talk about " manufacturing " a better hamburger or how Dubbya's on god's mission here on planet earth.
Myself and other's are really tired of the rhetoric that comes out of this administration. " Freedom Fry " anyone?
This guy is just a crazy slime.
Admit it! Your arguments stopped holding water a long time ago when they didn't find the WOMD. And SDW, there's not going to be any magical save on this one.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Originally posted by jimmac
Bad is going to an unnecessary war in a time of economic strife. Bad is to continue spending like a drunken sailor ( groverat's term ) when we can't afford it. There by prolonging a recession and raising the deficit to new record heights when not long ago it was a surplus ( and please this war didn't help the economy ). Bad is trying to put the blame on someone else when the truth of the matter is revealed.
And that's just some of it. We could talk about " manufacturing " a better hamburger or how Dubbya's on god's mission here on planet earth.
Myself and other's are really tired of the rhetoric that comes out of this administration. " Freedom Fry " anyone?
This guy is just a crazy slime.
Admit it! Your arguments stopped holding water a long time ago when they didn't find the WOMD. And SDW, there's not going to be any magical save on this one.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
1. "Unnecessary war". Unnecessary in your opinion.
2. Spending is out of control, I agree. But, it's not all due to the war. Either way, this has been a main criticism of mine.
3. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind to suggest that ANY Bush policy "prolonged" the recession. The recession was very short and fairly shallow. It did not even compare the 1992 recession or the recession in 1979-1983. Unemployment never broke 7%. To the contrary, Bush got two major tax cuts passed (which by the way lowered my taxes dramatically, both in terms of marginal rates, and law changes that allowed greater deductions). After which, the economy began to rebound. With today's jobs numbers, are you honestly going to try and argue that Bush hurt the economy?
4. I'm sure the classification of fast food jobs as manufacturing jobs was Bush's personal decision. It couldn't have anything to do with a massive federal bureaucracy, could it? Hmmm..
5. "My arguments"? Now, hold on. What you're saying is that because we haven't found WMD, ALL of my arguments are false and disproven. Well, that's quite reasonable of you, jimmac. Speaking of "slime" (which is what I believe you just called the President of the United States), how about you throw in another slimey debate tactic, like the one you just used. Trying to disqualify someone's entire slate of positions because of one event....honestly I thought you could do better.
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. "Unnecessary war". Unnecessary in your opinion.
2. Spending is out of control, I agree. But, it's not all due to the war. Either way, this has been a main criticism of mine.
3. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind to suggest that ANY Bush policy "prolonged" the recession. The recession was very short and fairly shallow. It did not even compare the 1992 recession or the recession in 1979-1983. Unemployment never broke 7%. To the contrary, Bush got two major tax cuts passed (which by the way lowered my taxes dramatically, both in terms of marginal rates, and law changes that allowed greater deductions). After which, the economy began to rebound. With today's jobs numbers, are you honestly going to try and argue that Bush hurt the economy?
4. I'm sure the classification of fast food jobs as manufacturing jobs was Bush's personal decision. It couldn't have anything to do with a massive federal bureaucracy, could it? Hmmm..
5. "My arguments"? Now, hold on. What you're saying is that because we haven't found WMD, ALL of my arguments are false and disproven. Well, that's quite reasonable of you, jimmac. Speaking of "slime" (which is what I believe you just called the President of the United States), how about you throw in another slimey debate tactic, like the one you just used. Trying to disqualify someone's entire slate of positions because of one event....honestly I thought you could do better.
The unecessary war isn't just my opinion.
The spending on the war just isn't something you shouldn't be doing if you're trying to get out of a recession. Also read my lips ( your tactic ) As per CNN and many other news organizations " The Worst Unemployment Since WWII ".
In my own state of Oregon it was the worst since 1986 just earlier this year. Wake up!
That classification of fast food as I heard it portrayed came from Bush. As did the mission from God bit.
Your arguments concerning the WOMD are invalidated. They aren't going to find them. Face it!
And yes for these and other reasons Bush is a slime ( if the shoe fits ) and shouldn't remain in office.
OUT THE DOOR 2004!
Originally posted by jimmac
The unecessary war isn't just my opinion.
The spending on the war just isn't something you shouldn't be doing if you're trying to get out of a recession. Also read my lips ( your tactic ) As per CNN and many other news organizations " The Worst Unemployment Since WWII ".
In my own state of Oregon it was the worst since 1986 just earlier this year. Wake up!
That classification of fast food as I heard it portrayed came from Bush. As did the mission from God bit.
Your arguments concerning the WOMD are invalidated. They aren't going to find them. Face it!
And yes for these and other reasons Bush is a slime ( if the shoe fits ) and shouldn't remain in office.
OUT THE DOOR 2004!
I cannot believe how you have gotten away with your ridiculous false claims. Unemployment is NOT worse than anytime since WWII. It's not even close. It's NEVER even been close. in 1991, it was over 7%. Now, it's 5.6%. 5% is considered full employment. Unemployment isn't even a PROBLEM, much less a "serious" problem.
