• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Is Bush being conned by Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Perle?

Igottaknife

Junior Member
Mar 30, 2003
2
0
0
I believe this is the first time in American history that a Vice President made more decisions than the president. I believe the pair (Cheney and Bush) was a premade package deal that had been formulated to position Cheney with power. They would have attached Bush to the ballot only for his relation to his father, because no one would vote for Cheney if he himself ran. It is well known that Cheney is far too corrupt and this post does not surprise me. Bush is a tool of the right wing Republican party and isn't fit to make decisions himself.
 

Napalm

Platinum Member
Oct 12, 1999
2,050
0
0
believe this is the first time in American history that a Vice President made more decisions than the president. I believe the pair (Cheney and Bush) was a premade package deal that had been formulated to position Cheney with power. They would have attached Bush to the ballot only for his relation to his father, because no one would vote for Cheney if he himself ran. It is well known that Cheney is far too corrupt and this post does not surprise me. Bush is a tool of the right wing Republican party and isn't fit to make decisions himself.
A very intelligent first post.

N
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Igottaknife
I believe this is the first time in American history that a Vice President made more decisions than the president. I believe the pair (Cheney and Bush) was a premade package deal that had been formulated to position Cheney with power. They would have attached Bush to the ballot only for his relation to his father, because no one would vote for Cheney if he himself ran. It is well known that Cheney is far too corrupt and this post does not surprise me. Bush is a tool of the right wing Republican party and isn't fit to make decisions himself.
Wow - you joined up just to spout that conspiracy drivel?
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Yes. Some poeple say Bush is basicly a good man who wants to do the right thing, and I would agree with them. But Bush isn't exactly smart and is surrounded by all these Machiavellian types, so its easy to see how they manipulate him.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Yes. Some poeple say Bush is basicly a good man who wants to do the right thing, and I would agree with them. But Bush isn't exactly smart and is surrounded by all these Machiavellian types, so its easy to see how they manipulate him.
Well Powell got caught up in the War mongering, too. What's the secret story there?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
I guess these folks would have prefered Bush pick non qualified military personal for these positions....
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Yes. Some poeple say Bush is basicly a good man who wants to do the right thing, and I would agree with them. But Bush isn't exactly smart and is surrounded by all these Machiavellian types, so its easy to see how they manipulate him.
Well Powell got caught up in the War mongering, too. What's the secret story there?
There was an article in Time a long time ago (I think it was before the axis of evil thing) about how Powel doesn't have a strong voice in the cabinet, so my guess would be that his voice was drowned out. Of course, once the decision was made, what could he do other than agree with the official line?
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
0
0
Originally posted by: Igottaknife
I believe this is the first time in American history that a Vice President made more decisions than the president. I believe the pair (Cheney and Bush) was a premade package deal that had been formulated to position Cheney with power. They would have attached Bush to the ballot only for his relation to his father, because no one would vote for Cheney if he himself ran. It is well known that Cheney is far too corrupt and this post does not surprise me. Bush is a tool of the right wing Republican party and isn't fit to make decisions himself.
Ladies and gentlemen....welcome Ramsey CLark to ATOT.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Igottaknife
I believe this is the first time in American history that a Vice President made more decisions than the president. I believe the pair (Cheney and Bush) was a premade package deal that had been formulated to position Cheney with power. They would have attached Bush to the ballot only for his relation to his father, because no one would vote for Cheney if he himself ran. It is well known that Cheney is far too corrupt and this post does not surprise me. Bush is a tool of the right wing Republican party and isn't fit to make decisions himself.
]
Ladies and gentlemen....welcome Ramsey CLark to ATOT.
ROFL! :p:D
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,501
1
81
The war has been going for only 2 to 3 weeks. Lets wait another week or two before we start pointing fingers.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Yes. Some poeple say Bush is basicly a good man who wants to do the right thing, and I would agree with them. But Bush isn't exactly smart and is surrounded by all these Machiavellian types, so its easy to see how they manipulate him.
Bush is very intellegent. And chose his staff consistant with his philosophy. Dr. Rice is a hawk, Wolfie is an ultra hawk and Bush the younger is somewhere in between. Bush, im certain-but without first hand knowledge, calls the shots... it is inherent with his educational persuits (MBA) Bush the elder had the same folks in general advising him... wolfie etc. but he didn't buy all of it. I agree with the basic premise of your post, though. In that, we are where we are and the debate at the white house was not frought with disagreement... me thinks.