Secondly, the recession was OVER when the war started. The economy was starting to rebound by March of 2003. And really,, jimmac: Where is the backing for the statement that war spending doesn't help the economy? You can't demonstrate this, because nearly all evidence points to the contrary.
"As I heard it portrayed", you say? Wow. That's a classic jimmacism. As I heard it portrayed. Once again, you can't show Bush was even involved in this decision remotely. Is it a stupid classification? Of course. No one is arguing that.
Will they find WMD? My guess is no. It's apparent that they either weren't there, or were moved. I do think there is a possibility that a stockpile could be found, or an eve more remote possibility that we have already found them and are not releasing the info, for whatever reason. It's not prudent to discount all these possibilities. Not finding WMD does not mean Bush lied or is incompetent. Only a blindly partisan fool would come to those conclusions.
Bush a slime? OK...go ahead, I'm listening for "the other" reasons.
Originally posted by tonton
You're so stubborn, SDW.
The UN is only toothless because you call it so. Here is exactly what the UN said with its actions:
1. Saddam must destroy WMD or face consequences.
2. We don't have full evidence Saddam destroyed all the WMD
(SDW interjects her - NUKE EM!)
3. But there's not enough evidence to prove that Saddam is hiding anything, so we will continue to push for compliance.
(SDW and GWB ignore the UN's recommendations, call the UN "toothless" and start an unsubstantiated war)
4. The UN was right all along.
So in retrospect, toothless or not, the UN was much smarter than GWB in this example.
1. Agreed. Except it read "serious consequences". Given that we tried sanctions, threats, limited military strikes, resolutions of condemnation, etc...what else could that have meant?
2. True. Oh, but we also have evidence that the Iraqi regime was lying and hiding materials.
3. "We know Saddam is hiding something, but we, being the irrelevant, unelected and spineless bureaucracy we are, won't do anything about it"
4. The UN wasn't "right" about anything.
What you fail to point out is that this was never about the UN or United States "finding weapons". That wasn't the standard. This was about SADDAM HUSSEIN fully cooperating and disclosing his programs. Are you honestly arguing that he did that? We should have gone to war as soon as he submitted the bullshit delcaration on December 7th. Blix itself said it didn't really contain anything new. Where were Iraq's statements of willingness to fully cooperate? Why did we have NSA intercepts of Iraqi operatives talking about "hiding" things? Why did we find UNDECLARED chemical shells in "excellent" condition (which was the UN's term). I say again..these were UNDECLARED items, which was in itself a serious material breach. That's a "game over" event right there.
From Resoltution 1441:
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
Translation: Iraq's behavior had ALREADY warranted calling off the ceasefire. My interpretation is based on this from the same document:
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
_________ 1.______ Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq?s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
Now, let's address problems with the declaration:
4.______ Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq?s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
(emphasis added)
Oh but wait, there's still more:
Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials....(continued)
and
8.______ Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;
Aside: Iraq continued to fire on and target US air patrols.
and finally:
3.____ Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
(emphasis added)
Saddam didn't cooperate. End of story. The war was not illegal by any stretch of the imagination. Saddam violated this final resolution, and the UN refused to endorse enforcing it's own document. That, in a word, is toothless.
Originally posted by SDW2001
... remote possibility that we have already found them and are not releasing the info, for whatever reason. It's not prudent to discount all these possibilities.
You frighten me.
Can you please share just one plausible reason for the discovery of WMD to kept secret, or is this based purely on the fact that certain people *lied* before the invasion about knowing a) that there were WMD ready to be deployed and b) where they were?
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
You frighten me.
Can you please share just one plausible reason for the discovery of WMD to kept secret, or is this based purely on the fact that certain people *lied* before the invasion about knowing a) that there where WMD ready to be deployed and b) were they were?
OK. That's a fair question. It is possible that the administration wants to show all its cards on one fell swoop, so that information is not leaked out day by day. Yes, this could involve politics of course. Choosing to release the information would of course have a major positive political impact for Bush. Beyond politics, it's possible that releasing such information could have effects on other operations in the WOT and national security in general. Some of these issues we, as civilians, may not even be aware of. Now don't get me wrong: I don't consider it at all "likely" that all of a sudden, "weapons will be found". I just said that I consider it a possibility.
As far as people lying: I'm sorry, but we haven't seen evidence of that. We've seen seen statements that have so far proved inaccurate. That's not the same thing. A lie is a delibrate false statement. We already know there have been serious intelligence failures. Is it not possible that the intelligence that Bush, Rumsfeld, and other top level officers in the executive branch was seriously flawed? Decision makers require information on which they base their decisions. What if the information was simply wrong? Who's at fault then?
Finally, I have to ask: Do you honestly believe that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and Bush (perhaps more importantly...Karl Rove) are so politically ignorant and inexperienced that they would knowingly make false statements about WMD? I mean...really. They HAD to know the fallout from not finding WMD would be huge. There is no way they would have said "we're sure" if they WEREN'T sure. My point is that it doesn't make sense that they would have lied. It's not even a smart lie. Whatever you think of these people, one thing you can't say is that they're stupid.