 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,215
126
Bush is intellectually marginal. He surrounded himself with advisors of a particular philosophy that advocated this kind of thing from way back. Well, a President cannot afford to have people who do not agree with him. Unfortunately no one who disagreed was permitted to be heard, and the administration was woefully unprepared to listen. Pretty much it seems they drew a conclusion and were not about to be confused with facts. So be it.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Bush is intellectually marginal. He surrounded himself with advisors of a particular philosophy that advocated this kind of thing from way back. Well, a President cannot afford to have people who do not agree with him. Unfortunately no one who disagreed was permitted to be heard, and the administration was woefully unprepared to listen. Pretty much it seems they drew a conclusion and were not about to be confused with facts. So be it.

Iwould agree that he is no Clinton and the opposition to the Iraqi issue was muted with some wimpers from State... Gee, given that we are were we are one can presume the meetings at his ranch before the election may have been to set forth the conclusion you speak of and not to prepare for the Gore debate.. I wonder...
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,215
126
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Bush is intellectually marginal. He surrounded himself with advisors of a particular philosophy that advocated this kind of thing from way back. Well, a President cannot afford to have people who do not agree with him. Unfortunately no one who disagreed was permitted to be heard, and the administration was woefully unprepared to listen. Pretty much it seems they drew a conclusion and were not about to be confused with facts. So be it.

Iwould agree that he is no Clinton and the opposition to the Iraqi issue was muted with some wimpers from State... Gee, given that we are were we are one can presume the meetings at his ranch before the election may have been to set forth the conclusion you speak of and not to prepare for the Gore debate.. I wonder...
Clinton did what was best for Clinton.

We are what we are indeed. Everyone has a perspective and tendencies to seriously consider various sides of a problem to some degree. Before 9/11, Saddam was little more than a frustration. I doubt there was serious talk about removing him, because Saddam wasnt a threat to the US. After 9/11 though there was the opportunity to justify removal of Saddam, and Rumsfeld in particular was keen to give this a try. Things went downhill from there, or wonderfully depending on your perspective. Bush didnt worry about Saddam before the election or afterwards. Only after 9/11 was Iraq given attention. More later, but Im gonna go eat :)
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,739
6,077
126
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Unfortunately no one who disagreed was permitted to be heard, and the administration was woefully unprepared to listen. Pretty much it seems they drew a conclusion and were not about to be confused with facts. So be it.
have any facts of your own or are you just spouting off?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76


We are what we are indeed. Everyone has a perspective and tendencies to seriously consider various sides of a problem to some degree. Before 9/11, Saddam was little more than a frustration. I doubt there was serious talk about removing him, because Saddam wasnt a threat to the US. After 9/11 though there was the opportunity to justify removal of Saddam, and Rumsfeld in particular was keen to give this a try. Things went downhill from there, or wonderfully depending on your perspective. Bush didnt worry about Saddam before the election or afterwards. Only after 9/11 was Iraq given attention. More later, but Im gonna go eat :)[/quote]

Hope you enjoyed your meal.
Clinton sent some cruise missles to Saddam as I remember. I think the Saddam issue was on the table.. had to be since '91 and all the UN resolutions. You say 9/11 moved Saddam to center stage... that presupposes the other terrorist bombings had little affect on US policy toward Saddam... '93 bombing of WTC would have moved Saddam up on the charts if intel linked him to Osama... and the Naval vessel that was bombed in Yemen... Perhaps a link was found... after 9/11 but not before.. OR... Bush was convinced that enough is enough Saddam has WMD and may use them so lets end this here and now... big message to everyone... 9/11 was the straw that broke the camel's back... or about to be.

 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,215
126
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Unfortunately no one who disagreed was permitted to be heard, and the administration was woefully unprepared to listen. Pretty much it seems they drew a conclusion and were not about to be confused with facts. So be it.
have any facts of your own or are you just spouting off?
Why, yes I do. :p

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY